Research On The Difficulties Of Judicial Identification Of "Routine Loan" Cases

In recent years,"routine loan" cases have gradually entered the public eye and are showing a trend of increasing incidence year by year.Due to its infringement of the victim’s property and personal rights,and even the violation of judicial order,it is highly likely to cause many serious social problems.Although the Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Criminal Cases of "Routine Loans" implemented in 2019 provide a unified guiding standard for "routine loans" cases,research has found that most of the current judicial interpretation provide guiding and principled provisions from the macro level,and the legal application still faces great challenges.This article summarizes the basic concepts,stage characteristics,behavioral patterns,and occurrence characteristics of "routine loan" cases in judicial practice.After data statistics and case analysis,it is found that there are many difficulties in actual disposal.Therefore,countermeasures are proposed around the difficulties identified in practice to help judicial authorities better handle "routine loan" cases.At present,the main controversy.in the determination of "routine loan" cases is focused on the determination of charges,especially the crimes of fraud and false litigation.Firstly,in response to the controversy over the nature of the behavior of the victim(borrower)who knowingly borrows money through "scams" and the difficulty in distinguishing between fraud and intimidation in the crime of extortion,a unified standard for determining fraud should be adhered to first,and it should not be determined by exceeding the constitutive requirements of fraud simply because their fraudulent behavior is in a "scam loan" case,By strengthening the consideration of objective characteristics to infer whether the purpose of illegal possession is achieved,and by examining in detail the extent to which the victim has fallen into erroneous understanding,it can help to accurately apply the crime of fraud,thereby avoiding excessive intervention in criminal law regulations;Secondly,for the combination of fraud and intimidation in the case of "routine loan "to achieve the purpose of illegal possession,a distinction should be made based on both the subjective and objective criteria to accurately distinguish between the crime of fraud and the crime of extortion.Secondly,in response to the difficulties in determining the crime of false litigation,such as the subjective malignancy and strong corrosion of judicial purity of "partially tampered" false litigation behavior,the possibility of constituting the crime of false litigation should not be completely ruled out;The use of litigation to achieve creditor’s rights mainly involves the overall evaluation of the establishment of creditor’s rights and the implementation of creditor’s rights stage behavior.If it is used as a means to achieve the purpose of illegal possession,it should be recognized as a crime of fraud as a whole.If it cannot form a whole with previous fraudulent behavior,it should be recognized as a crime of false litigation.