Theme Education Activity on "Promoting Justice and Building Core Values through Openness"

Typical Cases of Fraud Crimes

catalogue

1. Li Mouqiang Contract Fraud Case

2. Fraud cases involving Zeng, Yu, and Chen    

3. Cases of fundraising fraud and illegal absorption of public deposits by Liu Yushan and others

4. Liang Jiancheng Fraud Case

5. Zhang Feng Credit Card Fraud Case

6. Zhu Xiaoming's contract fraud and credit card fraud cases

7. Zhang's Credit Card Fraud Case

8. Huang Caimei Fraud Case

9. Huang Bingguang Fraud Case

10. