Reconstruction Of The Definition Of Fraud

With the rapid development of the Internet economy in China,property crimes have developed into new forms of crime relying on the Internet economy,and the identification of fraud has become a hot issue in judicial practice in recent years.In this context,the definition of fraud in China’s criminal law is too simple to provide a solid normative basis for the identification of fraud.In judicial decisions,the oversimplification of criminal law provisions leads to a lack of legal basis for judicial decisions,rough reasoning for judgments,and lack of rigor in conclusions.In theoretical research,overly simplified criminal law provisions cannot provide sufficient research materials for theoretical research,leading to the fact that Chinese academia can only help understand the crime of fraud by studying German and Japanese criminal law theories.The normative and social foundations of German and Japanese criminal law theories are significantly different from those of our country.The theoretical definition of fraud based on the study of German and Japanese criminal law theories has actually deviated from our country’s criminal law and cultural traditions.This separation of criminal law theory from social reality further raises the issue of the lack of legal basis for judicial decisions.It is precisely for this reason that in recent years,there has been a phenomenon of making different judgments on similar cases in judicial decisions.This indicates that the definition of fraud in China’s current criminal law theory cannot meet the needs of judicial practice.In view of the criminal law’s overly simplified provisions on the crime of fraud,the theoretical definition is divorced from China’s national conditions,and cannot guide the judicial authorities to correctly identify the crime of fraud.It is necessary to reconstruct the definition of fraud and establish a clear,standardized and unified understanding of the connotation of fraud.The purpose of this article is to reconstruct the definition of fraud and reconstruct a definition of fraud that not only conforms to China’s criminal law tradition and social culture,but also can help judicial authorities accurately identify fraud.The conclusion of this article is that the crime of fraud should be defined as the act of the perpetrator intentionally fabricating important matters that are difficult for the victim to obtain the truth,controlling the victim’s disposal of property,and causing property damage to the victim.This definition can be further divided into three parts: formal objectivity,formal subjectivity,and substantive requirements.The structure of this article is divided into eight chapters,and the specific content is as follows:Chapter Ⅰ: Introduction.This chapter aims to explain the research background,research content,research methods,and research significance of this article.The research background of this article includes: the definition of fraud in China’s legislation is too simple,the definition of fraud in the judiciary lacks normative basis,and academic research lacks specialized research on the definition of fraud.Foreign criminal laws,when defining the crime of fraud,invariably attach importance to fraud.Some countries even waive the requirements for criminal results and only consider fraud as a necessary offense.The research content of this article includes reviewing the existing definitions of fraud and analyzing its advantages and disadvantages.Develop rules for definition through research on definition requirements.Reconstruct the definition of fraud and draw a clear conclusion.Sort out China’s criminal law tradition and social culture to provide the basis for a new definition.The significance of this study lies in theoretically filling the gaps in the definition of fraud and providing basic support for the theoretical system of fraud.In practice,the definition of fraud should be reconstructed to help judicial authorities accurately define the scope of fraud.Chapter II: Literature review of the definition of fraud.This chapter reviews the current theoretical definition of fraud,pointing out the existing problems in the definition and the reasonable points that can be used for reference.Specifically,the existing problems in the current theoretical definition of fraud mainly include focusing on form while ignoring substance,affecting the attribution of responsibility to the perpetrator,and lacking a normative and legal basis.These drawbacks also prove that the current theoretical definition of fraud alone cannot achieve a correct understanding of fraud and accurately define the scope of fraud.Therefore,it needs to be reconstructed.Chapter III: Basic requirements for the definition of fraud.This chapter establishes basic rules for the reconstruction of the definition of fraud through the principles to be followed and matters to be noted when defining crimes.Firstly,distinguish the definition of fraud from other similar concepts and clarify the research object.The reconstruction of the definition of fraud refers to adopting a different position from current theories,redefining the crime of fraud from a new perspective,and ultimately arriving at a clear and realistic conclusion that can be manipulated.Secondly,when reconstructing the definition of fraud,it is important to pay attention to the unique nature of fraud.Achieve no circular interpretation,no verbal repetition,clear and clear conclusions,and maneuverability.Finally,when reconstructing the definition of fraud,both formal and substantive definitions should be considered.From the external manifestation and internal essence of the crime of fraud,we can jointly identify the crime of fraud.Chapter IV: The basis of a new definition of fraud from a comparative perspective.This chapter mainly compares the provisions of fraud in criminal laws of various countries,compares the provisions of fraud in criminal laws of various dynasties in China,and seeks the normative and legal basis for a new definition.By comparing the provisions of the German and Japanese criminal laws,the British and American criminal laws,and the criminal laws of Chinese Taiwan,this article concludes that only fraud is a common and statutory element in the legal provisions of fraud in various legal systems.Through a comparison of the provisions of fraud in criminal laws of various dynasties in