"i've been deceived by him for a million dollars, borrowed money, had a transfer record, and didn't call the police?"
This is the complaint that we hear most frequently when we receive consultations。
It's also “lending money, not paying back”, why are people calling the police and being turned away? Someone's been sentenced and someone's just been sentenced to pay back
Today we are clear about the four life and death sentences for fraud. Even if you've been dragged away with a million dollars, if there's one left, i'm sorry, it's a debt dispute。
First: is the central “subjective malice” — is he “not able to pay back” or “not at all”
This is the essential difference between fraud and civil arrears and is the first issue to be investigated when a police case is opened。
What do you mean, “no return at all”? The legal term is “illicit possession”. The moment he borrowed the money, he decided in his heart: "i did not intend to return it to you."。
There's a real loan fraud. The client, wang, met a “contracted foreman” li through a friend. Lee stated that he had contracted a major shopping mall renovation project in the city, which urgently required $2 million in swing space and pledged to return 2. 5 million in three months ' time. Wang, he went to the mall to see it. It's a renovation. He was relieved to transfer the money。
And? The day after li got the money, he entered the macau casino. Three days. Two million lost. After that, li disappeared from one person to another, left a machine, rented a house empty。
The court finally found that she was guilty of fraud. Why? Because his course of conduct revealed his subjective purpose: to borrow money on purely fictional grounds (the mall was never contracted by him); to go to gambling (voluntarily); and to escape afterwards. These three points point to the same conclusion: he didn't even want to pay back。
Conversely, a typical civil dispute. For example, you lent your friend half a million dollars to do business, and he did own a restaurant and run it for six months. But because of the epidemic or bad business, the restaurant was closed, and he only paid you 300,000 for the car, leaving 200,000. He's not running, he can get through the phone, he'll be groaning at meetings, he's even making money for you。
In this case, even if he overstates his ability to make money when he borrows money (e. G. By saying, "i open a shop and make money" on his chest), it is difficult to legally qualify as fraud. Because his actions showed that he had the will to pay back, he simply lost the ability to pay back。
The test is simple: can the evidence point to "imitation when borrowing money"? Did he invent anything that didn't exist in the chat? Is the money being used for gambling, drug use, valeting lovers? Did you get the money and get the phone number? These are the keys to the case, not the amount of the loan。
Second: the “false degree” of fraud — exaggerating or falsifying
Why don't you say something nice about borrowing money in life? "i'm doing a great job." "am sure next month i'll pay back."
Not really. This is a “commercial bragging”, legally called “exaggeration of the capacity to perform”, which often constitutes only civil fraud and is still far from criminal fraud。
But if it is “inventory”, the nature changes。
In one such case, the family suffered. The client zhang was a 90-year-old girl who met with a “friendly” liu chi through a friend-making software. Liu has identified himself as a chinese regional executive of a multinational company, a tanning car, a sunhouse, a tan party. Having established a relationship, liu xiao used the term “corporate liquidity” as a “internal investment quota” to “loan” more than 800,000 people from xiao zhang. It was not until zhang happened to see liu chiu's identity card that he found that the “air-to-air elite” was in fact unemployed young people in the rural areas, that the limo was rented and that the villa was a model photo。
The court sentenced liu to more than 10 years ' imprisonment for fraud. The reason for this is that he has forged a complete identity and a fiction of an investment that does not exist, which goes beyond civil disputes。
There is also a more common example: false property certificates. If the borrower filmed a false property certificate in front of you and said, “don't worry, i've got a house for you”, and the money's gone. This is also a classic fraud。
So remember this: if he lied about “local facts” (exaggeration of proceeds, glorification difficulties), it was civil; if he lied about “fundamental facts”, it was criminal。
Third: “voluntary” disposal of property — have you been deceived or have you lost
This is the area most easily ignored by ordinary people。
There is a key link in the logical chain of fraud: the victim must dispose of property “on the basis of a false belief”. What do you mean? You're the one who gave the money because you believed his bullshit and thought you put it into a real project。
In practice, however, some of the victims have given money in the form of money。
You know, like the "killing the pig" scheme. They say there's an internal project, 30% monthly, and you know it's so high that you think it might even be a distribution or a ponzi scheme, but you want to bet on it and run before it crashes. Then you went in and the plate went down。
In this case, did you give the money "in the wrong mind"? You actually have some knowledge that you're speculating. As a result, in such cases, the judiciary has sometimes found it to be an “illegal receipt of public deposits” (no illegal possession, only a fund-raising offence) or a purely investment risk rather than fraud。
There is also a common situation: it prevents people from borrowing money. Your friend said, "hey, man, i've got $50,000 in hand, you know he's lost a lot of money recently in gambling, but you've been in the middle of years, or you've borrowed it." he didn't return it. You call the police and they ask you, "you know he might be gambling?" you say, "yes, but i thought he would change."
In this case, when you dispose of property, you are not blinded by “false facts”. You know the risks, just willing to take them. This is not fraud, it is private borrowing。
Fourth: the “pureness” of aggression against the object — is it a fraud or a robbery
This is relatively understandable, but one has to say。
Fraud infringes only “property rights”. But if the act is accompanied by a violation of “personal rights”, such as forcing you to write a note with a knife, or placing a person intoxicated with a handprint, it is not a fraud and may constitute robbery, extortion or forced trading。
Conversely, if a simple loan is not paid, there is no violence and no threat, it is within the range of the fraud offence。
Having said that, you should understand why money is likewise not paid, and someone is in prison and someone in court。
The amount of the case is actually the last step. A common fraud of more than $3,000 can be established, as can telecommunications fraud of 3,000 dollars, or even lower in some areas. However, as long as one of the first four levels fails to pass, the police can only ask you to go back and prosecute。
The question arises: what if, as a family member of a criminal case, someone you care about is facing charges of “lending fraud”
We summed up a few effective defense strategies dedicated to fraud:
First, the death penalty “when the purpose of illegal occupation arose”。
The offence of fraud requires illegal possession when “loaning”. If the person was willing to repay the money at the time of the loan, even if a portion of the interest had already been paid, it would not have been possible to convict fraud only because of accidents (car accidents, illness, accidents). That is the central point of argument. What we have to do is to pull out all the records of the person's business, contract, chat when he borrows money and prove that he “did really want to pay back”。
Second, proving that funds are used is not “volatilized”。
The prosecution preferred to use “money for personal consumption” as a presumption of illegal occupation. But what defence counsel do is to distinguish between “voluntary” and “normal consumption”. I borrowed $1 million and bought my wife a bag for $50,000, which is not a waste; but if i went to macau to gamble, it would be over. If the parties put the money into business and the business failed, it was not a waste, it was a business risk and could not be presumed to be fraudulent。
Thirdly, it is emphasized that “civil remedies remain open”。
In some cases, the perpetrator, while exaggerating the facts when borrowing money, left him with real identity information, no escape, and was even willing to fight back. In such cases, the victim could well recover the arrears through civil proceedings. The principle of modesty in criminal law requires that criminal action should not be easily resorted to where civil remedies are available. That is also the defence that we often raise with the authorities。
Fourth, a review of “whether the victim is in the wrong mind”。
In particular, borrowing between acquaintances, victims often have some knowledge of the borrower's financial situation. If the victim is aware of the risk of the other party borrowing money, or is borrowing money on the basis of friendship, then it cannot be said that he was completely deceived. This can be found in the relationship between the parties, in the history of their dealings, in the record of conversations during borrowing。
