Qualitative Analysis On The Behavior Of Defaulting On The Special Installment Of Car Purchase By Credit Card

The special installment business of credit card car purchases is increasingly favored by car buyers owing to its preferential rate,simple and convenient procedures,and low cost.With the rapid development of the special installment business of credit card car purchases,the frequency of related criminal cases has also increased year by year.Furthermore,because the judicial adjudicators have different understandings of the essence of such cases,the application of the law in judicial practice has been wrong frequently.This article takes the case of Liu Mouxia’s credit card fraud as an example to analyze "malicious overdraft","illegal possession of credit",the crime of defaulting on mortgage loans and non-crime,and use this as a basis to further analyze the nature of conduct,in order to help the correct application of the law in such cases.In addition to the introduction,This thesis is divided into four parts,the main contents are as follows:The first part: the basic facts of the case.This part includes the cause of the case,the facts of the case,different opinions and the focus of the dispute.In this case,Liu and her partner used forged asset certification documents to apply to the Agricultural Bank Haibowan Sub-branch for the special installment business of credit card car purchase,and used the Q5 vehicle purchased by the installment business handled by other banks to mortgage the Agricultural Bank Hai Bowan Sub-branch;then Hai Bowan urged Liu to return the payment of arrears,but Liu did not return the loan within the prescribed period.There are differences of opinion on whether Liu Mouxia’s behavior is a crime,and if it is a crime,whether it is a crime of credit card fraud,fraudulent loan extraction,or loan fraud.The focus of the dispute in the case can be summarized as: the defendant Liu and her partner fraudulently obtained a one-time credit with false credit certificates,and overdrawn the credit card for installment repayment.The act of not repaying loan is a mortgage dispute,credit card fraud,loan fraud or loan fraud?The second part: Analysis of legal theory.This part makes an in-depth analysis of the theoretical issues related to the focus of the dispute.The specific contents are as follows: First,the analysis of the boundary between the crime and non-crime of arrears in mortgage loans.This part mainly introduces the basic position and main standards for dividing the criminal law and civil law.This article believes that the boundary between criminal law and civil lawshould be grasped in combination with the view of infringement of legal interests and the principle of last resort.It is not appropriate to use criminal law to regulate the behavior of other legal norms that can effectively regulate the behavior.Second,the criminal law definition of "malicious overdrafts" includes the establishment conditions and essence of "malicious overdrafts",the essence of the special installment business of credit card car purchases,and the essential difference between malicious overdrafts and the default of loans.This article believes that in the crime of "malicious overdraft" credit card fraud,the cardholder refers to the legal cardholder who defrauded the credit card by using real identity documents and false asset certification documents.Non-payment after urging is an objective punishment condition for the crime of "malicious overdraft" credit card fraud;the essence of the "malicious overdraft" behavior is fraud;the essence of the special installment business of credit card car purchases is personal consumption loans.Third,the identification of loan-related "purpose of illegal possession" is mainly analyzed from the two aspects of presumption problems and identification principles.This article believes that the determination of "with the purpose of illegal possession" should adhere to the principle of subjective and objective consistency,the principle of prohibiting homology presumption,and the principle of two-way presumption combined with forward and reverse.The third part: Analysis and conclusion.Liu Mouxia and her partner applied to the Agricultural Bank Haibowan Sub-branch with a false asset certificate to apply for the special installment business of credit card car purchase,and then,the act of not repaying the installment was essentially arrears of consumer mortgage loans rather than credit card overdraft,which did not constitute the crime of credit card fraud.When Liu applied for a loan from a bank,her mortgage of an Audi Q5 car purchased from another bank to the Haibowan sub-branch can be reasoned backwards to conclude that she has no purpose of illegal possession,so her behavior does not constitute a crime of loan fraud.Liu applied false loans to the bank to apply for special loans to the bank.This behavior is in line with the objective aspect of the crime of fraudulent loans,and after obtaining the loan she did not properly manage the collateral so that the bank could not recover the loan on time.Her behavior caused the bank to " huge economic losses".Therefore,Ms.Liu’s behavior constituted the crime of credit card fraud.The fourth part: the research enlightenment of this case.Through the analysis of theory of law and the conclusion of this case,this article concludes that the determination of "malicious overdrafts" must be nominally and substantially consistent,accurately distinguish between non-payment of loans in the criminal law sense and civil law sense,and the "illegal possession purpose" involving loans should be cautiously determined.