The Judgment Of The Purpose Of Illegal Possession In The Case Of Swindling The Subsidies In Z

In the case of defendant Jia swindling subsidies of "appliances to the countryside", whether he committed a crime of swindling and its amount become the doubts of the case. And the key to solving the problems is whether Jia had the purpose of illegal possession. Therefore, the judgment of the purpose of illegal possession becomes the research emphasis in this case.In my thesis, I analyze whether the defendant had the purpose of illegal possession from two aspects of substantive law and procedural law. In terms of the constitutive elements of crime, the defendant had the purpose of illegal possession about the subsidies of 6,000 indeed. But whether he had the purpose of illegal possession of the rest of subsidies is a problem, which needs us to use the regulations of presumption, disproof and principle of doubt to reach a reasonable conclusion.First of all, the procurator loses with no doubt basing on the principle of procurators'bearing the burden of proof in the procedure law. However, there is a particularity in the proof of the purpose of illegal possession. We could take the way of "presumption" to transfer the burden of proof over the procurators in the theory and practice, which means that the defendant had the purpose of illegal possession about the 3 million. Secondly, the defendant should be allowed to put forward the disproof, because the presumption is based on the rule of thumb, which is not completely rational and could be overturned. But it's not enough to form the reasonable doubt just with the proof of giving the subsidies to ten farmers. Thus, the principle of the defendant having doubt benefits could not be applied to this case. Finally, the conclusion that the defendant had the purpose of illegal possession about the rest of subsidies can be reached according to the judge's unprompted decision.