Research On The Criminal Law Of Compensation For Demolition And Compensation By Collusion Inside And Outside

In recent years,as the process of urbanization has accelerated,general subjects have colluded with state workers,and criminal cases triggered by the use of state workers' positions to defraud resettlement houses and compensation funds have emerged endlessly.Some of these cases have been found to be embezzlement and fraud in judicial practice,and no consensus has been reached on their nature.With the promulgation of the "Amendment to the Criminal Law(9)",the judicial interpretation adopted the identity conviction for common crime cases in which state officials colluded with general subjects inside and outside to use their positions to facilitate deception for state demolition compensation.This article is a case-analysis article.Taking a city packaging factory demolition case as an example,it conducts an in-depth study.It attempts to discuss the theoretical issues involved in the case,and draw reasonable conclusions.It will provide a certain reference for handling similar cases in future judicial practice..In addition to the introduction and conclusion,the full text consists of four parts.The first part introduces the basic situation of the case,and points out the main points of dispute of the case's divergent opinions.There are three main points of controversy regarding the divergent opinions of the case.One is that the director of the demolition office,An Mou,constitutes corruption or fraud;the other is that the crime between the five directors of the packaging factory factory,Mr.Yan,and An,constitutes an accomplice in corruption,The joint crime of the crime of fraud;Third,the question of how to determine the amount of joint crime between five persons,such as Yan Mou of the packaging factory,and An Mou.The second part mainly analyzes the focus of the dispute in this case,that is,the legal theoretical issues involved in the case.First,judge the difference between the crime of corruption and the crime of fraud.It is not difficult to analyze the constituent elements.The biggest difference between the crime of corruption and the crime of fraud is whether the actor has used the convenience of the job.The method of "scamming" is used to investigate whether Anmou constitutes the crime of corruption.Secondly,it discusses how to identify the nature of a crime when an unidentified person and an unidentified person jointly commit a crime.Finally,discuss the criminal responsibility of the accomplice participants in the joint crime.The third part is the conclusion of this case.The director of the demolition office,An Mou,is a national staff member.His criminal behavior has taken advantage of his office and constituted a crime of corruption.The actions of the factory director Yan Mou and other five persons did not constitute the crime of corruption and the crime of fraud.In this case,An and the five persons from the packaging factory defrauded the state for relocation compensation,which constituted a joint crime,and was convicted of fraud.The amount of crime should be calculated based on the total amount of joint participation,that is,the value of the 4 sets of demolition and resettlement houses that were defrauded,that is,more than 2.8 million yuan.The fourth part is the enlightenment of this case.Through the case analysis and research of the packaging factory demolition case,the general analysis of such cases is summarized.The second and third parts are the focus of this article.Through analysis of the legal theory involved in the focus of the dispute in this case,it provides new ideas for cases involving collusion between the inside and outside to defraud the state for relocation compensation,and hopes to provide some help in the future judicial application.