The Analysis Of Car Rental Pledge Loan Cases

The case of car rental pledge loan is a common crime in judicial practice,in which the actor disguises himself as the person who has the right to dispose of the car and pledges the leased car to the third party to obtain the loan after leasing the car in the car rental company.Through the study of relevant cases,it is found that there are differences in the treatment results of such cases in judicial practice.That is to say,the argumentation process and reasons are not the same,and judicial staff and theoretical circles have different opinions on the characterization of such cases even if the final charges of different cases are the same.Such inconsistency is not only unfavorable to the realization of individual justice,but may even damage the judicial authority and unity.In this paper,four cases with different judgments are selected.Through sorting out the case facts and judgment ideas,the focus of disputes in the case of car rental and pledge loans is clarified.And this type of case is analyzed on the basis of legal theory and relevant laws and regulations.In the case of car rental pledge loan,there are three controversial focus: What is the nature of car rental and pledge lending? The relationship between the two acts,that is,the number of crimes in such cases? How to determine the amount of crime?Based on related legal concepts and system analysis,this paper first define the nature of the behaviors,and then discuss the relationship between the two behaviors as a whole,the following conclusions are drawn from the facts of the four cases: Firstly,for the nature of the rental car behavior,once the actor uses false identity information to sign a contract in the name of another person,the actor constitutes the crime of contract fraud.When the actor rents a car using real identity information,if the purpose of illegal possession arises before the actor acquires the vehicle,then the actor constitutes the crime of contract fraud.But if the actor rents the car without the purpose of illegal possession,but later generates the idea of pledging the vehicle to borrow and refuses to return the pledged vehicle,the crime of embezzlement shall be committed.As for the nature of the qualitative behavior of disguising the leased vehicle as one's own pledge loan,it is not a civil fraud,but a crime of fraud.On the other hand,the content of the loan contract cannot reflect the trading relationship in the market economy,so such cases do not constitute contract fraud,but only a crime of fraud.Secondly,this paper This article combines the two behaviors,and explores the relationship between the two behaviors as a whole,that is the number of crimes insuch cases.When the current act accounts for the crime of contract fraud: It can be said that there is an association between the means and the purpose of the two acts,so the implicated crime is established,and the suspect should be punished as a felony;In the case that the actor only pledges and defrauds the loan after he legally rents the car,the actor has only one objective act,but this act not only constitutes the crime of fraud,but also constitutes the crime of embezzlement,which at the same time violates several charges and constitutes the imaginative joinder of offenses;That is to say,no matter what the circumstances,the car rental pledge loan case is only punished according to one crime.Finally,this paper analyzes the three problems in the determination of the amount of the crime,and holds that the rent and deposit are the crime costs paid by the actor and the legitimate benefits of the victim,which should not be deducted from the amount of the crime.However,the interest deducted in advance and the loan returned by the actor before the crime should not be included in the amount of fraud.Finally,the determination of the amount of crime should follow the crime number theory,according to the rule of "felony of choice" to take the amount of felony crime.