Research On Fraud Crime

In recent years, Chinese scholars dispute fraud prevalently, research point of view is varied. In the administration of justice, there is a big difference for cognizance of nature of the case. It is legitimate pursuit of contemporary legal person that how to adhere to the scientific point of view and evaluate legal act more objectively in large number of views. The author believes that the grasp of the attribute of ordinary fraud crime is essential to distinguishing this crime from his sin.This article takes fraud crime cases of Zhang, Xu, Wu, Xie etc. as examples, focus on methods of fraud, takes advantages of its two core requirements of cheating by facts or by valuations, analyses from knowledge of error, subjective state of mind, aspects of sanctions awareness. The author thinks that there is no coopetition relationship between fraud crime and crime of theft, on the other hand, fraud crime and crime of theft are contrary in terms of the element of criminal constitution. As a result, it should not be defined as double crime for a feason who carried out a series of actus reus in a certain crime scene and should not be discriminated as primary or secondary. The difference between crime of fraud and forcible seizure is obvious, crime of fraud is based upon that the aggrieved person hand over property of his own to the feason of aggrieved person’s own accord, crime of forcible seizure, by contrast, is defined as that the feason carried out his crime by wresting property undisguisedly. The reference point of determining crime of forcible seizure is’catch victim unawares’ to academy of criminal law. Moreover, analyze using ’the dialectical relationship between primary and secondary contradiction’, the author thinks that it is just a premise and procedure for the feason falls and gets hurt intentionally. To sum up in a word, it is essential to grasp the method of crime in defining fraud crime.