On The Nature Of The Information Provided In The Crime Of Telecom Fraud

There are some controversial opinions about the nature of the information provider’s behavior of providing citizens’ personal information in the crime of telecommunication fraud in the theoretical circle,including two opinions,that is,purely trading or unconditionally providing information,and that is,helping telecommunication fraud.The existence of disputes over the nature of acts also leads to disputes over the identification of charges of providing citizens’ personal information in judicial practice.In order to provide citizen’s personal information,some actors were sentenced to infringe on citizen’s personal information,some were identified as accomplices in the crime of fraud,and others proposed that they should be sentenced to help information network crime.In order to solve these disputes,we must first settle the disputes about the nature of the act of providing citizens’ personal information.In fact,the nature of the act of providing citizens’ personal information in the crime of telecommunication fraud cannot be generalized.The two nature of disputes are both possible and should be judged according to the specific circumstances of the case.There are three main reasons for disputes of nature:1.different understanding of whether providing information is an act or a substance;2.unclear boundaries of different purposes of providing information;3.different understanding of whether providing information belongs to joint crime.In the text the three issues will be discussed in detail.Although the causes of disputes over the nature of the act of providing information are analyzed,specific ways should be found to judge the nature of the act.There are also different opinions on the judgment methods of the nature of the act.Some people advocate using the purpose of the act to make judgments,while others advocate using the starting point of the act to make judgments.The author thinks that it is most reasonable to use the purpose of behavior to judge,because the purpose of behavior can best reflect the essence of behavior.By finding out whether the information providers are aiming at helping Telecom fraud or only at dealing and personal feelings,we can judge the different nature of information-providing behavior.The judgement of nature is ultimately to solve the disputes of charges in practice.How to convict the act of providing citizens’ personal information in the crime of telecommunication fraud is the ultimate problem to be solved.In fact,we can make a preliminary judgement according to the nature of the judged act:if the provision of information is only an act of transaction or unconditional provision,because the Criminal Law restricts the sale and provision of citizens’ personal information,the infringement of citizens’ personal information by information providers is one of the provisions of Article 253.If the provision of information belongs to the help behavior of telecommunication fraud crime,then the behavior of information providers may conform to the crime constitution of the crime of fraud assistant and the crime of aiding information network crime at the same time.Imagine competing to choose a felony to punish.In addition to the information-providing behavior under ordinary circumstances,it is necessary to discuss the identification of charges under two special circumstances:one is that the information provider is the principal offender of telecommunication fraud at the same time,and the other is that the information is obtained illegally before being provided.In practice,information providers may only be intermediaries,or they may be the organizers,planners of telecommunication fraud crimes or those who specifically implement telecommunication fraud.Information providers may be connected with the criminals of telecommunication fraud who obtain information at one end,and the victims of information leakage at the other end,that is to say,the sale of information,the providers may also be the people who obtain information illegally.Discussions on these two special situations are also of great significance to the identification of charges in judicial practice.