论我国立法中的惩罚性赔偿制度

惩罚性赔偿 ,是加害人给付受害人的实际损失之外的金钱赔偿。本文在评析我国现行立法的基础上 ,提出如下主张 :如将其适用范围扩充 ;在对行为人的主观恶性的要求上 ,要包括欺诈、重大过失下的不实陈述、滥用权利等恶劣心态 ;就惩罚性赔偿的数额 ,应无上限规定 ,而应由法官结合具体情况予以自由裁量。     

信用证欺诈例外原则研究--从加拿大一起案例看我国司法实践中应注意的问题

为抑制信用证欺诈、维护诚实信用的国际贸易环境 ,信用证欺诈例外原则的运用需突破信用证的独立性 ,将信用证交易与基础合同交易联系起来考查。这是对信用证独立原则的例外。加拿大最高法院于 1 987年审结一起有关信用证欺诈例外原则的著名案例BankofNovaScodiaappellantv .Angelica -WhitewearLTD .andAngelicaCorpo rationRespondents,成功地总结了英美法国家处理信用证欺诈问题的立法、判例。本文从介绍该案入手 ,结合国际公约和现有立法、判例、法学理论 ,分析信用证欺诈例外原则确立的必要性及适用条件 ,以期为我国在新形势下完善有关信用证欺诈的立法、司法作理论上的探讨     

诈骗罪中的处分行为

诈骗罪中的处分行为是没有记载的构成要件要素,是区分盗窃罪和诈骗罪的关键。处分行为,是指被害人基于认识错误而“自愿”地交付财物或处分财产性利益的行为。诈骗罪的成立需要有处分意思,但是,作为处分行为的主观要件,被骗者应当认识到何种程度,即处分意思究竟包括哪些内容便有待探讨。处分意思的内容要求财产处分者对所处分的财产性质、种类、数量、价值有完全的认识,还是只要认识到财产的外形的转移即可,抑或只要具有某种中间形态的认识内容即可？其实,只要被骗者认识到自己的行为是把某种财产转移给对方占有,而根据自己的“自由”意思作出这种决定,就应当认为已经具备了处分意思的内容。     

电信诈骗犯罪案件的侦查对策

电信诈骗犯罪案件具有涉及面广、组织集团化、手段多样性、手法智能性等特点,由此也给侦查破案带来许多困难。为及时有效地打击电信诈骗犯罪,侦查机关要认真分析其规律和难点,研究制定侦查对策,建立＂落地侦查＂破案机制,实施信息化侦查,完善侦查协作机制,综合采取各种侦查措施和形式,全面防范和打击电信诈骗犯罪。     

Evasion in the conflict of laws and its possible solution in China

Evasion in private international law differs from fraud of law in domestic law, which has been generally agreed upon in academic and judicial circles. However, in China’s private international law, the theories on “evasion,” are very confusing and quite a few Chinese academicians appear more declined to accept it as natural phenomenon in conflict of laws. Similarly, both Chinese judges and legislators take a conservative approach towards it. By comparative and historical methods, the definition of evasion is to be clarified in this paper. Also, it is to argue that evasion differs from fraud of law in the context of domestic law and it is necessary to elucidate it.     

论消费欺诈诉讼案件证明难题的化解路径——以一个《最高人民法院公报》案例为样本的分析

消费欺诈诉讼案件中对＂欺诈＂事实的证明责任分配依＂规范说＂应由消费者承担,不应由法官裁量证明责任来改变法定的证明责任分配。法官自由裁量权应在证明评价与自由心证等环节加以运用。疑难案件的解决应坚持在严格遵循法定证明责任分配原则的基础上,通过司法实践生成诉讼证明的具体规则的路径来加以解决。     

恶意透支型信用卡诈骗的司法认定——兼评信用卡恶意透支行为最新司法解释

正确认定恶意透支,要注意以下问题：超额超期透支的理解、发卡行催收行为的界定、恶意透支的数额标准、恶意透支主体的确定及“非法占有为目的”的表现等。最新相关司法解释细化了恶意透支行为的认定标准,在诸多要素上有了新的规定,但在数额标准等方面也带来了一些新的问题,值得进一步讨论。     

Victims’ motivations for reporting to the ‘fraud justice network’

ABSTRACT

It is well-established that (online) fraud has one of the lowest reporting rates across all crime categories. However, there is a large gap examining why some victims choose to report online fraud offenses. Therefore, this paper examines the under-researched group of online fraud victims who reported their crimes to authorities. Based on interviews with 80 victims across Australia, who lost at least AUD10,000 to online fraud, this paper demonstrates two motivations behind reporting: a sense of individual justice, and an altruistic notion of protecting others. The paper also highlights the negativity associated with the reporting process. The paper uses these findings to determine what can be learnt from the victims who were willing to report. It concludes with a discussion of the challenges evident in seeking to improve the confidence of victims reporting to authorities.     

Credit card fraud under Chinese criminal law

Credit card fraud is a new type of fraud amended into the Criminal Law of China in 1997. The “credit card” under credit card fraud is interpreted as a very board concept, which includes debit card and virtually all electronic payment cards used in ordinary payment, credit loan, transfer and settlement of account, cash deposit and withdrawal. Therefore, it is necessary for the legislature to revise “credit card” under this special fraud into “electronic payment card,” and “credit card fraud” into “electronic payment card fraud,” which will be understood easily and precisely. “Use” and “fraudulent use” of credit card under this fraud is defined as ordinary use of credit card, including withdrawal cash with authentic or forged credit card from ATMs. It is unreasonable to define “malicious overdraft” as a form of credit card fraud under the Chinese Criminal Law. In the future amendment, this kind of criminal conduct shall be separated as independent named as “malicious overdraft” or “abuse of credit card” under the Criminal Law with less stiff statutory punishment than that of credit card fraud. Besides, under the Chinese Criminal Law, stealing credit card and using it is held as “theft,” which is neither reasonable nor logical. Therefore, it should be revised in the future criminal law.     

诉讼欺诈的犯罪化

目前对诉讼欺诈的刑法规制出现法律上的非犯罪化与事实上的犯罪化并存之状况,不利于司法实践。诉讼欺诈犯罪化有其合理性、正当性,诉讼欺诈应适度犯罪化。