Research On The Judicial Cognizance Path Of "Illegal Possession Purpose" Of Fund-raising Fraud

The crime of fund-raising fraud is the most common and most difficult type of case in the field of financial crime in recent years.The key to handling such cases in judicial practice is how to distinguish between crime and non-crime,this crime and the other crime."Illegal possession purpose" is criminal law.The prescribed subjective aspects of the crime of fund-raising fraud constitute an important distinction between the crime of fund-raising fraud and other crimes of financial fraud.In practice,the public prosecutor's office basically presumes based on the relevant judicial interpretation of the "illegal possession purpose" of the crime of fund-raising fraud.Whether the perpetrator has the purpose of "illegal possession",but because of inductive and probable behavioral presumptions,there are logical flaws in the logic,and due to the level of professional quality of judicial personnel in practice,there is also a great understanding of the specific elements of the behavior model.The differences in qualitative cases often occur in practice,which not only impacts the traditional theory of criminal law,but also leads to qualitative deviations in cases and imbalances in sentencing in judicial practice,resulting in judicial injustice.In the first part,this article introduces the current judicial status of fund-raising fraud cases across the country,and the practice of handling fund-raising fraud cases from the country to the judicial authorities in Guangzhou City,and summarizes the characteristics of the cases of fund-raising fraud cases in judicial practice.The legal basis followed by the "purpose" is constantly evolving and developing,but there are still many contradictions between the changes in the objective basis and the actual judicial practice.This is the key reason why the current judicial organs encounter difficulties in handling fundraising fraud cases.In the second part,this article takes 20 sample cases of fund-raising fraud in Guangzhou as the starting point.These 20 cases are not only representative ofjudicial practice,but also have certain issues and controversy.Based on this,the author analyzes the purpose of "illegal possession" of fund-raising fraud."The basic approach of judicial identification and considerations,and a detailed analysis of the theoretical and practical reasons for the judicial presumption.In the third part,based on the above practical analysis,the author puts the issue at the level of theoretical controversy,and further explores the connotation of "illegal possession purpose",the related content of "illegal possession purpose" of the crime of fundraising fraud and the theoretical dispute of the elements of judicial identification.At the end of this article,based on a comprehensive discussion,this paper explores the perfect path of judicial identification of the "illegal possession purpose" of the crime of fundraising fraud.First of all,the basic principles of subjective and objective unity that judicial identification should follow are defined.Second,the premise is based on presumption and supplemented by contradiction.The presumption rules of Judicature make the path of judicial determination more rigorous.Finally,it emphasizes several issues that should be paid attention to under the current model of judicial presumption.This article discusses the structure with judicial practice as the starting point,traces its roots,analyzes the causes of problems at the practical and theoretical levels,reveals the basic principles,reasonable paths,and considerations that should be followed in determining the "illegal possession purpose" of the crime of fundraising fraud,and insists on Under the framework of traditional criminal law theory,the application of strict judicial presumption standards accurately grasps the various factors such as the time when the "illegal possession purpose" was generated,the specific method of fundraising,and the use of fundraising funds,in order to achieve proof sufficient to rule out reasonable doubt.To gradually establish a systematic and institutional judicial identification system.