Commentary On Similar Cases Of Lending-type Fraud

Loan-type fraud is not expressly specified in the criminal law.It refers to the act of defrauding public and private property by means of borrowing for the purpose of illegal possession.The handling of such type of fraud in the cases is controversial in both judicial practice and theory,because of the existence of IOUs,the acquaintance between the parties,and the existence of partial restitution.From the analysis of the Huang Jinzhang fraud case,the Xiao Jun fraud case,and the Wang Xiaoquan fraud case,the controversies in such cases mainly focus on the following three aspects: first,whether the behavior of the perpetrator is deceptive according to the criminal law;second,whether the victim has fallen into a misunderstanding;third,whether the perpetrator has the purpose of illegal possession.By summarizing these three controversies from an academic point of view and analyzing the sample cases,we can see that: in terms of behavior,private lending disputes involve civil fraud,while lending fraud is deceit;The civil fraud of borrowing is not enough to make the victim deliver the property priceless,but the opposite is true for lending fraud;whether the perpetrator has the purpose of illegal possession,the perpetrator in civil fraud intends to focus on obtaining benefits rather than the purpose of possession,but loan fraud has such purpose.In judicial practice,the three parties of the prosecution,defense,and trial usually only analyze the purpose of illegal possession,but ignore the roles of deceit and misunderstanding in determining the crime of loan fraud.The judgment results of these three sample cases are not the same,but the gist of the judgment is all focused on the purpose of illegal possession,and lack of reasoning for the other two elements.However,the presumptions listed in the statute are not sufficient to deal with complex judicial practice.Only giving functional expectations to the element of the purpose of illegal possession is not only suspected of dwarfing other elements in theory,but also may lead to a dilemma that cannot be justified in practice.Therefore,in identifying this type of case,one cannot expect to use a single element to solve all problems,and it is necessary to combine these three elements to define guilt and non-crime.