On The Understanding And Application Of Three Counts Of Crime Of Illegal Business Operations

Article 225 of the Criminal Law,In such a legislative era,which is based on "general preventionism," it is widely applied in judicial practice.It contains a blank count of "violation of state regulations," and the content and scope of the first three items are broader,and the fourth item of similar offences does not reduce the scope of regulation again.The highly abstract guilty provisions make it illegal.As a result,the guilt of incriminating crimes has become increasingly large,making the crime of illegal business known as the “pocket crime” in the academic circles.Recently,two cases that have attracted attention have been the case of farmers in Inner Mongolia acquiring corn and the nation’s first case of “ant consumption”.The contending of these two cases once again brought the crime of illegal business back into public view.With the development of the times,the emergence of new payment methods,whether new or old,have challenged “interpretation”,and how to interpret it becomes crucial.This will have a very important impact on judicial practice.The "contravening state regulations","illegal engagement in fund payment and settlement services",and "other illegal business activities that seriously disrupt market order" involved in the case are crucial to the understanding of the three contents.Systemic links and roles.Starting from the case issue,it is divided into three parts,which are to understand and apply to “violation of state regulations”,“illegal engagement in payment and settlement services”,and “other illegal business activities that seriously disrupt market order”.Cases are also discussed in various parts due to their links and disputes with different parts.For the “blank violation of state regulations” for blank counts,there are legislative provisions and corresponding judicial interpretations.In the judicial practice process,the scope of “state regulations” should strictly follow the legislative provisions,and the interpretation of department rules as “state regulations” should not be interpreted.It is inappropriate to limit the “state regulations” to the narrow interpretation of the law and to conflict with legislation;at the same time,the provisions of criminal penalties should be included in the above non-criminal normative documents.The “illegal funds payment and settlement business” should be interpreted correctly.All along,misunderstandings have made it difficult to question whether the use of credit cards to cash out and use the “ant hua wan” case to interpret it as an illegal business crime.Regarding the “all other illegal business activities that seriously disturb the market order” in the pocket-sized clause,similar interpretation rules should be applied,and the judicial judicial explanations given by the judicial authorities should be used as a precondition for the application of judicial practice to avoid exceeding the existing scope.