| With the vigorous development of urbanization,a large number of rural land is facing expropriation,and there are many phenomena of cheating compensation fee for land requisition in various places.In such cases,What is more common is that the staff of village organization or the national staff of land requisition working group defraud compensation fee for land requisition alone or in partnership with villagers.In judicial practice,due to different understandings of meanings of using duty convenience in corruption crime,there is a big difference that the act of cheating compensation fee for land acquisition is judged.Especially when village workers were assigned by government to land requisition working group to assist in verifying and designating the land boundary,measuring land and its appendages,and making land quantity tables,they defraud compensation fee for land acquisition.In addition,our country is abundant of resources of wasteland.In order to make full use of resources and to alleviate the plight of excessive use of agricultural land,some farmers cultivate cash crops on their own to obtain additional income.So,when the wasteland exploited and cultivated by farmers are included in scope of expropriation,it is controversial whether it is illegal for the farmers to declare the compensation fee for land requisition.Based on huang’s fraud case,this paper discusses that Huang,director of village committee,in assisting land requisition working group to verify and identify land boundary,measure land and its appendages,named the land as his contracted land.In fact,the land belongs to other’s.Then Huang declared and received the compensation fees for land requisition.The question is How to judge Huang’s behavior.Lastly the article will study ownership of rural wasteland,compensation fee for land requisition,and how to prevent crime in land expropriation.This paper is divided into four parts.Part one:Basic information of the case.This part contains the cause,introduction of the case,differences in opinions and the focus of controversy.There are huge disputes among the three parties of prosecution and defense.The focus of controversy is concentrated on whether Huang’s behavior can be attributed to guilty or not guilty,fraud or corruption crime.Part two:Legal analysis of related issues.Firstly,this paper defines the theory of using duty convenience in corruption crime,mainly from the meaning of post and post convenience,and analyzes the difference between utilizing duty convenience and utilizing job convenience.Secondly,the author bases on the legal provisions on ownership of rural wasteland,the legal provisions and practice of land compensation fees to determine who has right to acquire compensation fee for land acquisition.Lastly,from the two aspects of fraud and causal relationship,the author finds the objective aspects of fraud,and clarifies the meaning of direct causality and indirect causal relationship,and concludes that even if there is no direct causality in case,the actor’s duty may depend upon other circumstance.So the actor should bear duty unless there is not causal relationship at all.Part there:The analysis and conclusion of the case.According to the theoretical analysis of the part two,Huang’s behavior does not belong to use duty convenience and constitute corruption crime;It is illegal for Huang’s behavior to claim and receive compensation fee for the exploited and cultivated wasteland;Huang’s behavior accords with fraud because his subjective sense and objective act is consistent.Part four:Enlightenment from the study of this case.Through the legal analysis and the conclusion of this case,the author draws a conclusion that the corruption crime and fraud should be distinguished accurately,and the crime of land expropriation and compensation should be prevented. |
