The Understanding And Application Of Contract Fraud

The crime of contract fraud refers to the act in which for the purpose of illegal possession, the party fraudulently defrauds the properties of relatively large amount of the other party in the conclusion and execution of the contract. The actor of the crime has the intentional psychology for the purpose of "illegal possession" in the subjective aspect and has the act of defrauding the other party of the properties of relatively large amount in the conclusion and execution of the contract in the objective aspect; the object of the crime includes the management order for the economic contract by the state and the property rights and interests of the other party (the defrauded). This paper, by analyzing the contract fraud committed by QIN Yin and proceeding with the intentional psychology of the actor of the crime of the contract fraud for the purpose of "illegal possession" in the subjective aspect, differentiates the crime of the contract fraud from the ordinary civil contract disputes; this paper further analyzes whether the act committed by the actor of the case commits crime from the property rights and interests protected in the objective aspect in the crime of contract fraud; and finally this paper summarizes the difference between the crime of contract fraud and the crime of fraud by comparing the different characteristics of the crime of contract fraud and the crime of fraud in the crime subject and fraudulent means and by analyzing the characteristics of the "contract" in the crime of contract fraud.This paper consists of five parts with about13,000words.Part One introduces the summary of the crime of contract fraud committed by QIN, Yin. Part Two introduces the case. QIN Yin spent money in asking someone to forge a driver’s license with the name of LI Fei, used the assumed name of LI Fei to Liuzhou Hengda Car Service Co., Ltd. operated by the aggrieved LIN Buheng and concluded with the company a Buick Excelle rental contract with the number of GUI BC7656. Later QIN Yin delivered the rented car to WU Yong as the pledge guarantee of the loan and defrauded WU Yong of RMB5,000Yuan. The next day, in order to prevent the aggrieved LIN Buheng from becoming suspicious, QIN Yin again defrauded WU Yong of RMB2,200Yuan and asked someone to send RMB2,000Yuan to LIN Buheng. On September25,2007, the aggrieved LIN Buheng found the driver’s license falsely used by QIN Yin was a false certificate and realized that he was defrauded and reported to the police after seeing the defrauded vehicle driven by WU Yong at Wenbi Road, Liuzhou and recovered the car.Part Three elaborates the focus of disputes, mainly including three aspects:One is whether the case commits crime and what the differences between the crime of contract fraud and the ordinary civil dispute are. Two is what the object of the crime of contract fraud is and what the meaning of conviction is. Three is what the differences between the crime of fraud and the crime of contract fraud are.Part Four discusses the legal analysis. This part consists of three subparts. Subpart one proceeds with the differences between the crime of contract fraud and the ordinary civil contract dispute and elaborates whether the act committed by the actor of the case commits the crime of contract fraud. Subpart two proceeds with the object "the property rights and interests" of the crime of contract fraud and elaborates that the act committed by the actor of the case commits crime. Subpart three mainly elaborates the differences between the crime of contract fraud and the crime of fraud.Part Five is the conclusion. QIN Yin illegally possessed the property of LIN Buheng by taking advantage of the rental contract with the LIN Buheng, whose act constitutes the crime of contract fraud while QIN Yin illegally possessed the property of LIN Buheng by taking advantage of the private loan contract with the LIN Buheng, whose act constitutes the crime of fraud. The act that QIN Yin delivered the rented property from others as his own property to the third party as the pledge infringes the property right of LIN Buheng and the subjective psychology of QIN Yin also constitutes the purpose of illegal possession, thus the act of QIN Yin constitutes the crime of contract fraud.