Where the perpetrator defrauds others of property or property by means of fabricating facts or concealing the truth for the purpose of illegal possession, it constitutes the crime of fraud. Constituting a criminal offence requires that the perpetrator objectively conform to the dynamic composition of the crime of fraud. That is, the perpetrator implements the method of fabricating facts or concealing the truth, causing the victim to fall into a wrong understanding and then disposing of the property, and the perpetrator thus obtains the victim's property.
On the contrary, if the perpetrator has not deceived the facts or if the victim has not fallen into a wrong understanding, it does not meet the objective constituent elements of the crime of fraud. However, in judicial practice, special attention should be paid to the distinction between civil fraud and criminal fraud, which are different in terms of the content and extent of fraud. In civil fraud, although there are also some false elements, the perpetrator will still actively perform the contract and profit from the performance of the contract. In criminal fraud, the purpose of the perpetrator is not to perform the contract, but to directly defraud the subject matter, security deposit, etc.
In addition to the above objective elements, the crime of fraud must also require the perpetrator to subjectively have the purpose of illegal possession. The subjective thoughts of the actor usually need to be inferred through the expression of his objective behavior. In this regard, you can refer specifically to Article 224 of the Criminal Law or the relevant provisions of the Minutes of the National Forum on the Trial of Financial Crime Cases by Courts. Among them, whether the actor has the ability to perform, whether the funds are used for the agreed purpose, and whether the perpetrator actively assumes responsibility after the case is often used to determine whether the actor has the purpose of illegal possession.
Yang X, Li X 1 fraud case
Basic facts of the case:
After trial, it was ascertained that defendants Yang xxx and Li xx1 were friends with the victim Li xx2, and Yang xxx promised to pay li xxx a high-interest loan for investment due to a shortage of funds for investment in securities and futures. Li Mou2 successively paid interest loans from more than 20 relatives and friends, and then transferred more than 2 million yuan to Yang Mou's account. During the period, Mr. Yang returned Mr. Li by means of bank transfers and other means of hundreds of thousands of yuan, and also informed Mr. Li of the profit and loss of 2 (falsely claiming that the income was good). Until all the account funds were lost and unable to repay, Yang Moumou told Li Mou2 that the borrowed funds had all lost.
Afterwards, Yang X and Li X 1 sold a residential building and raised 510,000 yuan to return Li X 2. Before the incident, Yang X and Li X 1 jointly signed an IOU to Li X 2 for an amount of more than 5 million yuan. Defendants Yang X and Li X 1 actually borrowed 2.468 million yuan in cash from Li X 2, returned 1.67 million yuan, and failed to return 798,000 yuan. In the end, Li Mou2 committed suicide in the home of Yang Mou's father. Yang's relatives refunded 200,000 yuan on behalf of the procuratorate during the review and prosecution period.
Analysis of the objective aspects of Yang Moumou's behavior:
In this case, defendant Yang xxx borrowed money from victim Li xxx for securities and futures trading by paying high interest rates, and victim Li xx2 knew that defendant Yang xxx, because of a shortage of funds for investment in securities and futures, voluntarily borrowed money from Yang xxx at a high interest rate for investment. Defendant Yang X also informed the victim of the profit and loss during the stock trading period. Therefore, defendant Yang X's conduct did not meet the constitutive elements of the objective aspect of the crime of fraud.
Analysis of the subjective aspects of Yang Moumou's behavior:
Defendant Yang promised to give Li Mou2 interest in quarterly liquidation. In fact, Mr. Yang has returned more than 21 million yuan to Mr. Li through bank transfers and other means. In the case that all the borrowed funds have been lost, Yang X and Li X sold a residential building and raised 510,000 yuan to return Li X2, a total of 1.67 million yuan. Therefore, defendant Yang's conduct also did not meet the constitutive elements of the subjective aspect of the crime of fraud.
Regarding the analysis of defendant Li's behavior:
According to the existing evidence in this case, defendant Li Mou. It only borrowed money by signature with defendant Yang XX at the request of victim Li Xx2, so there was no joint intention with defendant Yang XX to defraud others of their property.
Analysis of the causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and the victim's death:
After the victim Li Mou2 concealed his family from borrowing money from relatives and friends in order to earn high interest, he voluntarily lent it to defendant Yang X for stock trading, committed suicide under the circumstance that the investment loss could not recover the funds and could not explain to his family and relatives and friends, and there was no causal relationship in criminal law between him and the second defendant's behavior.
Legal issues can be sent to private messages
Beijing Lanqin Lawyers Criminal Legal Service Group (public number)