The Legislation Thinking Of Add Litigation Fraud

With the process of economic development and the promotion of the rule of law,the concept of people's litigation is growing. By way of judicial proceedings to protect their legitimate rights and interests is already a common phenomenon, while at the same time the legal action is implemented with the purpose of the proceedings of illegal fraud more and more cause for concern. Fraud Litigation actors who in order to achieve the purpose of his illegal,fabricating evidence,,or collude with others to provide false evidence,false to the civil courts,the act to bring civil action for the acts of false means is unique.In the framework of existing criminal law can not be convicted and punished fraud litigation, in theory, but also the qualitative behavior there is considerable controversy, leading to the types of cases dealing with judicial practice is not uniform. Correct understanding of the nature of fraud litigation, and make the appropriate legislative and judicial interpretation, the elimination of non-uniform judicial practice has an important role. In this paper, a typical "Guo fraud litigation," to analyze and explore additional fraud litigation.This paper is divided into four parts. On the basis of the case study, analyzes the theory of qualitative problem of fraud litigation dispute, the unreasonable of controversial view, the special characteristics of fraud litigation, and the idea of additional legislation of fraud litigation. Gradually in-depth four-part forming a complete logical system.The first part is an introduction to the case and theoretical controversy. First introduces the merits of the case, the charges and the definition of Guo's behavior, elicited the theoretical controversy of the nature of fraud litigation, some scholars believe that the action constitutes fraud, and some think that it constitutes the crime of extortion, Some testified that the crime of prejudice, and some that do not constitute a crime. This paper describes the controversial views of various reasons.The second part is the comments of theoretical dispute. Analyzes the theoretical and legal basis that various views lack, then come to that fraud litigation can not be guilty of fraud, extortion, convicted and punished the crime of obstruction of testimony. In the case the law does not specify, how to be convicted of fraud litigation?The third part drawn the conclusions of the case.based on the analysis of the theoretical basis of dispute.Fraud litigation with special properties is different from other crimes.Based on the existing criminal law fraud litigation can not be punished. So such cases should be convicted and punished for adding fraud litigation.The fourth part is the specific legislation of fraud litigation.Including the necessity and the reality of fraud litigation,the the attribution of fraud litigation,the choice of charges and counts,the enactment of sentence and problems in practice.Criminal Law does not make provision for fraud litigation, there is considerable controversy in theoretical circles, the article in the form of case studies, analysis and discussion of the fraud litigation, and I hope the regulation of fraud litigation have some role in promoting.