Defendant Zhao Qiang, male, 1980, born in Baoshan City, Yunnan Province, Han nationality, secondary school education, household registration of Banqiao Grain Management Institute in Longyang District, and temporary worker of Baoshan Road and Bridge Engineering Company in Yunnan Province. Since April 2004, he has been in charge of the test work of the third contract section of the approach road of Baolong Highway, and lived in the dormitory of Baoshan Highway General Section before his arrest. He was criminally detained on May 9, 2005 on suspicion of contract fraud, and was arrested on June 22 of the same year. Has served his sentence.
Defendant Zhao Qiang committed fraud and contract fraud, and was prosecuted by the People's Procuratorate of Longyang District, Baoshan City.
Defendant Zhao Qiang confessed to the accusation of the public prosecution agency. His defender believes that the defendant Zhao Qiang has surrendered himself and should be given a mitigated punishment.
After public hearing, our hospital found out that:
In March 2004, the defendant Zhao Qiang defrauded the key Citrix RMB 1.9 million twice in the name of contacting the material preparation project of Baolong Expressway.
From May to August, 2004, he lied that Wu Mou promised to win the bid for the second-class highway construction project from Changning to Yongping in the name of his brother-in-law, and defrauded Li Lichun of the deposit for renting the combined crusher, the site rental fee and the loader purchase fee totaling 5 1 10,000 yuan.
From September, 2004 to June, 2004 165438+ 10, Zhao Qiang passed off the name of Baolong Expressway Construction Headquarters and forged two headquarters documents. In the name of obtaining the excavation and structural works of Baolong Expressway from 7.5 km to 9 km and preparing to sign the construction contract, Fan Yuede was charged with the mechanical equipment qualification deposit, management fee and handling the power of attorney, totaling RMB 16544 yuan.
From February to May, 2005, Zhao Qiang forged the registration notice of the headquarters on the grounds that Wu Jialin had a good relationship with Peng Saiheng, the commander of Baolong Expressway Construction Headquarters, and was recruiting car drivers who could take care of them. Registration fee for Chen Yongqi being cheated 1 1,000 yuan. The above defendant defrauded RMB 82,000.
From August 2004 to May 2005, Zhao Qiang used a paper cutter to privately engrave the seal of Yunnan Baolong Expressway Construction Headquarters and Peng Saiheng's name, and forged the bid-winning notice, power of attorney, contract instructions and other related construction documents in the name of Baolong Expressway pavement cement stabilized macadam preparation project, and successively defrauded Ma 'ang for the deposit and information fee of 25,600 yuan.
From September 2004 to March 2005, Zhao Qiang fraudulently used the name of Baoshan Key Highway Construction Headquarters and signed it as Wu Jialin, then secretary of Baoshan Key Highway Engineering Management Office. He used the forged seal of Baoshan key highway construction headquarters and Tengchong Hump Airport authorization, contract, commencement order, notarial certificate and other documents to sign two project contracts with Yang, and defrauded Yang of the down payment and material fee.
65438, 2005 10 to April, Zhao Qiang used the same method to forge the contracts of the same project, namely, the Integrity Contract and the Safety Production Contract, and successively signed contracts with Zhao Cong and Zhou Shouchang, defrauding Zhao Cong of the contract deposit of 29,700 yuan and Zhou Shouchang of the project deposit of 34,400 yuan.
From March to May, 2005, Zhao Qiang forged the Authorization for Construction of Subgrade and Pavement Engineering of Changning-Yongping Secondary Highway, the Compulsory Subcontracting Form and the Notice of the Headquarters in the same way again, and successively defrauded the registration fee, data fee, drawing fee, contract deposit and management fee of 80,300 yuan.
The defendant Zhao Qiang signed a contract in the name of others to defraud the victim of RMB 2,265,438+0,500.
After the incident was exposed, the defendant Zhao Qiang fled to Lijiang and surrendered himself to Lijiang Public Security Bureau on May 6, 2005. After the incident, the public security organs recovered the stolen money of 4 1 1,000 yuan, and the seized stolen goods were discounted to 88 1.5 yuan.
