A Qualitative Study On The Case Of Insurance Sales Staff’s Surrender

For many cases of non-state insurance company salesmen falsely claiming customers’ insurance refund in social life,the cases are mainly divided into two types of behavior: fictitious customers’ insurance refund falsely claiming and using customers’ insurance refund falsely claiming.Such cases are cross civil and criminal cases.Although the criminal facts are relatively simple,how to characterize the behavior? There are theories of job occupation and fraud in the practical field.However,there are disputes about the victims in the fraud theory.Some courts believe that the victims are insurance companies,and some courts believe that the victims are customers.Under the requirement of the Supreme People’s Court that similar cases should be judged at the same time,the practice of the practice circle is incompatible with this requirement.In practice,some courts have not fully defined the customer’s withdrawal as fraud.From the description of the case,it can be seen that the behavior of the actor meets the constitutive requirements of theft.What causes such a huge difference in the nature of such cases? That is,the distinction between the crime of duty embezzlement,the crime of fraud and the crime of theft is unclear,leading to qualitative differences.In the case where the actor used the surrender to claim the surrender money fraudulently,there was no reasonable use of the relevant theories of the civil system to determine the rights and obligations of the relevant parties.Therefore,according to the needs of the development of the current social situation,further combining with the relevant civil system,to clarify the difference between the crime of duty embezzlement,fraud and theft has become an urgent problem to be solved by the current academic and practical circles.This paper aims to identify the focus of the dispute through the discrimination of the nature of the behavior.This article discusses the relevant civil system involved in the case,and finds out the practical and unified dividing standard between the crime of duty embezzlement,the crime of fraud and the crime of theft.The author advocates that in the case of using customers to withdraw insurance and claim insurance money fraudulently,the insurance company,as a bona fide third party,should apply the civil law right appearance liability system to provide theoretical support and legal basis for the identification of victims in such cases.This paper is mainly divided into three parts: The first chapter,based on the crime of Yuan Li’s occupation of office issued by the Hanzhong Intermediate People’s Court in Shaanxi Province,the crime of Chen Di’s fraud issued by the Third Intermediate People’s Court in Beijing,and the crime of Ji Peng’s fraud issued by the Changle County People’s Court in Shandong Province,evaluates the nature of the dispute and finds out the focus of the nature of the dispute.The second chapter demonstrates that the embezzlement behavior in the crime of duty embezzlement includes fraud and theft.The dividing standard between the crime of duty embezzlement,the crime of fraud and the crime of theft is whether the actor has taken advantage of the convenience of his position when encroaching on property and whether the property infringed is the property of his unit,and establishes the identification standard of taking advantage of the convenience of his position and the scope of the property of his unit.Through analysis,it is believed that although the perpetrator in the false claim case of fictitious customer surrender violated the property of the unit,he did not take advantage of his position when violating the property,so the false claim behavior of this behavior type does not constitute the crime of duty embezzlement.The perpetrator in the case of false claim by taking advantage of customer surrender does not illegally possess the property of the unit,so the false claim of this type of behavior does not constitute the crime of duty embezzlement.After determining the nature of and analyzing the cases of falsely claiming the surrender value by sales staff of state-owned insurance companies,through demonstration,neither two behavioral types of falsely claiming the surrender value shall constitute embezzlement.The third chapter,the distinguishing standard of larceny and fraud is whether the fraudster has fallen into error and whether the fraudster has disposed of property.In the process of determining the nature of the case,it makes a detailed analysis of the identification standard of wrong understanding and disposing of property.Finally,it is determined that the false claim of fictitious customers should be characterized as fraud,and the false claim of customers should be characterized as theft.This paper makes a qualitative study on the insurance sales staff who falsely claim customers’ surrender of insurance money,hoping to be beneficial to China’s judicial practice.