| Illegal fund-raising activities intensified in our country, to the healthy operation of national economy and people’s normal life has brought great harm. But in legal theory and judicial practice, for the crime of illegal absorb public deposits "the cognizance of the crime amount", "that is not a specific object", the cognizance of "common crime\" and "loan contract effectiveness as" on issues such as differences still exist. So, in this paper, on the basis of investigation and study, on the basis of the supreme people’s court on the concrete application of law in trying criminal cases of illegal fund raising questions of interpretation, "projects, the ministry of public security", "about to handle criminal cases of illegal fund-raising opinions on some issues of applicable law" and "criminal law" the relevant provisions, in combination with the basic theory of the crime of illegal absorb public deposits and the author’s working experience, the above four problems are studied, and put forward the viewpoint in this paper.The full text mainly divides into four parts. The first part is that the amount of crime of illegal absorbed issue. For crime amount of a variety of situations are analyzed, including the "full", "returned the amount" and "withholding interest" and "interest to principal, mortgage guarantee, the amount of money involved in civil, etc. The second part is that the public deposits in no particular object identity problems. No particular object to the crime of illegal absorb public deposits can be understood as conforms to the social majority, subjective intention for the person that actor through the way of publicity, make the public aware of their behavior to raise money, and induce its invested capital. The third part is that the loan contract potency determination o illegal absorbed public deposits, issue. Loan contract is valid, and the guaranty contract itself without blemish, guarantee contract shall be valid. If that involved in the crime of illegal absorb public deposits of the folk loan contract is invalid, then goes against the fair principle, will cause the guarantor citing involved criminal cases and defending its guarantee responsibility. The fourth part is that the illegal absorb public deposits "raising agent," middlemen "financing" constitute the cognizance of accomplice. "Raising agent", "raise money broker" whether constitute the cognizance of accomplice should examine subjective factors, participation degree. |
