Number Problems Related To The Crime Of Illegal Confinement For Debts

In the late 1990 s, rapid development of the economy makes an increase in cases of economic disputes, such as cases of confinement. However, due to the legislation and judicial interpretation for many problems are not clear, theory and judicial practice have a heated discussion on the nature of the behavior of confinement. Especially the boundary between with the crime of illegal confinement for debts and the crime of kidnapping for extorting property, which makes the same cases have different result. In order to clarity the boundary both of them and apply correctly legislation and judicial interpretation, I put forward some views on the crime of illegal confinement for debts.The paper is divided into three parts; the main contents are as follows:The first part introduces to the understanding of the debt. The first section describes the necessity of the existence of the debt; one is able to demonstrate the enforcement of right; and second is to indicate that no illegal purpose subjective is the key to distinguish the crime of illegal confinement for debts and the crime of kidnapping for extorting property. The second section describes the scope of the debt, including the debt to be protected and the law is not to protect, certainty debts and uncertainty debts, the fact of the debt and the debt of the imaginary; and the debts will be described separately.The second part describes the impact of the amount of debt on the illegal confinement for debts. The first section discusses amount of obtainment more than actual amount.Firstly I analyze the behavior of obtainment more than actual amount of debt. I agree in accordance with the Imaginative Joiner of Offenses identified. Then I analyze amount that more than actual amount of debt. Not to say that as long as the amounts claimed exceed actual amount of debts should be recognized as the crime of kidnapping, the surplus should be have certain limits. Refer to relevant judicial interpretations. We not only take the surplus into consideration; we also consider the amount of proportion accounted for, and there is order between them. We should first consider the amount of the excess part, and then consider the amount of the excess proportion. The second section discusses debts of uncertain amount. In fact, some debts amount could not be measured by digit, such as debt of moral damage. I think that we need not consider debt amount; as long as doer enforces his right and adopts illegal confinement, we are still according to crime of illegal confinement for debts. Some debts amount is certain in fact, but we did not have enough evident to prove concrete amount. I think that as long as doer subjectively makes sure existence debts, we are still according to crime of illegal confinement for debts.The third part introduces the subjective and objective of the crime of illegal confinement for debts. The first section focuses on the actors for debt issues of common crime. When the owner(creditor) hires others to help control the debtor, the employees do not clear the employer’s subjective intent, just to get paid, according to the daily life of inference, although employees do not have an accurate understanding for harmful results, they know the result of a hazard may occur. Therefore, we identify the nature of behavior according to the final result. That is to say, we judge the employees’ behavior and accusation with employers’ behavior. The third part introduces the subjects and objects of this crime. I think we should make a limited to the confinement subjects, who only include debtor itself and people who related to the debt. I analyze of this part from the need to protect the personal rights of others, the victim’s fault theory and compliance with the crime of kidnapping. The object does not require any restrictions; the creditor may ask anyone other than the debtor’s request. I analyze this from the subjective purpose of this crime, this crime constitutes and practice.