Studies On The Differences Between Crime Of Contractual Fraud And Crime Of Fraud And Contractual Disputes

After the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee of Communist Party of China,China began implementing the reform and open policy and its economic system has changed from previous planned economy to market-oriented economy. In the case of rapid development of market-oriented economy, making a contract has become an indispensable and effective way of trading in daily economic life and its role and position in China's market transactions have become increasingly important, but accompanied by criminal behavior of contractual fraud as economic fraud behavior. Article 224 of 1979 Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China has set provisions for crime of Contractual Fraud, which is separated from the crime of fraud for the first time and concluded as an independent chapter in sections about crimes of disrupting market order. Currently, contractual fraud is one of the most serious economic crimes in China. And the detail of a case is complicated; the sum involved is huge; crimes of contractual fraud occur frequently; the means are varied; and harm to the society is severe. In judicial practice, contractual fraud is often intertwined with general frauds and civil disputes over contract, difficult to distinguish in theory and to grasp in practice. Therefore, it is necessary to correctly comprehend the conceptual characteristics of contractual frauds and get a clear understanding of limits between contractual frauds and nonprime and other charges, so that in judicial practices to more accurately identify contractual frauds in accordance with laws and facts. This paper will take the case of Chen Bin contractual fraud as case study, discussing and identifying key problems in crime of contractual frauds, crimes of fraud and disputes over contract.It contains about sixteen thousand words in total, divided into five parts.In the first part, through a brief introduction of the case, the author mainly educes the focus of controversy that this paper will discuss, that is, Chen Bin's behavior is a crime of contractual fraud or a crime of fraud, or civil economic dispute over contract.In the second part, the author mainly makes a brief introduction about the crime of contractual fraud from the basis of 4 constitutional items of crime of contractual fraud: object and objective aspect, subject and subjective aspect.In the third part, starting from the focus of controversy in the case, the author mainly discusses limits distinguishing crime of contractual fraud from crime of fraud and limits distinguishing crime of contractual fraud from dispute over contract. The author hold the view that the main distinctions between crime of contractual fraud and crime of fraud are①the natures of the infringed objects by the two crimes are different;②the performances of objective conducts of the two crimes are different;③the subjects of the two crime are different;④the standards used to identify the sum in two crimes are different. And the main distinctions between crime of contractual fraud and dispute over contract are:①whether there is subjective purpose of illegal possession;②the criminal intent(is direct intent or indirect intent;③objective performances of the contract are different;④expressions of criminal intents of the two crimes are different;⑤legal consequences of the two crimes are different.In the fourth part, through analysis of this case, the author's opinion is that Chen Bin's behavior is neither constitution of crime of fraud, because the object that Chen Bin's behavior has infringed is multi-object, according with constitution of crime of contractual fraud, nor constitution of crime of contractual fraud, because objectively Chen Bin does not implement fraud conduct and subjectively he does not have the purpose of illegal possession. Therefore, through the foregoing analyses, the author hold the view that Chen Bin's behavior should be determined as civil dispute over contract because subjectively Chen Bin does not have the purpose of illegal possession and objectively he does not implement fraud conduct but just has used the property that it shall be used for performance of contract for other purpose instead, not a constitution of a crime.In the fifth part, through analysis of this case, the author has ruminated the legislation of law of crime of contractual fraud and discovered legislative shortcomings of contractual fraud and, combining with judicial practice, proposed that legislation of law of crime of contractual fraud shall be improved from aspects of social relation that legislation protects, expressions of the content of laws and standards of sum and conviction of this crime.