Research On Judicial Identification Of P2P Network Loan Fund Fraud

P2P online lending belongs to the Internet financial industry supported by the state.It has important strategic value in solving the shortage of funds for small and micro enterprises and serving the real economy.At the same time,however,the relevant regulatory system is not perfect,and industry norms have not yet taken shape.P2 P online lending has gradually alienated in development and has spawned a series of criminal problems such as illegal absorption of public deposits and fund-raising fraud.Due to the lack of sufficient understanding of the P2 P platform operation mode and the targeted legal norms,the judicial practice of the illegal fund-raising crimes in the P2 P online loan field is more confusing,and there is a big dispute over the crimes and non-crimes,the crime and the crime of the crime..Therefore,this paper attempts to analyze the many difficulties in the judicial recognition of the crime of fund-raising fraud on the P2 P platform from the perspective of the typical “Zhongda Fortune Case”,and clarifies the illegal fund-raising behavior,illegal possession purposes and units in the crime of fund-raising fraud.The logic of the identification of crimes provides a reference for the judicial authorities to determine the crimes of similar cases in the future.In addition to the introduction,references,and acknowledgments,this article includes the following four parts:The first part introduces the basic situation of the case and summarizes the disagreement and focus of the dispute.First of all,in this case,Gan and others set up the Zhongda Fortune P2 P Network Financial Management Platform(hereinafter referred to as “Zhongda Fortune”)in the name of Huanyu Company.In the course of operation,in order to obtain the corresponding investment and fictitious borrowing targets,whether the behavior should be evaluated as ordinary fraud or illegal fundraising is the first dispute point in this case.Secondly,Gan mainly used the fund-raising funds to repay the debts of the individual's name,but the debts are closely related to the company's production and operation activities.Can it be determined that Gan will not be used for production and operation activities or for production and operation activities after raising funds? It is obviously disproportionate to the scale of raising funds,and it is presumed that its possession of illegal possession is the second point of dispute in this case.Furthermore,since the relevant fund-raising decisions in this case were made by Huanyu Company,its external fund-raising behavior was also made in the name of “Zhongda Fortune” platform.Whether the illegal fund-raising behavior can be recognized as unit crime is the third dispute in this case.point.The second part analyzes the legal issues related to the dispute.First of all,the first point of controversy essentially involves the distinction between fraud and fund-raising fraud,and the distinction between the two is based on the judgment of illegal fund-raising.This requires clear “illegal,” “open,” and “inducing.The basic logic of "sex" and "sociality" in judicial determination.Secondly,the second point of controversy is essentially the boundary point between the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits and the crime of fund-raising fraud,that is,the specific judgment on the purpose of “illegal possession”.Furthermore,the third point of dispute involves the judicial determination of unit crimes.Therefore,it is necessary to judge whether the unit's will,whether it reflects the unit's will,or whether it is the unit's interests,while judging the subject's qualifications.standard.The third part analyzes the case and gives conclusions.In this case,Gan's behavior is illegal,tempting,open and social,and his behavior should be characterized as “illegal fund-raising behavior” and does not constitute fraud.Secondly,its act of repaying debts belongs to production and business activities,subjectively does not have the purpose of illegal possession,and does not constitute a crime of fund-raising fraud.Finally,the illegal fund-raising behavior in this case does not have the unit will,and it is a natural person crime conducted in the name of the unit,which does not constitute a unit crime.In summary,in this case,Gan and others should be recognized as natural persons for the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits.The fourth part is the research enlightenment of this case.The legal analysis of the difficult problems in the case reveals the real dilemma faced by similar cases.At the moment of the rapid development of Internet finance,criminal law has its practical necessity in the field,but it should maintain a prudent attitude and reflect the modestness of criminal law.The emergence of many problems in the process of judicial recognition highlights the urgency of perfecting the criminal law norms and interpretation systems for illegal fundraising on P2 P platforms.In addition,in order to achieve financial market stability and guarantee the win-win situation of Internet financial innovation,we should learn from foreign governance experience,explore diversified governance methods,and promote the steady and orderly development of Internet financial markets including P2 P online lending industry.