The Research On The Boundary Of The Crime Of Theft And Fraud

The crimes of theft and fraud are two typical types of property crime.Both are required for the purpose of illegal possession, the main theoretical differences in the objective behavior characteristics,generally easy to distinguish. But with the crime means constantly refurbished, a growing number of cases of theft and fraud are interwoven, the boundaries between the two crimes have become increasingly blurred, appear in the judicial practice many similar cases have different judgments. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the boundaries of the key and specific standards.This paper is divided into four parts except the introduction, the full text of about 21000 words.The first part, the basic situation of the case. First, a brief introduction to the Yan on suspicion of theft and fraud,and clearly the Yan a relationship with the relevant personnel of the case. Secondly, this paper briefly introduces the qualitative differences and the reasons of the cases, and clearly points out that the focus of the dispute is the distinction between the crime of theft and fraud.The second part is the legal analysis of the relevant issues. First of all, through the analysis of the common standard of the boundary, conclusion that not applies to the main mean theory,the concurrence theory and explained the reason, and the final analysis of the disposition behavior theory as the standard of the rationality and feasibility of the boundary. Secondly, it analyzes the elements of disposition behavior. Disposition behavior is composed of four elements, the conclusion of which are indispensable. Four elements are: disposition ability, disposal consciousness,based on the wrong understanding of causality and disposition results in possession of the state transfer. Which focus on the problem of the necessity of disposal consciousness and the degree of awareness, the emphasis is on the key of the causal relationship based on the understanding of the error, and that the behavior of the people who are deceived is caught in the wrong understanding of the behavior. At the same time, it puts forward the opinion that possession of the delay does not set up the transfer of possession. At last, analyses the difference between theft of indirect principal and triangle fraud. Under the premise of the basic judgment standard, the right to judge whether the people been deceived has the right to dispose of the victim's property. Through the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the authorization theory and the camp said,recommendation to adopt the camp said.The third part, the analysis and conclusion of the case. With the second part of the theory of legal analysis, according to the theory of the necessity of disposal consciousness and the theory of the possession of the delay does not set up the transfer of possession, it is concluded that the behavior of the first case does not constitute the crime of fraud. According to the camp said that the person been deceived has the right to dispose of the victim's property in the second case,the behavior of people who constitute a triangle fraud conclusions.The fourth part, the enlightenment of this case study. That the theft is fallback crime the crime of property violation take offend, and puts forward a basic logic of boundary of theft crime and defraud crime analysis process. First judge whether to set up the crime of fraud, if not set up,then to judge does it need to be evaluated in criminal law, and finally determine whether the establishment of the crime of theft.