Case Study On Crime Of Contractual Fraud

The contending focus of the case of contract fraud by Mr. Yu is whether Mr. Yu's conduct constitutes a crime and how to evaluate the conduct, getting loan after cheating a loan guarantee, by criminal law. Similarities exist among contract fraud, contract disputes, civil fraud and other economic crimes. The key to identify contract fraud is whether one party has deceived or defraud the other party and has illegal possession purpose in the process of implementation of the contract, and whether the conduct results in a serious social harm. The main distinction of contract fraud,loan fraud and fraudulent loans sin are as follows, the subjective, the object and the criminal target. In my opinion, Mr. Yu's conduct constitutes a crime, because Mr. Yu had the purpose of illegal possession and had subjective cheat on guarantees company to sign a'guaranteed contract'with the bank, which belongs to section 224 setting out in paragraph (5) Article in Penal Code,that is, other conducts to cheat the other party's property and result in serious social harm. Mr. Yu's conduct did not constitute the loan fraud, because the conduct did not infringe the property ownership of the bank or financial order or national financial institutions, and there is no provision that the unit can be the subject of loan fraud in Criminal law. Mr. Yu's conduct did not constitute fraudulent loans sin, because it did not comply with the subjective components of the crime. Mr. Yu's conduct is consistent with the four elements and substance of the crime of contract fraud.