Defrauding The Debtor's Property To Realize The Determination Of Creditor's Rights

As a tough case in judicial practice,contract fraud is often controversial in issues such as the form of contract,the identification of victims,and the determination of the purpose of illegal possession.In particular,the purpose of illegal possession is the key factor to divide crimes and non-crimes or the type of crimes in the field of criminal law,and also a difficult proposition that plagues judicial practice in dealing with the cases such as contract fraud.The main reason lies in the difference in the judicial practice between the theoretical grasp and the practical judgment.The analysis and argumentation of the crimes related to contract fraud has both theoretical significance of criminal law and practical guidance for the handling of relevant cases in judicial practice.This paper selected a case which had differences in judicial practice,which is the actor defrauding the debtor to sign a financing contract with fraudulent means,and stipulating that the money is used for the bank to remit the discounted bills business and will then return to the debtor,but the actor clearly indicates that it is used to pay off debts and refuse to return funds after obtaining the funds.This has led to different views on the case in judicial practice and discussing the identification of the nature of the case.This paper mainly consists of four parts:The first part is the basic situation of the case,which detailed introduces the main points of the case,the details of the case,the disagreement and the focus of the dispute.In the judicial practice,surrounding with three different opinions including the behavior of the actor which is determined to constitute contract fraud,constitute fraud,and does not constitute a crime.The dispute in this case focuses on three problems including whether the contract in the case is a contract in the crime of contract fraud,whether there is a victim in this case,who is the victim and whether the perpetrator has illegal possession.The second part is the legal analysis of related problems.This part focuses on the three controversial points summarized in the first part.Through the analysis and comparison of criminal law theory,reasonably determine the theoretical support in line with judicial practice,provide a theoretical basis for accurately identifying relevant problems,and analyze and judge the case in combination with the details of the case.Through analysis and research,this paper believes that the contract of Article 224 of the Criminal Law should generally be limited to economic contracts,and has the attributes of regulating the market and profiting through market behavior;the victim's determination should focus on the actual ownership of the property and determine the victim in the sense of criminal law;The purpose of illegal possession should be adhered to the doctrine of “exclusive mean” plus “use mean”,and combine with the specific behavior of the integrated actor to analyze.The third part is the conclusion of the study in this case.This part mainly analyzes and proves that the contract in this case is not in the scope of adjustment of contract fraud.The actor defrauded the property of the creditor to realize his claim,which belongs to a category of private remedy and does not have the purpose of illegal possession.Therefore,it does not constitute contract fraud or other crimes,and ultimately does not prosecute the perpetrator.The fourth part is the research enlightenment of this case.Based on the analysis of the previous three parts,this part extracts the problems that need to be resolved and noticed in the identification of contract fraud in criminal justice interpretation and judicial practice,and proposes that the elements of contract fraud and the evidence of contract fraud should be clarified.And also puts forward suggestions on the judgment principles that should be followed in judging such difficult and complicated cases in judicial practice with the hope to benefit judicial practice.