On The Judicial Determination Of Intertwined Criminal Cases Of Burglary And Fraud

Theft and fraud are two typical types of crime which are very common in the daily life. The boundary between the two types of crime seems to be clear from the perspective of the constitutive requirements. With the rapid development of economy and society in the world, and globalization trend becoming more and more significant, profound changes have taken place on these two typical crime patterns. The growing number of the cases containing the behavior of theft and fraud bring a lot of difficulties to the judicial department in conviction sentencing.For judicial determination on the cases containing the behavior of theft and fraud, we should analysis this by giving priority to the theory of act of disposition, combined with reasonable part of the main mean theory. The author begins with reference to two cases of theft and fraud in judicial practice, and start from the cases to search for the difficulties and perspectives in dealing with such cases."Secret stealing" is still a necessary element in the composition of theft. The author thinks that, firstly, we should make sure whether the cheated person has the ability and right to dispose the property, and what the object and reason is. Objectively disposition can’t be used to distinguish the theft and fraud effectively. Disposal consciousness is the element of disciplinary actions. It’s inappropriate to affirm the cheated person’s disposal consciousness when he even doesn’t realize the kind of the property. However, when the cheated person doesn’t realize the quality or value of the property he has disposed, we still can affirm his disciplinary consciousness. Besides the disposition and the disciplinary consciousness, the relationship between the means and results of the actor’s behavior is particularly important. Judging the principal means used to obtain the property correctly can contribute to find the nature of the actor’s behavior. In the crime of fraud, disciplinary actions should be a direct cause of property damage to the victim. This is the key factor to judge whether the actor’s behavior constitutes to the crime of fraud.