Research On The Fraud Case Of Xu Et Al

Theft and fraud have their own characteristics in the composition of the crime,there is generally no distinction problem,but with the development and progress of economic and scientific technology,the perpetrators in the implementation of the crime,the means used by them gradually from simple,single characteristics to complex,diverse features.The perpetrator may take both secret theft and "fictitious facts,conceal the truth" means of behavior,such a way to make the distinction between the crime of theft and fraud blurred.Behavior is the basic concept of criminal law,the crime of theft and fraud should be distinguished by the main means used by the perpetrator to obtain the property or decisive factors to determine,that is,the main way the perpetrator obtained the property is secretly stolen or fraudulent means to obtain.The key factor to distinguish between the two crimes is whether the victim has the act of disposition,and whether the victim has the sense of disposition when disposing of the property provides the basic path to determine whether it constitutes theft or fraud.The coupons are provided by merchants for the purpose of making more profits and can be regarded as property interests in criminal law.With the emergence of malicious "wool-gathering" behavior in practice,it is imperative to classify and regulate such behavior.In the case of Xu and other fraud cases,the controversy between the public prosecutor,the defense and the judiciary centered on whether the act of the perpetrator was an act of theft or fraud and whether the victim had a sense of disposition and disposal.After analyzing the case,the article concludes that Xu took advantage of the system’s discontinuity to make the "person" behind the system fall into a misconception,and use the misconception to cause the victim company’s loss,and Xu’s behavior should belong to deception,which is consistent with the characteristics of the crime of fraud.The act of disposition is an important factor to distinguish the crime of theft and fraud,and there are different views in the academic field as to whether the act of disposition is required to establish the crime of fraud.The article believes that in order to establish the crime of fraud,there must be an act of disposition,and the act of disposition functions as a link between the deceived person’s misconception and the perpetrator’s acquisition of the property,and the act of disposition is an important factor in distinguishing crime from non-crime,so it is more reasonable to say that the act of disposition is necessary.In addition,in the case of intertwined theft and deception,whether the crime of fraud can be established as long as the transfer of property possession occurs,or whether the subjective and objective unity is required to constitute,whether the victim has a sense of disposition becomes very critical.Therefore,after discussing the do-not-dispose theory and the necessity theory,the article believes that the necessity theory is more reasonable.