Classification Analysis Of Joint Crimes Of The Withdrawal Behavior In Telecommunications Fraud

In the crime of telecommunication fraud,there are disputes between the crime of fraud and the crime of concealing and concealing the proceeds of crime in criminal trial and criminal law theory.This paper first clarifies the prerequisites of the Withdrawal behavior to establish a joint crime of fraud,starting from the behavior of withdrawals that are not the perpetrating act of the fraud,and use the terminal time of the practicing behavior of fraud as the demarcation point,the withdrawal person is classified according to the time when the withdrawal person joins the telecommunications fraud criminal activity and the withdrawal person’s awareness level of the amount of money received.Secondly,in the academic analysis of the withdrawal behavior,the form of participation in the joint crime of telecommunications fraud,to establish a boundary for the establishment of fraud joint crime.This article starts from the concept of restricting the perpetrator and the accomplice from the attribute,and this paper analyzes the situations of the co-perpetrator,accomplice and non-accomplice of the crime of fraud.Finally,the paper analyzes the participation degree of the behavior of withdrawal in the joint crime of telecommunications fraud,and investigates the identification standard of the main and accomplice of the withdrawals who set up the joint crime of fraud in judicial practice.This paper puts forward a relatively reasonable standard of judgment for the criminal discretion of judicial practice to solve the withdrawal behavior.This article is divided into four parts to discuss.In the first part,this paper argues that the act of withdrawal is not the perpetrating of the crime of fraud,but the follow-up act to ensure the illegal interests of the purpose of realizing the profit of the telecommunications fraud activities.Therefore,the withdrawal person is required to bear the criminal responsibility of fraud,and there is a causal relationship between the withdrawal requirement and the fraudulent practice or result.The judgment of the withdrawal person when intervening in telecommunications fraud activities becomes the key.In the crime of fraud,because after the defendant’s end of the perpetrating act,the crime has been accomplished,so the last point at which a withdrawal person intervenes in a wire fraud the criminal activities of telecommunications fraud is before the crime is accomplished.It is appropriate to use the "out of control theory" as the accomplished standard of fraud.When the victim transfers money to the account designated by the telecommunications fraud group,the bank in fact controls the fraudulent money,and the victim loses control of the property to be cheated.At this time,the crime of telecommunications fraud has been completed.(In the case of the victim transferring money through an ATM,the completion time of the telecommunications fraud crime is 24 hours later)There is a time difference between the time when the fraud is accomplished and the terminal time of the practicing behavior of fraud.During this period,the fraud group and the withdrawal person do not have any behavior.Therefore,the withdrawal person should intervene in the telecommunications fraud activity before the end of the practicing behavior of fraud.In the judicial practice,there are many different types of withdrawal person in the telecommunications fraud,and should be classified and analyzed.Firstly,this paper takes the time when the withdrawal person participates in the telecommunications fraud activity as the standard,and divides the withdrawal person who joined the telecommunications fraud activities before the victim remittance and the withdrawal person who joined the telecommunications fraud activities before the victim remittance.On the basis of the previous classification standard,then,according to the withdrawal person’s cognition of the withdrawal item,further classifies the withdrawal persons,which are divided into nine typical withdrawal person and correspond to different withdrawal behaviors.The second part,this paper discusses the situation in which the withdrawal person establishes the complicity of telecommunications conspiring to commit.The act of withdrawal is not belong to the perpetrating of the crime of fraud,it could be the complicity co-perpetrator of fraud.This paper holds that the key to the establishment of the crime of fraud is that there is a collusion between the withdrawal person and the telecommunication fraud group.The conspiracy relationship should be determined from subjective and objective aspects.The defendant should have the meaning of common practice subjectively,so,in common sense,common feeling,and common reason the behavior of others can be treated as their own behavior.Objectively,it is necessary to appraise the behavior of the withdrawal person who colludes but does not share the perpetrating act as the degree of "act of perpetrating" of the crime of fraud.In the third part,this paper analyzes the situation in which the confirming of the the accomplice of fraud and the Non-joint crime of fraud."Knowingly" provisions belong to the attention of the provisions,the necessary condition for the accomplice of the crime of fraud is that the cognizant item of the withdrawal is the income from fraud and the criminal agreement with the telecommunication fraud group to help the withdrawal.The causal relationship between the withdrawal behavior and the fraud result is shown in that the withdrawal person promises to withdraw the money after the fact,which eliminates the worry that the telecommunication fraud group is caught due to the withdrawal and strengthens the criminal determination of the telecommunication fraud group.The intention of the crime of fraud between the withdrawal person and the fraud group must be clear.It is important to note that,in the context of indirect counsel,to help fraud withdrawals as the content of the crime although it does not have to be stated directly,but must make the withdrawal person has clear understanding,otherwise,the act of withdrawing money does not constitute an accomplice of fraud.In the fourth part,On the basis of examining the criteria for the determination of the principal and the accomplice of the withdrawal person who establishes the joint crime of telecommunication fraud in judicial practice,this paper proposes a relatively reasonable criteria for the identification of principal and accessory offender.This paper believes that the judge should place the withdrawal behavior in the whole process of telecommunication fraud activities to determine whether the withdrawal person is the principal offender.Withdrawal behavior is the most critical link to realize the purpose of illegal profit in the whole telecommunication fraud activity.However,the withdrawal behavior’s role in the fraud crime result is only in the prior commitment to withdraw funds after successful telecommunications fraud,the promise of the withdrawal person just eliminates the psychological concern of the fraud group.Therefore,it should be considered that the role of the withdrawal behavior is small,in addition to the organization of the withdrawal person of the principal offender of fraud,all other types of withdrawals for the crime of fraud accomplice.At the same time,the role of peer-to-peer complicity co-perpetrator and the withdrawal persons of the leader of the withdrawal team is larger than that of the general withdrawal persons,and sentencing should be reflected.