On The Identification Of Car Rental Fraud Cases

The case of rental car fraud is a common type of case in judicial practice.It refers to the fact that the actor first obtains the control of the vehicle by signing a lease contract with the leasing company or individual,and then disposes of the obtained vehicle by illegal means in order to obtain illegal benefits.Its mode of action is generally composed of two acts,namely,rental car and dealing with the vehicle,involving the taxi owner,the actor and the car receiver tripartite main body.At present,whether in judicial practice or in theoretical discussion,there are disputes about the identification of car rental fraud cases,and the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case appears in judicial judgment,which seriously damages the judicial authority and credibility.Through sorting out the judicial documents and analyzing the data,we can find that there are four problems in the judicial practice of car rental fraud cases: There are differences in the nature of the case,the identification of the number of crimes,the identification of the amount of crime is not uniform,and the identification of the victim still has objections.To solve the problems in the judicial practice of car rental fraud cases,not only need to study judicial data,but also need to use theoretical analysis,through the theoretical analysis of the problems in judicial practice,combined with the characteristics of car rental fraud cases,clear the focus of disputes,and solve them pertinently.In theory,there are also extensive discussions on the cases of rental car fraud.Some people hold that the former acts constitute the crime of contract fraud,and the act of dealing with the car is not punishable after the event.Correspondingly,the amount of the crime is the value of the vehicle,and the victim is the relative person of the former acts.Some people hold that the former acts constitute the crime of contract fraud,while the latter acts constitute the crime of fraud,and the two acts are related.And continue thinking that the victim is both parties,the amount of crime is the amount of the crime of punishing serious crimes;there are also views that the two acts before and after constitute the crime of contract fraud,the victim is the relative person of the two acts before and after,the amount of crime is the sum of the two acts before and after.Through sorting out the theoretical disputes,it is found that the theoretical differences of the disputes mainly focus on the distinction between the crime of contract fraud and the crime of fraud,the identification of the purpose of illegal possession and the characterization of the behavior after the case of rental car fraud.The crime of contract fraud and fraud are distinguished mainly through the three aspects of the object of transaction,the infringement of legal interests and the connotation of the contract,and the concurrence of the crime of contract fraud.Similarly,it must have the characteristics of market transaction,subject eligibility and irregularity.the purpose of illegal possession also needs to be systematically identified from all aspects through the actor's behavior before,during and after the event.For the latter acts of car rental fraud cases,because they infringe different legal interests and can not be regarded as impunity after the event,they should be criminalized.For the cases of car rental fraud,the latter acts should be dealt with as punishable after the event.The reasonable identification of car rental fraud cases should be: according to the time point of intentional occurrence of crime,car rental fraud cases are divided into car rental fraud cases generated criminal intention before the event and car rental fraud cases generated criminal intention in the event,classified,specific analysis of specific problems.In the cases generated criminal intention before the event,if both acts are committed against individuals,they should be convicted of fraud and punished according to the idea of continuous crime.If both acts are committed against units,they should be convicted of contract fraud and punished according to the idea of continuous crime.If the former and latter acts are committed against units and individuals respectively,the crime of fraud should be convicted for individual criminal acts,contract fraud should be convicted for unit criminal acts,and punished according to the thought of implicated offenders.For the act of intentionally acquiring vehicles only under prior intentional control,and then selling vehicles intentionally,according to the different trading objects,the same or different kinds of crimes should be dealt with separately.In the cases generated criminal intention in the event,if the object of postaction transaction is an individual,it should be dealt with as an imaginary joint offender of embezzlement and fraud.If the object of post-action transaction is a unit,it should be dealt with as an imaginary joint offender of embezzlement and contract fraud.