The Determination Of The Crime Of False Litigation

With the advancement of the reform of the people’s courts’ case registration system,the public’s awareness of the law has also continued to increase.Some lawbreakers have begun to use the credibility of the judiciary to file civil lawsuits with fabricated facts,thereby defrauding the court’s judgments and impeding the normal judicial order and order of the judiciary.Infringe on the legal rights of others.The crime of false litigation was born under the dual oppression of academia and practice.To curb false litigation behavior by means of punishment is of great significance to the maintenance of judicial order and the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of others.In November 2015,the "Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China(9)" was promulgated,adding a new crime of false litigation to specifically regulate such acts.However,since the new crime was added,there have been some disputes in both theoretical circles and judicial practice.Before the promulgation of the crime of false litigation,there were already relatively mature legislation outside the territories to regulate false litigation.For example,civil law countries Germany and Japan adopted the crime of fraud model,Italy adopted the crime of obstruction of justice model,and the Spanish legislation was more comprehensive."Invasion of property type" and "non-invasion of property type" are handled separately.The above legislative models have reference significance for the legislation of my country’s false litigation crime.In China,academia has long been controversial about litigation fraud.There are also many “household pension” scams and “routine loans” in daily life.However,judicial practice is faced with the problem of difficulty in characterizing false litigation behaviors,and false litigation behaviors are extremely difficult to characterize.Great social harm,impairing judicial justice and authority,occupying and wasting judicial resources,and seriously infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of others.However,searching for domestic regulations,still unable to find a solution.In the determination of false litigation crime,there are disputes in the academic circles and practice about the determination of the conduct of the crime.Does "fabricated facts" include partial falsification of facts,concealment of the truth,and facts fabricated by others,whether the submission of false evidence in the litigation is also considered as "initiated",and does "civil litigation" include civil second-instance procedures.The completion standard of false litigation crime and the boundary between it and other crimes are also a question that has been debated for a long time but is still inconclusive.Regarding the above issues,combining the disputes in the academic circle and the five-year case from 2016 to 2020,we can find out the problems that exist.To solve the problems in the determination of false litigation crimes,when analyzing the determination of the act of execution,the infringement of legal interests should be the core,supplemented by literal interpretation."Fabricated behavior" includes partial tampering with facts,concealment of the truth and facts fabricated by others;the meaning of "invoking" should be explained in substance,rather than simply mechanically following a point in time;the judgment of "civil litigation" should be fully considered,including the second instance program.To determine the accomplishment standard,we should first respect the original language of the legislation,take the literal interpretation as the starting point,and then further understand what is meant by "interfering judicial order" and "infringing upon the legitimate rights and interests of others." The boundary between the crime of false litigation and related charges.For the crime of fraud,at the legislative level,attention should be paid to the core value of the infringement of false litigation,and at the judicial level,attention should be paid to the fact that one act violates both at the same time.The imagination of the accusation overlaps,and the two have different points of view,but each has meaning.For crimes of obstruction of justice,we should focus on the constitutional elements of each crime,and combine with the "Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on the Issue of Time Validity of the Criminal Law Amendment of the People’s Republic of China(9)",so as to clarify that other acts of obstruction of justice should be taken as It is a question of how to characterize the whole case when the method of false litigation is committed.