Several Studies Of Fraud Of The Contract

With the development of china’s market economy, the crimination of fraud through contract is becoming more and more serious. This kind of crimination, with its changeful means and enormous damage, has done great harm to the regular order of trade and even the whole market economy. In order to better protect the order of our market economy, the Revision to the Criminal law in 1997 separates the crimination of "contract fraud" from the already existed crimination of "fraud", so as to bring more protect to contract. However, the regulation of "contract fraud" in our criminal law is too principal, whereas in practice means of this kind of crimination is quiet complicated and various, and there exists many similarities between this kind of crimination and fraud, financial fraud and contract dispute, thus makes the definition of contract fraud quiet difficult. For this reason, although in the latest 10 years related theoretical research and judiciary practice on this issue never stops, there is still much disagreement between scholars on the understanding of "contract fraud". Their disagreements mainly exist on these areas:the definition of contract, the object of contract fraud, the judiciary definition of illegal holding and so on. This article first makes a review of the evolution of our legislation on contract fraud, and then makes a comparison between legislation of foreign countries and ours, through which the author probes the legal value of our regulations on contract fraud, and then provide some viewpoints and suggestions on mainly 3 issues, that is:the boundary of "contract", the object of contract fraud, and the judiciary definition of illegal holding.This article has 4 parts, their contents are as follows:The first part mainly discusses the legal value of regulation to contract fraud, for it provides the premise and theoretical basis for various related research.Through comparison of 3 kinds of legal model in foreign countries and making a review of our country’s evolution on special legislation of contract fraud, this part makes the collusion that our legislation of contract fraud not only means to provide protect for rights of property, but also makes emphasis on the protection of the order of market economy, which is in some words more importantThe second part makes analysis on the definition of "contract". Started from the reasons of dispute from scholars on connotation of "contract" in the research of contract fraud, and with the legal value as the basis, this part makes an analysis on the connotation and definition standard of "contract" in the legal text for this crimination, and then analyzes one by one whether those "contract" in broad sense, such as contact between countries, civil contract, administrative contract and labor contact can be listed as "contract "in the regulation of "contract fraud "in our criminal law. When making analysis on labor contract, the article recommends the latest judiciary explanation to Revision to Criminal law in 2011The third part analyzes the object of contract fraud. Also with the legal value of this crimination as the basis, this part makes analysis on the three kinds of characteristics that object of this crimination must have, that is:having value or value of usage, be in intermediate links of market circulation, and be the purpose of certain contract. Then this part makes analysis on whether 4 kinds of special property can be listed as the object of "contract fraud".The fourth part analyzes the purpose of illegal holding, which is very important in the definition of contract fraud. This part first lists 4 kings of explanation on the definition of "illegal holding" between scholars, and then makes analysis on the "time problem" of illegal holding, which also brings much dispute between scholars. At the last of this part, based on judiciary explanation for illegal holding and theoretical research on this issue by scholars of criminal law, the author makes the conclusion that we should judge "illegal holding" by six characteristics, and suggests some principles that may be recommended in judiciary practice.