Research On The Criminal Judicial Identification Of Fundraising Fraud

Fundraising is an important way to achieve the purpose of social welfare,which is conducive to showing society’s concern for disadvantaged groups and promoting correct values.However,the frequent occurrence of fundraising fraud not only disrupts the normal donation order,but also exacerbates the trust crisis and moral crisis of charity and public welfare undertakings.For this reason,the criminal law circle has also launched relevant researches on the nature of fundraising fraud.Fundraising fraud may constitute the Crime of fraud in the criminal law,but in the process of determining the crime of fraud,fundraising fraud needs to be specifically analyzed for non-fraud behavior,victim suspicion,and property loss.The division of crime and non-crime is a problem that needs to be addressed.For this reason,the full text is divided into four parts to discuss the above issues.The first part mainly introduces the main controversies of fundraising fraud in judicial practice through typical cases.Through combing and summarizing the basic facts of the three typical real cases,and finding from the typical cases,there are obvious disputes regarding the determination of fundraising fraud in the three aspects of inaction,victim suspicion,and property loss.The second part is about the identification of deceptive behavior in fundraising fraud.The act of concealing the truth in fundraising fraud can be regarded as a fraud of omission,but it needs to meet the obligations of the form and substance of the crime of omission.On the one hand,the formal obligation cannot be derived from the principle of good faith,but can be derived from legal provisions,but is not limited to the criminal law;on the other hand,the substance as the source of obligation should adopt the function theory,which is conducive to the realization of the legal interest protection function and risk supervision The source is clear.The degree of fundraising fraud should be considered objectively.Compared with the subjective theory,the objective theory is not only based on the standard of ordinary people in the society,but also considers all the circumstances of the deceived person.The third part is the specific determination of fundraising fraud under the suspicion of the victim.The traditional view holds that the victim has doubts about the fraud and does not affect the establishment of the crime of fraud,while the victim’s creed believes that since the victim has “specific doubts” about the fraud of the perpetrator,he can take measures to protect the legal interests by himself.Lost the necessity of criminal law protection.Compared with the traditional view,the creed of victims maintains the independence of the victims’ misunderstandings and is quite reasonable for problem solving.Due to the particularity of fundraising fraud,the type of fundraising fraud and the degree of suspicion of the victim should be distinguished,and then specific determinations should be made.The fourth part is mainly for the determination of property losses in fundraising fraud.The theory of individual property reduction in form is easy to confuse property delivery with property loss,and few scholars support this theory.Although the conclusions reached by the theory of substantial individual property reduction and overall property reduction can be described as the same in different ways,there are essential differences in the way of thinking between the two,and the basic framework of the overall property reduction theory should be adhered to.The theory of overall property reduction is insufficient in solving the problem of fundraising fraud.Therefore,the solution of property losses due to fundraising fraud should be resolved by using the theory of purpose failure.This can not only solve the problem of identification of property losses due to fundraising fraud,but also appropriately restrict the scope of punishment for fraud crimes.