Difference Between Contract Fraud And Crime Of Fraud Of The Paper

Instrument fraud and crime of fraud of the contract is usually not easy to confuse, but when bill pledge to diddle property or issue a blank check, after the contract fraud or paid in invalid ballots be fobbed off the victim both is very confusing, conclusion different criterions for different results. In the further development of market economy today, in the paper as a pledge to defraud money or property or in contract fraud after issue a cheque, or paid in invalid ballots be fobbed off the victim’s phenomenon is common, studies how the difference between two SINS handle similar case to guide the judicial practice has a strong practical significance. In this paper, through a controversial case to study the crime of fraud of the contract and the boundaries of bills in the criminal law on the crime of fraud, interpretation to paper as collateral cheats out or issue a blank check, after the contract fraud or paid in invalid ballots be fobbed off the victim should be how to qualitative, expect to offer reference to similar cases in judicial practice.The thesis is divided into four parts.Basic situation of the first part is the case, first of all introduces the details of a case, and then introduces the mainly has the following three controversial views, it is only constitute the crime of fraud of the contract, the second is already constitute a crime of fraud of the contract also constitute the crime of fraud of the paper, the relationship between two concurrence of sin is the law to make special priority should be applicable, the crime of fraud of the paper, three is only constitute the crime of fraud of the paper does not constitute a crime of fraud of the contract, finally summed up the case of dispute the main focus is on how to understand the crime of fraud of the provisions of the criminal law bill "use paper" means.The second part for related legal analysis of the problem. First of two crime the legal constitutive requirements of the theoretical analysis, think the use of negotiable instrument fraud should be understood as only used directly, namely the instrument according to the function using direct cash records of property rights behavior, is not included as collateral or indirect use to show its economic strength. Then for contract fraud and crime of fraud of the paper’s competition type, the author thinks that the bill law of fraud and crime of fraud of the contract belongs to the special law and common law concurrence relationship, only special law shall prevail. Two crimes in the judicial practice in the specific situation is complicated, sometimes does not belong to two competition, competition sometimes belong to two sin, through summarizing the qualitative rules of some common situation, thought the difference between two crime in judicial practice to provide the reference.The third part is case analysis conclusion. Combined with the legal analysis of dispute cases after actor is the fraudulent property by check run time to make feed for their processing property, belong to the indirect use rather than on the direct use of property rights, recorded in the criminal law stipulates "issue a cheque to defraud money or property" refers to the victim of the perpetrator is based on the issue of legal and valid instrument of credulity, issued by the bill for the victim is not credulous person is real and effective check delivery of property, is about to perform the contract because of trusting the will in accordance with and deliver the goods, so the issue cheque is not the case for behaviour, so a Xie Mou constitute a contract fraud, belong to the individual crime, do not belong to the unit crime.The fourth part for the study of revelation, enlightenment is a criminal law comprehension should adhere to the principle of overall, 2 it is to see the essence through the phenomena.