China,especially ancient criminal laws,this article concludes that the traditional criminal law of China has always regarded fraud as a crime of conduct and attached importance to the status of fraud in the crime of fraud.By comparing the explanations of "fraud" in various Chinese dictionaries,this article concludes that the word "fraud" was originally misused and can only be interpreted by taking fraud apart and interpreting it through its literal meaning.If "fraud" and "fraud" are interpreted separately,it can be seen that "fraud" refers to using false behavior to achieve the effect of causing someone to be deceived.This method of interpretation emphasizes both the nature and the outcome of the behavior.Therefore,the new definition proposed in this article defines the crime of fraud through fraud and its degree of harm,which has a normative and jurisprudential basis in our language.Chapter V: Reconstruction of the definition of fraud.This chapter gives a specific definition of fraud after reconstruction.This article believes that the crime of fraud should be defined as the act of intentionally fabricating important matters that are difficult for the victim to obtain the truth,controling the victim to dispose of property,and causing property damage to the victim.The definition can be further divided into three parts: formal objectivity,formal subjectivity,and substantive requirements.First of all,this chapter provides a semantic explanation of the new definition,clarifying what constitutes formal objectivity,formal subjectivity,and substantive requirements.Specifically,formal objectivity refers to the characteristics objectively manifested by the crime of fraud.Including false statements,cognitive errors,and the victim’s disposition of property and other common characteristics of deceptive behavior.Formal subjectivity refers to the subjective requirements of the crime of fraud.Including intent to take money and intent to defraud.Substantive requirements refer to the requirements for controlling the victim that are required to establish a crime of fraud on the premise of having an objective and subjective form.Specifically,the perpetrator can guide the victim to dispose of property completely according to the perpetrator’s wishes through the fabrication of facts.To achieve control over victims,the key lies in eliminating the possibility of victims obtaining the truth,making it difficult for victims to bear the cost of obtaining the truth,and thereby eliminating the possibility of victims’ self-rescue.Based on the general transaction cost,this article proposes to determine whether the victim has the possibility of obtaining the truth from two aspects: monetary cost and time cost.Chapter VI: Theoretical advantages of the new definition of fraud.This chapter compares the new definition of fraud with the existing definition of fraud to illustrate the theoretical advantages of the new definition.Using the new definition,analyze the difference between fraud and other crimes,and explain the theoretical value of the new definition.In short,the new definition of fraud is based on both absorbing the reasonable parts of existing theories and improving their drawbacks.Therefore,compared to existing theories,the new definition is more scientific and reasonable,and more acceptable to judicial authorities.The new theory of fraud can more clearly identify the crime of fraud,more accurately define the scope of fraud,and better distinguish it from other similar crimes.Chapter VII: The practical significance of the new definition of fraud.This chapter uses the new definition of fraud to analyze difficult judicial cases that arise in reality,illustrating the advantages of the new definition in practice.This chapter selects cases with similar circumstances but different judgments from actual judicial cases.These cases with different judgments in the same case prove that the current theoretical definition of fraud is weak in judicial practice.Use the new definition of fraud proposed in this article to analyze the same case,reflecting the advantages of the new definition in practice.The new definition proposed in this article can not only resolve judicial differences and draw clear conclusions,but also make the conclusions more rigorous and accurate with its scientific argumentation method.Chapter VIII: Conclusion.This chapter aims to summarize and expand the content of this article.First of all,by combing the content of this article,a brief overview of the new definition of fraud proposed in this article is provided.Secondly,it summarizes the theoretical and practical advantages of the new definition of fraud compared to the existing definition,indicating the significance of writing this article.Finally,it points out the shortcomings of the new definition of fraud,as well as the difficulties in argument,and serves as a direction for further research.The main innovation points of this article are mainly reflected in three aspects:First,innovation in topic selection.This article does not choose a certain element under the general definition of fraud as the research object,as is the case with current mainstream schools.On the contrary,this article selects the definition of fraud,which is rarely studied in the current academic community,as the research object.This basic concept has long been ignored by the academic community.Second,innovation in research perspectives.The research perspective of this article is different from that of the general theory.The general theory defines the crime of fraud formally with subjective and objective characteristics,while this article essentially defines the crime of fraud from the special nature of the crime of fraud.This article is also different from the substantive definition of other fraud crimes,which is defined from the perspective of the degree of fraud rather than the content of fraud.Third,innovation in conclusions.This article reconstructs the definition of fraud and proposes a new definition of fraud.The new definition is different from the existing definition,taking into account both the formal and substantive characteristics of the crime of fraud.In terms of the application of the definition,the new definition adopts a hierarchical approach,identifying the crime of fraud in the order of objective,subjective,formal,and substantive.This identification method is more scientific and reasonable.