An Empirical Study On The Distinction Between Crime Of Fraud And Extortion

As for qualitative research on fraudulent and coercive behaviors,the theoretical controversy surrounding fraud crimes and extortion is specifically expressed in the differences between the co-opetition recognition and the co-opetition disagreement.Based on the theory of co-opetition,we can see that the co-opetition recognizes that trying to take into account the dual factors of fraud and coercion but faces the fallacy of jurisprudence that does not conform to the form of crimes.The disagreement of co-opetition shows that the crimes of fraud and extortion say they perform one side and one side.Pure theoretical debate seems to have no benefit in resolving disputes.In view of this,the author has searched 100 relevant legal cases from the magic of pku,and from the perspective of trial practice,explored how such cases were specifically handled in qualitative disputes.According to the sample case searched by the author,the controversy mainly focuses on the four categories of cases: traffic touch porcelain,illegal report,fictional kidnapping,and impersonation.Through the judicial practice of these four categories of cases,we can find that the theory of competition and cooperation between the crime of fraud and extortion in the trial practice still holds the attitude of restrictive application,the behavior of the victim's deceptive tendency to identify fraud,behavior Coercion is heavily biased towards extortion.However,in the process of specific identification,the following problems still cannot be ignored.If certain behaviors have not yet reached the level of "coercion",the act of extorting money is only expanded because of the existence of claims.When the circumstances of the crime do not constitute fraud,and the same circumstances of extortion can be regulated,judicial practice tends to be In the determination of extortion and blackmail,the thought of conviction is more prominent;when the judicial interpretation makes certain provisions such as "may" in the determination of certain cases,the judiciary practice does not consider the nature of the acts to be "should" referees.Machinery applies the discretionary provisions in the judicial interpretation;the lack of uniformity in the specific discretionary standards leads to a very serious phenomenon of co-judgment in the same case.The root of the predicament of dividing two crimes in judicial practice lies in the fact that the crime of fraud and extortion overlaps in themeans of crime.There can be coercive behavior in the crime of fraud,and there can be fraud in the crime of extortion;the psychological reaction of the victim The criteria for recognition are not uniform.Some are based on victims in general,while others are combined with victims in specific cases,and the two are different.Traditional criminal theories believe that the other party commits fraudulent actions and the other party has a wrong understanding and thus If the property is disposed of,fraud is established.The crime of extortion manifests itself in the fact that the perpetrator commits coercive actions against other people and causes the other party to have psychological fear and to dispose of property out of frustration.Whether it is fraud or extortion,the two are similar in the structure of objective behavior and have a direct causal relationship between behavioral means and property disposal.In particular,in situations where there is both fraud and coercion,dividing the specific charge will be overstretched.Excluding the previous discussion of functional construction and further examining the difference in the behavior of the two sins,we can find that in the case of fraud and coercion,the key to the distinction between fraud and extortion is whether the act is fraud or coercion.However,in some cases,when the victim's conduct misrepresents the victim,the victim will also fear the occurrence of evil.If the victim receives false kidnapping calls,she is worried about the authenticity of the abduction and also worried about the safety of the hostage..Is it fraud or intimidation?Whether the content of the fraudulent act can provide a legitimate legal basis for the act of acting as a financial institution can precisely provide quantitative standards for identifying fraud and coercion in the sense of criminal law.When the content defrauded by the perpetrator provides legal justification for the demand for property,the act constitutes fraud;on the contrary,the offence of extortion is established.This division basis not only conforms to the legislative intent,but also has strong operability in specific practices.