Theory Of The Cognizance Of The Crime Of Loan Fraud

With the rapid development of market economy and theincreasing flourishing of financial market, loan industry asan important financing channel of the economic development isalso increasingly active. Some criminals make use of someloopholes of the loan industry to obtain loan by fraud. Thiskind of behavior does great damage to the loan order, also tothe private property of banks or other financial institutions.Since the crime of loan fraud was set in criminal law in1997,the criminal law scholars have spare no effort to be committedto the research of loan fraud, and the theory is more and moremature. But from the overall point of view, there are still manyimperfections about the theory, and there are some vague andcontroversial points in the judicial cognizance. It is stillnecessary to study on the theory of the crime of loan fraud fromthe perspective of legal interpretation, in order to form aunified standard, and to guide practice. The purpose is to maintain the dignity and authority of law. In order to make thesame treatment for the same situation in the judicial practice,also in order to fight against loan fraud, I will discuss somedifficult problems in judicial cognizance in this paper.It contains four parts in this paper. The first part isabout the judicial cognizance about the purpose of illegalpossession. The purpose of illegal possession of crime of loanfraud should be understood as the specific purpose of illegalownership, and it is independent of the subjective intent ofthe crime of loan fraud. The cognizance about the purpose ofillegal possession is the key of fraud crime of loan, and itis difficult. It depends on judicial presumption, and allowsdisproof. Only when it doesn’t exist disproof completely thatwe could determine that the person has the purpose of illegalpossession. The second part is about the judicial cognizanceabout the criminal behavior. The criminal behavior of loanfraud is described through enumeration and generalization. Inthe process of judicial cognizance about criminal behavior of loan fraud, we should exclude loan disputes. The start ofcriminal behavior should be determined when it causes dangerand urgency, so when the person applies for loan from banks orother financial institutions and do something fraud such asshowing false proof,it should be regarded as the the start ofcriminal behavior of loan fraud. The third part is aboutcomplicity of loan fraud. It contains three basic types:internal, outside, and collusion. It is mainly based on theprincipal offender determinism to make conviction andsentencing. If units and persons make the behavior of loan fraudjointly, it could be determined as complicity, but theaccusation may be different. The standard about amount ofcomplicity crime is the amount of participation. The fourthpart is about some difficult cases of loan fraud. The loanindustry is gradually improved, at the same time a variety ofloan fraud also emerge in an endless stream. In this paper,several difficult cases about crime of loan fraud are discussed,such as cases with security, cases about the small loan companies, and cases as robbing Peter to pay Paul.There are difficulties and controversial opinions in thejudicial cognizance about the crime of loan fraud. Through thediscussion on these problems in this paper, I hope that it canprovide some reference to the theory of criminal law andjudicial practice about crime of loan fraud.