Research On The Judicial Identification Of "routine Loan" Crime

"Routing loans" is a new type of criminal activity that has recently appeared in various places,and it is also the target of the major punishment for the current special campaign of anti-crime activities.This crime involves many crimes,which poses a great threat or damage to the legal benefits protected by criminal law.Moreover,the crime usually covers the criminal’s criminal purpose with the appearance of civil loans,which makes it difficult for judicial officers to determine the crime.At the same time,scholars also believe that "routine loan" is a criminal act that is different from usury and folk debt collection.The phased behavior of crimes violates different legal interests.We must adhere to the principle of statutory punishment for criminals.However,some judicial personnel insist that all criminals who are suspected of "routing loans" should be held accountable for the crime of fraud in accordance with the mechanical misconception.Therefore,it is of great significance to study the judicial identification of "routing loans".It can theoretically explore the behavioral characteristics and establishment conditions of the crime,and it can also provide reference options for judicial practice.The identification of "routine loans" requires judicial personnel to implement the criminal policy of leniency and strictness,to safeguard human rights on the basis of the legal principle of criminal punishment,and to play the role of criminal law punishment and crime prevention.Crime prevention is the core function of criminal policy.The implementation of the criminal policy of leniency and strictness can achieve the effect of crime prevention through judicial identification.To achieve leniency,we must be lenient and lenient,and strict and rigorous.We do not criminalize behaviors that are not harmful to society.Violations of legal interests protected by criminal law are punished according to law.If the state’s right to punishment is restricted to protect human rights,and the conduct does not meet the constituent elements of a crime,the judicial organs shall not hold the criminal responsibilityof the perpetrators.At present,the judiciary blurs the boundaries between civil behavior and criminal crimes,and emphasizes the strict crackdown on crimes.The offenders advocate multiple punishments after committing multiple crimes,ignoring the causes of the crimes and the effect of punishment execution on curbing the crime.At the same time,judicial personnel in different regions grasped the different scales of criminal policies,and the results of different judgments in the same case appeared.Judging from the basic rules of judicial determination of "routine loans",the provisions of judicial interpretation are not particularly detailed.In order to provide a clearer operational identification standard,the following aspects can be considered: first,the offenders constitute accomplices Members have a clear division of labor and cooperate with the process of completing the crime.Secondly,the purpose of the offender is to illegally possess the property of others,not to obtain economic benefits through legitimate civil acts.Third,the criminal seduced the victim into signing a loan contract,and later claiming creditor’s rights through illegal acts of threats,threats,illegal detention,and false lawsuits.In the end,the criminal gains obtained by the offenders are very different from the costs of the crimes,causing the victims to have high debts and huge mental pressure,or other results that obviously violate common sense.The identification of "routine loans" must meet all the requirements of the subject,purpose,behavior,and result.Otherwise,the behavior may constitute a general illegal act,or it may be some kind of crime prescribed by criminal law.