Identification Of Behaviors To Help Cashiers In Telecommunication Network Fraud

Telecommunication network fraud crimes have become a common type of crime at present,and the development of science and technology has also provided opportunities for criminals.Vigorously combating telecommunication network fraud crimes is a current urgent task.Joint crimes are divided into pre-complicit joint crimes and pre-complicit joint crimes.There is not much controversy in the practice of helping the beneficiary in fraudulent telecommunication network fraud,and there is no pre-complicit telecommunication network.However,there are difficulties in determining the behavior of helping withdrawing money in fraud crimes.Although the 2016 High School and High School published the "Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Telecommunications Fraud Cases",the provisions on the subjective perception of relevant actors are not clear,and there are also different discussions in the academic circles on the standard of criminal completion.Searching the relevant judgment documents shows that: for the same act of helping the extractor in the fraud of the telecommunication network,some judgment documents determine the common crime of fraud,and some judgment documents determine the crime of obstructing judicial crimes to cover up and conceal the proceeds of crime.There are different judgments and rulings that directly determine the crime of fraud and punish the crime of fraud and concealing and concealing the number of crimes.To solve the above problems,we should proceed from the practice of telecommunications network fraud crime,take the literature research method and empirical research method as the main research method,and on the basis of in-depth understanding of relevant judicial interpretations and theoretical analysis of doctrine,clarify different withdrawal behaviors in telecommunications network fraud crime Types and transfer models,unified doctrine standards for crimes such as crimes of fraud and other property crimes,determine the time point of the establishment of the joint crime in the joint crime and the responsibility of the latter actor,discuss the subjective cognition of helping the drawer to constitute a joint crime,With a view to establishing,to a certain extent,criminal identification standards for helping withdrawing money in telecommunications network fraud.First of all,the inherited accomplice theory mainly solves the problem of how to determine and assume responsibility for actors who join in the context of no prior conspiracy.For the theory of succession of accomplices,there is no need to promote affirmation,negation,or intermediate theory,but a comprehensive discussion in terms of time and responsibility.At the point of time,it tends to negate the point of view.In addition to continuing to commit,the successor accomplice can only exist before the crime is completed.In the absence of prior conspiracy,an accomplice who does not constitute a crime of fraud by helping a beneficiary to join the crime after the completion of the crime should be treated as a crime of disguising or concealing the proceeds of crime.In terms of assuming responsibility,it should also tend to negate the point of view,and the latter actor is not liable for the results caused by the behavior of the former actor before participation.Secondly,the crime of fraud should use "control theory" as the standard of criminal accomplishment.In general,telecom network fraud crimes are divided into a first-level card model and a multi-level card model in practice.In the first-level card model,the victim should be deemed to have committed a crime by remitting the fraudulent money into the account provided by the perpetrator.However,in the multi-level card model,when the victim transfers the fraudulent money to the account provided by the actor,the actor cannot fully control the funds,and needs to help the drawer to transfer the funds to the second-level card and the third-level card to withdraw.At this time,the crime is completed.Thirdly,when assisting the extractor to join the crime,there is no requirement of pre-collusion with the predecessor,as long as the standard of "knowingly" is met,as long as it helps the extractor knowing that the predecessor engages in illegal and criminal activities and still helps to withdraw money,Accomplished as anaccomplice in fraud.Finally,for criminals who have helped withdrawing money multiple times in a row,after the first crime is completed,helping withdrawing constitutes the crime of concealing and concealing the proceeds of crime.The next act of helping withdrawing should reach the standard of "conspiracy",which is to help the extractor and fraud only if the principal of the crime has a clear language or written meaning will it constitute an accomplice to the crime of fraud.For the above-mentioned assisted withdrawers who have been found to have concealed or concealed the proceeds of crime and fraud for several consecutive times of assisting withdrawing,they shall be punished with several crimes.The above is in line with the basic principles of inheriting accomplices in joint crimes and the principle of adaptation of crimes and punishments.At the same time,it can clarify the boundary between the crimes of fraud and concealing and concealing the proceeds of crime.To avoid the appearance of minor punishment for minor crimes.