Criminal Regulations On "Partial Tampering" False Actions

The proposition of "partial tampering" false lawsuits began during the discussion of the draft amendments to the Criminal Law(9).After the fierce debate on false lawsuits was added,they gradually disappeared in 2018."Interpretation"(hereinafter "Interpretation")after implementation.This proposition is accompanied by the crime of false litigation,and is opposite to the behavior of "out of nothing." Its original purpose was to explain the scope of the crime of false litigation.It is usually developed as a research aspect of the crime of false litigation.However,after the Interpretation made clear that false litigation cannot regulate “partial tampering” false litigation,the judicial practice department did not stop or even slow down the pace of “regulating such behavior with false litigation” — “Interpretation Before and after,the jurisprudence of "partial tampering" behaviors regulated by false lawsuits has been maintained at more than a quarter of all false lawsuits.It can be seen that the judicial practice department has given any unusual response to the judgments of the two high-level "Explanations" on this proposition.Behind this anomaly is the doubts of judicial practice departments in regulating "partial tampering" false lawsuits.In particular,this kind of doubt comes from several aspects: first,the concept of “partial tampering” false lawsuits is more general,and it is impossible to accurately define chaotic and complex false lawsuits;Controversy of "type" behaviors is often short-lived and cannot provide a reliable and convincing theoretical basis.The third is that false litigation in the theoretical world constitutes an objection against financial crimes,and the "Interpretation" only specifies "partial tampering" The fact that the crime of false litigation is not established,but failing to keep a close eye on the question "whether it will constitute another crime",also adds doubt to the regulation of such acts by other crimes.In order to solve the regulatory dilemma of "partial tampering" behaviors,the above issues are explored with a view to forming a clear and unified assessment path for criminal law.First of all,the standard for defining such acts is "the objective existence of civil legal relations and civil disputes".The special relationship between "civil legal relations" and "civil disputes" should be understood from the perspective of the right of action.The “tamper-type” behavior only exists in the context of unilateral false lawsuits;2.In the execution procedure,the “partial tamper-type” behavior is defined with reference to the trial stage standards.It also gives conclusions on the definition of behavior in the cases of "fabricating creditor’s rights and debts","fabricating part of the subject matter of litigation",and joint litigation.Secondly,at the normative level,starting from the divergence point of “whether false crimes can regulate such acts”,it is concluded that false lawsuits are essentially actions of fabricating the right to sue and deny the feasibility of false crimes to regulate such acts Sex.And through two aspects of "protection of the right to sue" and "combat crime",the validity of the conclusion is verified.Thirdly,due to the restrictive conditions stipulated in the provisions of the criminal law,the regulation of such acts with the crime of obstructing social management order is limited.Finally,it is demonstrated that the “partial tampering” behavior is in line with the core structure of the crime of fraud—the person who disposes of property has misunderstood the property due to misunderstanding,so the regulatory approach to fraud is feasible.Compared with the crime of false litigation,the risk of overregulation of the fraud crime regulation path is smaller,which is more conducive to the protection of the right of action.It is specifically embodied in several restrictive requirements for constructing a crime: 1.The crime of fraud is only established in the case of payment;2.The difficulty of proving the purpose of "illegal possession" is higher than the intentional proof of the crime of false litigation;3.In determining the amount of crime,it is only advisable to determine an inflated amount and it is subject to causality;4.In the case of litigation and fraud,the transfer of property usually lags behind the court’s disciplinary action.Therefore,the time of completion should be moved to the time of property transfer.