On The Disposition Of Property In Swindle Crimes

It is reasonable to consider the act of disposal, which serves to manifest the specific meaning of cognitive mistake as well as its connection to property damage, a indispensable component of fraud. Here, the concept of disposal differs from that in the civil law. In the cases of fraud, disposal refers to the transfer of property from the victim to the convict or a third party. Besides, in cases where property interests is the target of fraud, as long as the possession of that interest is transferred, the act of disposal occurs.The act of disposal has to be committed by a subject. A subject should be someone possessing certain disposal capability, in the judgment of which, as far as I am concerned, could be given special attentions. In regular cases, A general judgment could be made directly in reference to the standards in the civil law, while in other cases, especially when the status of a disposer and the particularity of a certain disposal act are considered, the judgment should be subject to difference based on the analysis of specific situations.Apart from the disposal capability, I continue to discuss the rights and status of a disposer. The disposer of a fraud could be either the property owner or the property possessor. In such cases, what kind of standards should be employed to determine the de facto rights and status of the victim? There are four school of theories, namely the subject theory, the fact proximity theory, the camp theory, and the authorization theory. In the paper, I will argue that the de facto rights in property disposal of the victim should be determined based upon the common social value, as well as whether the disposer received the authorization from the victim.The object of disposal bears equal significance as the subject of disposal. This paper deals with both property articles and property interests. Property articles will be illustrated from two perspective, namely movable property and immovable property, legal property and illegal property. I argue that despite their particularity, immovable and illegal properties could still be considered objects of disposal in fraud crimes. Property interests, on the other hand, will be categorized into deferred debt payment, goods payment request, property request, etc, and be elaborated from different angles.Last but not least, the paper will focus on some subjective aspects of the act of disposal. In this part I attempt to answer two questions. The first is the necessity of disposal consciousness, and the second is the contents of disposal consciousness. There are three schools of divergent opinions on the necessity of disposal consciousness: positive, negative and neutral. I argue for the necessity of disposal by demonstrating that if the act of disposal is simply defined as a transfer of property without consciousness, then it would be difficult to distinguish indirect accomplice in larceny from a disposer in fraud. Moreover, I object an overly emphasis on the contents of disposal consciousness and instead champion a flexible interpretation. However, the flexibility is also limited, for an over flexible interpretation will lead to an enlargement of the conception.