Study On The Judicial Dilemma Of The Crime Of Illegal Absorbing Public Deposit

Article 176 of the criminal law article of illegal absorbing public deposits crime indictment contains "disrupt the financial order" provisions, from the perspective of the division for crime, the crime belongs to prove guilt. But disturbing financial order "the crime is very abstract, did not reach the set prove guilt, but a judicial determination of vague, unclear standard, what kind of behavior to the degree to which constitute the disturb financial order there is no recognized authority standard, the judicial caused a loss. The Supreme People’s court by three judicial interpretation, trying to specific households involved, amount, the amount of loss to determine whether to disrupt the financial order, in the form to solve the problem of cognizance standard, but there are counts to confuse the issue. From the empirical research to the judicial practice found, whether against this kind of crime, law enforcement considerations of factors have been alienated, by disrupting financial order into undermine social stability(such as group events), this is an expedient measure standards selective law enforcement has appeared at the same time. In particular, with the development of Internet technology, the rise of P2 P network financing, to disrupt the financial order of the identification has brought greater difficulty. The author suggests that the "disturbance of financial order" is amended as "serious circumstances", and in the form of judicial interpretation, the social impact criteria are added to the "illegal". For P2 P network lending platform should be treated as the case, the actual control of the net loan platform for the financing of the tool should be directly, only to provide intermediary services should be carefully handled, while strengthening supervision.