Take "The Wuying Case" For Example Analysis Several Issues Concerning The Crime Of Fraud In Money Raising

The crime of fraud in money raising is a major crime of financial fraud in China,which arises with the economic development. The conviction and measurement ofpenalty of it has long been a problem due to the complex economic and socialsituations. Through the analysis of the case of Wuying, the author tries to provideproposals in terms of the identification of “for the purpose of illegal possession”, thevictims of the crime of fraud in money raising, the natural person crime or the unitcrime, and the measurement of penalty.The main body of this paper consists of five sections:ⅠThe source of the caseⅡ The brief introduction of the caseⅢ The summary of three disputed points of this case-whether the case of Wuconstitutes to the crime of fraud in money raising; Is it a crime committed by a naturalperson or a unit; Should the death penalty be applied to this case.Ⅳ The academic analysis and discussion of the caseⅤ ConclusionSection four is the core of this paper. In regard to the first disputed point, theauthor sets about the composition of the crime of fraud in money raising, thenpresents the opinions on:1. identification of “for the purpose of illegal possession”;2.different behavioral patterns between the crime of false or the crime of fraud;3.whether the victims of the crime of fraud in money raising is a specific person or thepublic. Firstly, one of the essential elements of forming the crime of fraud in moneyraising is whether the case occurs for the purpose of illegal possession. Nevertheless,the terms “For the purpose of illegal possession” contains uncertainty for it is theinternal state of mind deduced from external behavior. Hence the theory of DishonestDeprivation, which is used by both Canada and the United Kingdom, can be referredto. Secondly, the crime of fraud and the crime of false represent different behavioral patterns, namely, resultant offense and damage offense. And for the accomplishmentsof both patterns have an adverse effect on the development and stability of China’sFolk Loan, the author proposes the retention of the crime of fraud in money raisingwhile the new addition of the crime of investment fraud. Finally, according to thejudicial interpretation of the People’s Republic of China, the number of victims of acase of the crime of fraud in money raising should be at lease30persons withoutstating whether the “30persons” are the direct borrowers or the indirect borrowers.Therefore, the author suggests the victims of the crime of fraud in money raisingshould be viewed as the public.In regard to the second disputed point, the author provides a comparison of thecases of Li Guofa and Wuying. From the comparison, the author concludes that thethree major differences between these cases define the positive and negativeconditions of the unit crime. And the case of Wu does not comply with neither of thecondition of the unit crime.In regard to the third disputed point, the author analyses the case from theperspective of the criminal policy and the purpose of penalty. According to thecriminal policy of the People’s Republic of China, death penalty shall be appliedcautiously. And the purpose of penalty is to prevent crimes. In a word, both thecriminal policy and the purpose of penalty suggest taking a prudent attitude towardsdeath penalty. Besides, death penalty in the crime of fraud in money raising shall beapplied to the condition of causing the death of at least one victim. So the authorthinks that Wu should not be sentenced to death penalty effective immediately.