On The Limits Of The Crime Of Raising Funds Fraud And The Crime Of Illegal Public Deposits

In judicial practice,there is a certain overlap between the crime of raising funds and the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits in the objective and objective aspects of the crime,so it is not easy to distinguish them in form.Due to the standards for determining the distinction between the two crimes,the current laws and judicial interpretations are still incomplete,which makes it difficult to distinguish between the two crimes in practice,especially for fund-raising cases involving a large number of people involved in the establishment of joint crimes.Defendants may also be convicted for different subjective purposes,which greatly increases the difficulty of convicting judicial personnel.At the same time,the crime of fund-raising fraud is significantly higher than the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits.Therefore,the essential difference between the two crimes is grasped,the two crimes are accurately distinguished,and the defendant is reasonably convicted,thereby realizing the relative responsibilities of punishment and punishment.Adaptation is particularly important.This article is a case-analysis-type master's thesis.The focus of the dispute in this case is sorted out through analysis of the case: Shi Moumou and Xuan Moumou constitute the crime of fundraising fraud or the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits.Based on a theoretical analysis of the characteristics and differences between the two elements of the two crimes,combined with the facts of the case,it is concluded that Shi Moumou and Xi Moumou constitute the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits.Aiming at the problems of the two crimes boundary identification standards that emerged in the process of resolving the focus of the dispute,that is,the identification standards of the "illegal possession purpose" in the two crimes boundary are vague and the identification method is single,and clearer and more reasonable suggestions are proposed: New explanations were issued to clarify the identification standards;secondly,to reasonably define the time node for the purpose of illegal possession;thirdly,to distinguish fraud from the identification of subjective purposes;fourthly,to strengthen the counter-verification standards for identification and to establish a two-way identification system.