Research On The Crossing Problems In The Crime Of Fraud

Fraud is a traditional crime,but in judicial practice,the crime of fraud and civil fraud,administrative fraud crossover of difficult cases often occur,the judicial authorities in dealing with such crossover cases,the application of the law is also cautious.Analysis of fraud and civil fraud,administrative fraud crossover problems,expect fraud and civil fraud,administrative fraud crossover problems to solve the proposal to solve the judicial confusion.Fraud and civil fraud crossover is a more common problem in judicial practice,mainly due to confusion between criminal fraud and civil fraud,confusion between criminal law and civil law to regulate the purpose of fraud and confusion between criminal law and civil law to adjust the scope.The key to the solution lies in: firstly,accurately identifying the nature of the deceptive act,focusing on the analysis from the perspective of the deceived person’s misconception,the correlation between the deceptive act and the deceived person’s misconception and the causal link between the deceived person’s misconception and the disposal of property;secondly,clarifying the identification of the perpetrator’s subjective purpose of illegal possession,referring to the provisions on the purpose of illegal possession in financial fraud,and the application of the underwriting clause,which should be restrictive interpretation;finally,to accurately grasp the legal interests and social relations protected by criminal law,it is recommended to adopt a moderated illegal monism.The main reason for the intersection of fraud and administrative fraud is the special nature of administrative fraud,and the situation of administrativeization of criminal cases,criminalization of administrative cases,and impunity of administrative cases has emerged in practice.The key to resolving: first of all,when defrauding acts as a criminal crime,the nature of the act of defrauding administrative subsidies and administrative compensation should be independently judged in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Law;secondly,the damage result of the act of defrauding administrative subsidies should be determined in combination with the policy purpose,and the state will not be able to achieve the policy purpose.There is property loss;finally,if the social harm of the behavior is comprehensively evaluated,and the consequences of the behavior can be repaired by administrative sanctions,it is considered that the social harm of the behavior has not reached the level of criminal law evaluation.Only when the penalty is unavoidable,Only then is it necessary to impose sanctions as a last resort.