信用证欺诈例外原则及其新发展

随着国际商贸活动的日益发展,信用证欺诈例外原则逐步确立和发展,并在防止信用证欺诈方面发挥了重要的作用。应该看到,作为信用证流通过程中所出现的欺诈例外原则在适用的过程中,由于其自身所具有的国际性,必然要考虑到世界范围内的统一性的问题。因此,在处理欺诈例外的案件过程中,我国应当不断借鉴国外行之有效的方法,密切关注国际商会的有关立场和动态,使我国的做法尽快与国际通行惯例接轨。     

手机短信息诈骗犯罪的手段、成因、特点及防范

手机短信息诈骗犯罪的主要手段有 :中奖引诱 ,销售廉价走私商品 ,有偿提供六合彩特码 ,征婚骗局 ,结交“Q友” ,办理证件。手机短信息诈骗犯罪的特点 :犯罪手法具有新颖性、隐蔽性、欺骗性 ;犯罪主体具有团伙性。手机短信息诈骗犯罪的防范对策 :大力开展防范宣传 ,提高人们的防范意识 ;加快立法进程 ,完善法制 ;电信部门应加强管理 ,推进改革 ;规范银行管理 ,严格执行规定 ;公安机关力争取证调查透彻 ,全面查处案件     

诉讼欺诈研究

诉讼欺诈是一种为非法占有他人财物,在民事诉讼中使用虚假证据骗取法院的错误判决,从而获取公私财物的行为。我国刑法对诉讼欺诈不予调整,致使司法实践中诉讼欺诈现象严重。必须将诉讼欺诈规定为犯罪,由公安机关运用刑事侦查手段打击诉讼欺诈行为,以保证正常的审判秩序和人民的财产安全。同时建议修改刑法典第305条,将伪证罪的主体扩大到民事诉讼的当事人,从而从根本上解决诉讼欺诈在刑事司法上无法可依的尴尬局面。     

刑事法视野中的诉讼欺诈行为研究

诉讼欺诈以伪造证据、提起虚假民事或行政诉讼为手段,严重破坏审判秩序、侵害被害人利益,是一种具有严重社会危害性的行为,已超出民事和行政手段可以调整的范畴。我国刑法理论和司法实践对诉讼欺诈行为的定性分歧很大。事实上,诉讼欺诈与诈骗罪存在巨大差异,并且,它并不是敲诈勒索罪的特殊形式,而且将其纳入妨害作证罪也是不合理的。因此,当今刑法无现成的罪名与之相匹配。因此,我国刑法应增设诉讼欺诈罪,合理配置其法定刑。     

“I knew it was a scam”: Understanding the triggers for recognizing romance fraud

Research Summary

This article investigates the contributing factors (or triggers) to a realization of romance fraud victimization, based on 1015 reports lodged with Scamwatch (Australian online reporting portal for fraud) between July 2018 and July 2019 (inclusive). The article examines the free text narrative of each report to propose five discernible trigger categories: further requests for money; characteristics of communications; verification checks; an offender's action(s); and being told by a third party.

Policy Implications

Based on a comprehensive understanding of these five categories, the article advocates for broader messaging approaches to encompass financial literacy and well-being, cyberliteracy and critical thinking skills, cybersecurity practices, and respectful and healthy relationships. Leveraging the use of these wider education and awareness campaigns could improve recognition of romance fraud. Importantly, it is suggested that banks and other financial institutions are in a strong position to focus their efforts on some of these broader messages to effect positive change.     

Bring the party back in: Institutional design for ‘smart election fraud’

Autocrats face a dilemma. Continue with fraudulent electoral practices and risk revolt, or reduce fraud and risk losing elections. One solution is to structure electoral governance such that it allows for independence and professionalism at the center, lending credibility to the electoral process, and partisan local-level administration, enabling fraud at the micro level. Partisan poll workers can help deliver the vote by the use of ‘smart fraud’ – fraud that minimizes the risk of being caught and is used only when needed. In Armenia, the ruling party's vote share, as a proportion of all registered voters, increases with 2.5 percentage points in polling stations where the chairperson was randomly assigned to the ruling party. Fraud forensics suggests that one of the mechanisms behind this was falsification of the results protocol during the count. I conjecture that fraud is only used in high-stakes elections and that election observers are unable to detect it.     

手机短信诈骗犯罪的预防与控制——从法社会学的视角思考

犯罪是一种复杂、流变的社会现象。随着社会新兴领域研究的不断拓展,科学技术的大踏步前进,犯罪中的高科技、高技能含量正日益扩大,手机短信诈骗便是在时代发展过程中出现的一种新型的诈骗犯罪形式。只有认真研究其特点及发展规律,才能因案施策,迅速侦破此类犯罪案件,并以此把握犯罪发展的轨迹,做好防控和打击工作。     

信用证诈骗罪的主要客体初探——以2007年民事诉讼法修正案为对象

信用证诈骗罪的客体是复杂客体,对此我国刑法学界并无异议,但是对于该罪的主要客体则有不同观点。一种认为主要客体是信用证管理制度,理由是金融秩序是整个经济秩序的核心。另一种观点对信用证管理制度说提出批评,并认为主要客体应该是公私财产所有权。刑法理论中的主要客体认定标准是立法者保护的社会关系的侧重点。公私财产所有权说对信用证管理制度说的批评不能成立,其对自身观点的论证也缺乏说服力。因此,信用证管理制度说应当获得肯定。     

浅析我国证券欺诈犯罪行为的成因及对策

证券欺诈属于高智能犯罪和白领犯罪类,它是以内幕交易、操纵市场、欺诈客户和虚假陈述等犯罪形式严重损害投资者利益的行为。这种行为不仅严重破坏了我国金融证券业的良性发展,也对整个国民经济的发展造成了消极的影响。我们应该从证券欺诈犯罪的含义、表现形式和产生原因等方面入手,去探寻完善证券欺诈犯罪的具体法律规制措施,提出相应的立法建议,尽快建立健全相关的制度体系,从而预防和控制证券欺诈犯罪的发生,以促进我国证券市场的健康发展。     

Sowing the seeds of skepticism? Electoral-integrity beliefs among political elites

Elections in many democracies have come under attack “from within”, with political elites challenging the integrity of the electoral process and calling its outcomes into question. Such allegations may delegitimize democratic outcomes and compromise citizens' confidence in elections. Yet aside from their rhetoric, little is known about political elites' electoral-integrity beliefs. This study breaks new ground by investigating how political elites perceive the integrity of elections, and which factors may account for differences in their electoral-integrity beliefs. Using innovative data from the 2021 candidate survey of the German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES), the empirical analysis shows that political candidates exhibit mostly positive views about the integrity of the electoral procedures and the 2021 election, while being more skeptical about the fairness of the campaign period. Moreover, the findings show that negative campaign experiences, an affiliation with a populist political party, and electoral defeat are important drivers of candidates' skepticism about the integrity of elections. These findings provide novel insights on the nature, background, and diagnostic significance of political elites’ electoral-integrity beliefs in modern democracies.