On The Determination Of The Crime Of Illegal Detainment For Debt

The borrower has to pay back the money is the ingrained value in social life and the naive view of justice. In recent years, the doer unlawfully detains or confines another person in order to get repayment of the debt is growing in intensity. However, the complexity between the above behaviors and the crime of false imprisonment as well as the ambiguity between crime and general violations against law lead to disputes in criminal theories and judicial practices.It is under this background that the author chooses the question of judicial recognition of illegal detainment for debts as the topic of her dissertation and tries to solve the problems of the determination of illegal detainment for debts and provides theoretical guidance for current disordered judicatory practices.This thesis is made up of the following four parts:The first part is the identification of the debt in illegal detainment for debts. Firstly, the author makes the act explicit when the doer asks for the imaginary debt, points out the related crimes in this case with the view of abstract cognitional error in law. Secondly, the author discusses the cases when the doer asks more than the original amount of the debt and differentiated the concept between interest and others’ property to confirm the criminal responsibilities. Thirdly, through the identification of the debts which are difficult to verify, the author pinpoints the criminal responsibilities based on the doer’s purpose of illegal possession. At the end of this part, by means of explaining the words used in the judicial interpretation provision, including Law, Etc and the Debt which is not protected by the law, the author elaborates the doer’s criminal responsibilities in these cases.The second part is about the problems in the cognizance of the establishment of illegal detainment for debt. First of all, the author illustrates the time limit about the illegal detainment for debt through the comparison of time requirements of common illegal detainment and the illegal detainment for debt, and then points out the boundaries of crime and non-crime under different time requirements. Secondly, the author discusses the special object requirements of illegal detainment for debt, and attempts to draw a clear distinction between illegal detainment for debt and other criminal behaviors. Thirdly, the author elaborates the requirements of the doer’s methods. Through the cognizance of Illegal, Detention and Other methods etc, pinpoints the crime of illegal detainment for debt has the characters of initiative, publicity and not including kidnapping ways.The third part of the thesis is about the determination of the dividing line of illegal detainment for debt. First of all, the author elaborates the differences between crime act and non-crime act of illegal detainment for debt from the perspective of criminal law and the general violations against law. Followed by the above discussions, the author talks about the distinctions about illegal detainment for debt and other relevant crimes, pinpoints the differences between the crime and robbery, kidnapping on purpose, object and method requirements, reveals its essential characteristics and its crime and non-crime establishments under different subjective and objective conditions.The fourth part of the thesis is about the determination of the special forms of illegal detainment for debt. Firstly, the author discusses the aggravated consequential offenses about the illegal detainment for debt. Through deliberate analysis and strict limitation, the author elaborates the direct causality between the act and aggravate consequence and the doer’s subjective intents to determine the establishment of aggravated consequential offenses about the illegal detainment for debt. And then the author states the determination of transformation crimes in illegal detainment for debt. Proceeding from the understanding of the word use violence and the analysis of the doer ‘s subjective psychological attitude towards the result of the crime, the author restricts the transformation crimes in the cases that the doer’s method is beyond the necessary limitation and is deliberate about the consequence to avoid putting the doer at a disadvantage.