On The Judicial Determination Of The Crime Of Contract Fraud

In recent years,the development and protection of the private economy have been valued,requiring strict distinction between crime and non-criminal.Many wrong cases have been corrected.The typical case is Zhang Wen Zhong’s retrial of not guilty.This means that when dealing with economic crimes such as contract fraud,we must be more cautious to prevent mistakes from elevating economic disputes to criminal cases.Although the Criminal Law clearly stipulates the constitutional elements of the crime of contract fraud,there are still difficulties in judicial practice,mainly in terms of how to understand the meaning of "the purpose of illegal possession",how to determine the purpose of illegal possession,and how to apply the comprehensive clauses of the crime of contract fraud..Clarifying these issues has extremely important practical significance for the correct understanding and determination of the crime of contract fraud.This article takes a certain company contract fraud case as an example,starts with the focus of the dispute,combines the analysis of the above problems,and finally gives conclusions and thoughts.It is divided into three parts: first,the brief introduction of the case,the focus of the dispute is whether a certain company constitutes the crime of contract fraud;second,the case evaluation,focusing on the focus of the case,combining relevant laws and regulations,multiple academic views,and multiple similar judicial cases,Mainly from the two aspects of whether a certain company has committed frauds objectively,and whether it has the purpose of illegal possession subjectively,it is concluded that this case constitutes a crime of contract fraud;third,thinking and suggestions,one is to improve the relevant comprehensive provisions to facilitate understanding and operating.The second is to determine the "purpose of illegal possession" and form a uniform applicable standard to prevent different judgments in the same case,which is conducive to judicial justice.The third is to improve the criminal presumption norms related to the "purpose of illegal possession",clearly establish the applicable standards,and standardize the defendant’s counter-evidence procedures,etc.