Identification Of Illegal Business Operation

1997the criminal law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the"criminal law") the225th regulation of illegal business counts culprit "in violation of theprovisions of the state" blank and other "illegal business behavior that seriously disrupted themarket" order out the terms of the legislative way, make it has high generality, such as not toconform to its legislative intent finally understand, all seems to be specially engaged in illegalprofits and if the circumstances are serious behavior can be set into the light. The author use acertain case of "back the car"(shi paid for id CARDS for others in the name of the vehicle allmotor vehicle registration, and then under policy changes, charges the actual owner thetransfer fee does it constitutes illegal business crime) analyzes what is considered as the crimeof illegal business. By policy changes, charge transfer fee which does not constitute a crime ofillegal business but also involves whether make crime of extortion, and attached thecognizance of the crime of extortion is expounded in the paper. The article is divided into thefollowing three parts.The first section: the basic information of the case which introduces the case, the focusof controversy views and disputes. Shi "loan" id card and use "back the car" for profits, thequalitative of the behavior constitute the crime of illegal business or not, there are two viewsof innocence. The behavior of Shi forcefully charges the transfer fee constitutes the crime ofextortion, the continuation of crime of illegal business behavior or innocent, there are threeviews. The focus of the controversy above is how to understand the object and behavior of thecrime of illegal business, blank, knock out terms and extortion.The second section: controversial legal analysis involved in the case. The section isdivided into two parts, firstly, controversial legal analysis on Shi’s behavior constitutes crimeof illegal business or not. First of all, from the crime of illegal business law, violationobject listed in the first three behaviors are national franchise system and the system ofadmittance of market main body, in accordance with the terms of only contain similar rules,knock out terms behavior should also be violating national franchise system and system of admittance of market main body. Shi’s behavior violated is social management which hasnothing to do with the franchise system and market access system. Then to parse "in violationof the provisions of the state", it is concluded that the blank crime refers to in violation ofthe provisions of the state licensing system and laws and regulations of standardizing themarket main body access aspects, not violate any laws and regulations of behavior, it isconcluded that Shi’s behavior is in violation of the laws and regulations related to socialmanagement, not belong to the crime "in violation of the provisions of the state". Thenanalyses the knock terms, and eventually reach out it is beyond article225first three terms,belongs to the behavior of breaking the state franchising system and violating the order ofmarket access management behavior. It is concluded that Shi’s behavior does not belong tothis crime. Secondly, Extortion legal analysis of using policy changes to charge the transferfee which constitutes the extortion crime or not. Firstly, analyzes the object of crime ofextortion is single, not also infringes upon public or private property ownership. this paperexpounds means of blackmail crime elements is evil threat of harm or blackmail to the victim.the nature of extortion is infringing upon the victim’s freedom. the behavior of forcing thevictim have to hand over the property, causing the victim mental fear is not necessary forcrime of extortion. it is concluded that Shi’s behavior conforms to the crime of extortionobject and objective elements.The third section: Conclusion of case analysis. This section conclude from the abovediscourse that Shi’s behavior of back to car is innocent but his behavior of charging thetransfer fees by policy changes constitute extortion, not crime of illegal business operation.