Li Moumou,Li Moumou Network Lending Case Criminal Law Analysis

In recent years,with the rise of Internet finance,the hidden risks behind it are also increasingly apparent.Li,Li,and so on is a typical case after the rise of P2 P network lending in the past few years,in this case.P2 P network lending may involve illegal financing issues are mostly reflected in this case,should be able to Internet finance in the business process of alienation phenomenon can be seen.Li set up "Junmao Fortune" in 2012 to set up a P2 P network lending platform.In the early and late stages of the platform,there were different degrees of fictitious targets,such as exaggerating expected income and other deception.The phenomenon of enticing the public to make deposits.In the more than two years of the existence of "Junmao Fortune" P2 P network lending platform,more than 4,000 yuan of public deposits have been absorbed.Investors are distributed in more than 20 provincial administrative regions.From this case,we can see the contradiction between the rapid development of Internet financial services and the relatively backward normative mechanism.This paper adopts the method of posing question,analyzing problem and solving problem to study the case.It mainly analyzes the main problems in the case according to the dispute between the defenders of the public prosecution.Non-crime mainly from the actor's fund-raising methods and subjective whether there is a subjective purpose to explore.Including the analysis of the means of fraud,the criminal law for "illegal possession of the purpose" of the identification.And the problems that should be paid attention to when carrying on the judicial presumption with the purpose of illegal possession.I hope that the problem of frequent illegal financing chaos in the P2 P network lending industry can be hit with precision and keep the enthusiasm of the industry at the same time.To promote the flow of capital,stimulate the vitality of the financial market.P2 P network lending illegal fund-raising cases mainly involved in the crime of illegal absorption of public deposits and fund-raising fraud.Both the unit and the natural person can constitute the main body of the crime in this case,however,in the criminal defense,the defenders mostly defend the crime of the unit and the crime of the unit is the double punishment system.At the same time it carries on the double punishment to the involved unit and the main responsible personnel,compared with the natural person crime,Europe is more severe punishment,but in the P2 P network loan illegal fund-raising case,usually under the circumstances.The unit involved was on the verge of bankruptcy at the time of the lawsuit,and no punishment had been imposed on it.More practical significance,therefore,the main responsible person will defend the crime of the unit,so that compared with the simple crime of natural persons to the implementation of the specific criminal punishment of the responsible person will be reduced.However,we can not ignore the establishment of the unit crime,so the author expounds his own view from this case on the distinction between the unit subject and the natural person subject.