On The Determination Of The Crime Of Extortion In Debt Dispute

In resolving some debt disputes,if the parties do not reach an agreement,then one party may choose to use media such as the network to expose,complain,report the way to claim compensation to protect their own rights and interests.This way of safeguarding rights itself is the inherent legal means of the obligee or the relative person of the dispute,but in some cases,once the means of the obligee are improper or improper or even the purpose is improper,it is easy to change the nature of his behavior from "safeguarding rights behavior" to "extortion behavior".Because of the existence of certain basic rights,it is difficult to determine the nature of some acts of exercising uncertain claims.This paper will take Zhu Mou’s extortion crime as an example to discuss the determination of extortion in the process of creditor exercising uncertain creditor’s rights under debt dispute.The determination of the nature of the behavior of exercising uncertain creditor’s rights in debt disputes should be combined with the objective behavior and subjective purpose of the actor.Whether there is illegal possession is an important basis to distinguish between legitimate rights protection and property crimes such as extortion.In economic debt disputes,creditors should exercise their legal rights within a reasonable range by necessary means.If the creditor’s rights do not have a certain legal basis or the creditor’s rights are obviously beyond the reasonable range or the means of exercising the rights are not equal,it is difficult to affirm the legitimacy of its subjective purpose,and the behavior of creditors is difficult to evaluate as legitimate rights protection.Objectively,if the perpetrator uses the creditor’s rights to suppress,blackmail the debtor to obtain excess compensation or even no basis for compensation,its behavior has a certain coercive.If the coercive act has no connection with the realization of the creditor’s rights or even has no interest in the debt dispute between the two parties,then the exercise of the right by the bank constitutes a coercive act.The act of obtaining money in this way can be evaluated as extortion.Therefore,the behavior that the creditor still asks for and obtains the excess compensation many times in the knowledge that the content of his creditor’s rights is uncertain will constitute the crime of extortion.Although the debtor has certain responsibility for the emergence of debt disputes between the two parties,the debtor’s fault can not justify the creditor’s coercive means.Even if creditors have the right to defend their own interests by way of reporting,they can not use this as a threat to seek other interests.Therefore,the legal content of the report can not prevent the determination of the creditor’s coercive behavior.Legal acts that cause fear also constitute coercion.The behavior of the perpetrator using the relative person’s fault behavior as blackmail to make him fear to obtain property constitutes the crime of extortion.