Research On The Judicial Cognizance Of The Crime Of Fund-raising Fraud

In recent years,the crime of fund-raising fraud has shown a trend of rapid growth,and its destructive power and influence have increased geometrically.The amendment to the criminal law(11)has revised and improved the article of the law,but the crime itself still has a certain degree of legislative ambiguity,"illegal possession for the purpose","fraud method","social public","fraud amount" and other constituent elements are ambiguous,the judges have great discretion,and the recognition standards are not unified.Therefore,in order to give full play to the legislative purpose of the criminal law amendment(11),we must clarify the applicable boundaries of this crime.In addition to the preface,the research content of this paper includes the following contents:The first chapter,combined with relevant legal theories,reveals the reality,basic characteristics and legal application problems of the judicial determination of the crime of fund-raising fraud.At the same time,by clarifying the theoretical differences in the process of judicial determination,it makes a research comparison and theoretical basis for the later judicial practice research.The second chapter,based on 293 judicial documents,finds that there are many differences between the procuratorial organ,the defense and the judicial organ on the crime of fund-raising fraud,which brings great difficulties to the judicial identification.Especially after the outbreak of some controversial cases such as the "Wuying case",the identification of the crime of fund-raising fraud was once in hot debate.As the crime of fund-raising fraud has some big or small disputes in the aspects of "illegal possession purpose","fraud method","social public" and "fund-raising amount",there may be some problems in the fight against private fund-raising activities,which will be detrimental to the financing activities of private enterprises.The third chapter analyzes the main difficulties in the current identification from the specific performance of theory and practice,and reflects on the existing identification problems,which mainly exist in the following aspects: first,the identification of "illegal possession purpose" adopts the method of presumption when identifying the basic facts,fails to achieve the consistency between subjective and objective,there are differences in the identification of basic facts,and the scope of presumption is too large;Second,the identification of "fraud methods" is not suitable for development;Third,there are some problems in the identification of "object scope",such as confusion between the object scope of the crime of fund-raising fraud and the object scope of the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits,misunderstanding of the scope of a specific majority,etc;Fourth,the identification of "fund-raising amount" has not been clearly specified.The fourth chapter puts forward the following suggestions through the analysis of the relevant constitutive elements;First of all,we should prudently identify the "purpose of illegal possession",put forward the principle of consistent subjectivity and objectivity for the identification of the purpose of illegal possession,identify it with the relevant standards of "excluding meaning" and "using meaning",and propose to establish a reverse identification standard.For the identification of "fraud methods",we should first measure the basic facts,then measure whether we have fallen into a wrong understanding,and finally gradually explore the principle of relief priority.As for the identification of "social public",suggestions are given for the main existing problems,first,from the subjective attitude,second,from the object of raising funds,third,from the way of raising funds,and how to identify "raising funds from the social public" in three types of cases.At the same time,it analyzes the disputes on the standard of "fraud amount",and puts forward the standards on how to identify the "fraud amount".First,it is suggested to determine the identification principle and method according to the evidence on file,and second,it is calculated according to the time determined by the purpose of illegal possession in specific cases.