Research On Criminal Law Recognition Of Privately Selling Unit Borrowed Car

In recent years,the advent of the era of information big data has become a roadblock for criminals.Whether it is real estate registration or fund transfer or fund trading,it will invisibly leave indelible marks.In order to circumvent legal responsibilities,more and more criminals have adopted more subtle behaviors,especially in bribery crimes,and new types of bribery are emerging.For example,the transfer of property at a price below the market price,accepting bribes afterwards,accepting bribes in the form of dry shares,accepting bribes in the form of gambling,accepting bribes by specific stakeholders,and accepting bribes without altered ownership.The common purpose of these new types of bribery is to change the conventional two-way acceptance type of bribery mode,adopt the covert crimes and even the methods that cannot be verified through the existing technical means to conduct the money transaction,and to avoid the investigation.The emergence of various new types of bribery has made the lag of the law particularly obvious.As a result,some new methods of bribery cannot find legal support.Therefore,many cases are highly controversial in terms of qualitative,and often cause intense competition in the theoretical circle.There may also be inconsistencies in judicial practice.This article starts with the case that the state organs false borrow the vehicle from the management object for the long-term use and then sell it.Through the analysis of the case,the long-term borrowing behavior and the criminal law nature of the selling behavior are deeply analyzed.At the same time of discussion,it can provide guidance and help for the uniform identification of the same type of cases in judicial practice.The full text is divided into four parts,totally about 21000 words.The first part is the basic situation of the case.In this part,the basic situation of the case is introduced in detail,and based on the understanding difference in the qualitative and the determination of the number of crimes,three controversial focus are presented: Firstly,Mr.Luo and Mr.Li asked the management object for the vehicle for unit use is a personal behavior or a unit behavior? Secondly,the vehicle has not undergone ownership change,how to qualify the long-term borrowing behavior? Thirdly,Mr.Luo and Mr.Li asked the management object for the vehicle for unit use then sell it after it has been used for more than a year,is this behavior a sin or a number of crimes? This part is to ask questions about the case itself.The second part is the legal analysis of related problems.This part is to analyze and discuss the divergent opinions and disputes involved in the case.This part is mainly divided into three points: Firstly,unit supervisors ask the management object for the vehicle for unit use is a personal behavior or a unit behavior? Secondly,the vehicle has not undergone ownership change,how to qualify the long-term borrowing behavior? Thirdly,unit supervisors ask the management object for the vehicle for unit use then sell it,is this behavior a sin or a number of crimes?The third part is the analysis and conclusion of this case.Through in-depth analysis of the three issues involved in the controversy focus,the crime and the number of crimes are clarified,and the case is analyzed or demonstrated by whether the behavior of the perpetrator belongs to a continuous behavior or a number of behaviors.In this case,the conclusion is that the perpetrator constituted the unit accepting bribes and corruption.The fourth part is the research enlightenment.Through the analysis of the case,this part is mainly pointed out the reasons for such a series of cases and local courts' different determinations,is that the standard of legal norms are not clear,the determination of the standard is not uniform and so on.At last,the author puts forward three suggestions for the problems in judicial practice.Hope to be able to form more uniform and clear normative standard in the legislation,unify the definiteness of such cases in judicial practice,strengthen the efforts in publicizing and preventing duty crime,so as to make more state functionaries recognize the nature of the new bribery behavior,then to prevent and reduce the emergence of duty crime.