We believe that the defendant Zhao Qiang, for the purpose of illegal possession, fabricated facts, concealed the truth and defrauded other people's property, amounting to more than 80,000 yuan, a huge amount, and his behavior has violated the criminal law and constituted a crime of fraud; Defendant Zhao Qiang also signed a contract in the name of others for the purpose of illegal possession, defrauding the property of the other party, with a huge amount, totaling more than 200,000 yuan. His behavior has violated the criminal law, which constitutes the crime of contract fraud and should be punished for several crimes. After the incident, the defendant Zhao Qiang voluntarily surrendered to the public security organs and confessed the main criminal facts, which was voluntary surrender and could be given a lighter punishment according to law. The fact that the public prosecutor accused the defendant Zhao Qiang of committing a crime was clear, and the evidence was true and sufficient, so he was convicted and supported. Because the defendant Zhao Qiang's fraud amount is huge, especially the contract fraud amount is huge, and most of the stolen money has not been seized, the defender's opinion on mitigating the punishment of the defendant Zhao Qiang will not be adopted. According to the first paragraph of Article 224, Article 66, Article 52, Article 53, Article 56, Paragraph 1, Article 58, Paragraph 1, Article 69, Article 64 and Article 67 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the verdict is as follows:
1. Defendant Zhao Qiang was convicted of contract fraud, sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment, fined 20,000 yuan and deprived of political rights for two years; He was convicted of fraud, sentenced to four years in prison and fined five thousand yuan. He was sentenced to 13 years in prison, fined 25 thousand yuan and deprived of political rights for two years.
2. 8 15 yuan of seized illicit money and stolen goods shall be returned to the victim by the seizure organ; Continue to recover the defendant Zhao Qiang's illegal income of 253,685 yuan.
Second, the guiding significance of this judgment In the absence of specific provisions in laws and judicial interpretations,
III. Opinions on the criteria for judging the amount.
Judging from the current criminal judicial interpretation in China, the amount standards of contract fraud and financial fraud are higher than those of fraud. On April 8th, 20001year, the Ministry of Public Security of the Supreme People's Procuratorate stipulated that contract fraud and personal fraud of public and private property with an amount of more than 5,000 yuan but less than 20,000 yuan should be prosecuted. 199665438+February 24, Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Fraud Cases (Note: hereinafter referred to as "the Supreme People's Court Interpretation") stipulates that the amount of personal loan fraud is more than 10000 yuan, which is a relatively large amount; The amount of personal fraud in payment is more than 50 thousand yuan, which is a huge amount; The amount of personal loan fraud is more than 200,000 yuan, which is extremely huge. If an individual commits bill fraud, the amount is more than 5,000 yuan, which is a huge amount; The amount of personal bill fraud is more than 654.38+10,000 yuan, which is extremely huge. If the amount of personal insurance fraud is more than 1 10,000 yuan, it belongs to a large amount; The amount of personal insurance fraud is more than 50 thousand yuan, which is a huge amount; The amount of personal insurance fraud is more than 200,000 yuan, which is extremely huge.
The Supreme People's Court explained the provisions of Article 2. According to the provisions of Articles 151 and 152 of the Criminal Law, using an economic contract to defraud other people's property, if the amount is relatively large, constitutes the crime of fraud. Before the revision of the new criminal law, the crime of contract fraud was sentenced according to fraud, and the amount of crime was also sentenced according to fraud, that is, individuals defrauded public and private property of more than 2,000 yuan, which was a large amount. Individuals who defraud public or private property of more than 30 thousand yuan belong to a huge amount; Individuals who defraud public or private property of more than 200,000 yuan belong to a huge amount of fraud.
When the new criminal law was revised, the crime of contract fraud was separated from the crime of fraud. According to the new Criminal Law "Provisions of the Ministry of Public Security of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on the Prosecution Standard of Economic Crimes +0" revised on April 8, 2006, the starting point of the crime of contract fraud is 5,000 yuan, which raises the standard of the amount of contract fraud. However, the judicial interpretation of the revision of the new criminal law does not stipulate the standard of huge amount of contract fraud, which is difficult to grasp in judicial practice. Why did the initial amount of contract fraud increase? From the legislative principle, the starting point of financial fraud in the Supreme People's Court's explanation is higher than the standard of fraud. When the new criminal law is revised, the crime of contract fraud is separated from the crime of fraud, which belongs to the crime of disrupting market order, and its criminal object and financial fraud belong to the same object, that is, the socialist market economic order. Therefore, it is inevitable that the starting point of the crime of contract fraud will increase. The Provisions of the Ministry of Public Security of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on the Prosecution Standards of Economic Crimes did not change the amount of financial fraud, while the new criminal law absorbed the financial fraud crimes stipulated in the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court. In the trial practice, the amount standard of financial fraud crime is still sentencing according to the provisions of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation. Therefore, before the introduction of the new judicial interpretation, the amount standard of contract fraud can also refer to the amount standard of financial fraud for sentencing. That is, if the amount of personal contract fraud is more than 5,000 yuan, it belongs to a large amount; The amount of personal contract fraud is more than 50 thousand yuan, which is a huge amount; The amount of personal contract fraud is more than 200,000 yuan, which is extremely huge. In this case, the defendant Zhao Qiang's contract fraud amount was 22 1500 yuan, and the judgment was correct. After the verdict was pronounced, the defendant Zhao Qiang did not appeal and the public prosecution agency did not protest. The judgment has taken legal effect.