The Crime Of Fraud Contract Should Be Abolished

The crime of fraud contract means someone deceits a substantial amount property in the process of signing and performing the contract, in order to illegal possession. The new economic crime comes from 97 Criminal Law in China in order to regulate the market transaction. But the subjective conditions of crime are critical. Criminal suspects must have the purpose of illegal possession. How to identify"the purpose of illegal possession"has become a problem. Therefore, using the objective proof to identify subjective purpose has become the only viable path. Since 1997, the crime of fraud contract Separated from the fraud, and become an independent crime. In my view, the new crime makes some help for the socialist market transactions order and protection of private property indeed. However, its imperfect of theoretical basis and its dispute between the fraud doctrines has negative influence on practice. Through the law doctrine, analytical method and empirical analysis to research this problem,author suggest to abolish The crime of fraud contract. This article mainly divided into three sections. Chapter1, comparing with Macao, Taiwan, Japan, Canada and others, the crime of fraud contract as an independence crime is rare. Chapter2, author arranges the process from the guilt of legislation into theoretical research,then into the guilt of legislation again, in order to describe the development of the crime of fraud contract in China. Scholars still have many discussions about whether the crime of fraud contract should separate from the fraud so far. Author think the crime of fraud contract have not enough reasons and basement for its independence. Chapter3, with comparison of case in judicial practice, author will discuss the boundary and the difference among the crime of fraud contract and others. The purpose of illegal possession which has not defined clearly, makes difficult to distinguish between guilt and innocence; regardless of when the illegal possession happened, the application of rules cause to a wrong conclusions which considers all the cheating as the crime of fraud contract after signing; the independent of the crime of fraud contract also cause the issue of quantity of crime, e.g. implicated offense and concurrence of articles of law. So, in my mind, treating the crime of fraud contract as an independent crime is wrong, because there are lot of problems can not be resolved. Finally, author suggests we should abolish the crime of fraud contract, and combine it into the Fraud.