Analysis On The Nature Of Escaping After Double Sales Of A Room

In the amended criminal law in 1997, the contract fraud was incorporated into the chapter of disrupting the market order from crime of fraud, and the independence of this crime has played a positive role protecting the property rights and interests of the parties to the contract, maintaining the contract management order and the socialist market economic order in our country. However, due to the crime often interweaved with crime of fraud and disputes over civil contract, boundary between crime and non crime as well as this crime and other crime is easily confused, and the criminal law theory of the crime and judicial practice holds controversial opinions on the cognizance on the crime. Based on the typical case analysis, this paper discusses the relationship between contract dispute and contract fraud, and expounds the connotation and extension of the contract fraud crime, and analyzes the method of “illegal possession purpose”, discusses the influence of the difference of “the time of illegal possession purpose” on the correct identification of the nature, hoping to correctly understand the crime of contract fraud.This paper is divided into three parts.Part One is mainly about the introduction of the case, bringing about the differences and the disputes in this paper, that is, whether Xiong's behavior is a simple contract dispute or constitutes a contract fraud, fraud or embezzlement. Part Two elaborates the crime of contract fraud in three aspects as for the dispute of the case. First, this part discusses the relationship between contract fraud and contract disputes. The author holds that regardless of whether the facts of the case belong to the civil law contract disputes, as long as the facts conform to the constitutive elements of the contract fraud, they should be applied to the contract fraud. Second, this part elaborates the connotation and extension of the crime of contract fraud. This part holds that the “contract” must be the means to be used by the doer to cheat the property, and the contract should have the property content, reflect the economic property, or it will not belong to the contract scope of the crime. Third, this part discusses the illegal possession purpose and the occurrence time of the purpose and other related issues, and holds that in the judicial practice, it is required to take the delivery of property to the point(period) as a reference point according to the contract execution process of the doer to distinguish the difference in the occurrence time of the illegal possession purpose and further accurately recognize the act. In other words, if the doer has the intent of illegal possession, exercises the act of deception under the control of the purpose, cheats the other party to the contract into “voluntary” delivery of property, which constitutes a contract fraud. After the legal obtainment of the other party's property, the doer has the purpose of illegal possession owing to the change of the situation, on the basis of whether the ownership of the subject matter has been transferred, the nature of the doer can be divided into the following: if the doer holds the ownership over the previously legally held property, it may not constitute a crime; and it may constitute crime of embezzlement vice versa; after obtaining the property the doer has the purpose of illegal possession, it may constitute the contract fraud crime under one special circumstance, that is, the doer takes the deception means and asks the other part “voluntarily” to discharge his contractual debts.Part Three analyzes the nature of Xiong's act and holds that Xiong's act does not constitute a crime, but only the contract dispute. The reasons are that in the contract for the sale of the house, Xiong has the purpose of illegal possession after obtaining the property and owing to the fact that Xiong has obtained the ownership of the house payment, Xiong holds his own property, thus it does not constitute the crime of embezzlement. In addition, because the doer does not fabricate the facts or cover the truth to cheat Liu into discharging his contractual debts after obtaining the property, it does not belong to the special circumstance of constituting the contract fraud crime. In view of this, Xiong's act only belongs to the general contract dispute over failing to perform the contractual debts.