The Contract Fraud Case Analysis Of Youmao

As an important means of economic exchanges, the contract is playing an irreplaceable role in the construction of market economic system. Along with that, the crime of contract fraud is increasing day by day. What's more, due to the vague boundary between the fraud of contract crimes and the disputes of economic contracts, a great many economic contract disputes are mistaken as contract fraud and being regulated using the Criminal Law. Meanwhile, there are also a large number of offenders who defend their performances of contract fraud as the economic contract disputes and escape justice. In the case of the contract fraud of You so-and-so, the following three controversial points have been much debated by the accuser and the defender. The first one is whether the accused YOU so-and-so held the subjective purpose of illegal possession of assets; the second one is whether the accused You so-and-so conducted the objective behavior of cheating Benxi Steel; the third one is whether the business activities between the accused YOU so-and-so and the other two involved parties belong to the financing borrowing. As to the first point, YOU had strong performance ability and provided sufficient guarantee. After the contract was signed, YOU actively performed his duties under the contract. Although he failed to complete his obligations due to the capital chain rupture caused by objective reasons, he took the initiative to shoulder the responsibility for breach of contract and acted positively to take remedial measures. All those behaviors YOU displayed show that he did not subjectively hold the purpose of illegal possession. Concerning the second controversial point, we can see that in the process of signing and implementing the contract, YOU never showed the behaviors of trading with imaginary identity, making false pledge, falsely fulfilling the contract, or absconding with the money. In addition, there is also no evidence demonstrating that YOU has devised other means to defraud the parties involved of their property. As a result, YOU so-and-so's behavior does not conform to the objective elements of crime of fraud of the contract. In regard to the third dispute, through analyzing the case we know that the operational risks were borne by YOU only and there was no actual flow of goods. Those specific situations tell us that in this case, what is actually undergoing is the inter-company borrowing and lending in the name of steel trading. To sum up, neither YOU so-and-so subjectively held the purpose of illegal possession nor did he objectively perform the behaviors of falsifying facts and concealing the truth, so YOU so-and-so's behaviors do not constitute the crime of fraud of the contract. In fact, the trading happened between YOU so-and-so and Benxi Steel is the behavior of borrowing carried out under the name of steel trading. It actually belongs to the inter-company borrowing and lending. Finally, based on the analysis on YOU so-and-so's contract fraud case, this thesis elaborates the necessity of accurately distinguish the crime of fraud of the contract and the economic contract dispute. Besides, through comparing the crime of fraud of the contract with the economic contract dispute, some suggestions are given on how to define the contract fraud and the economic contract dispute.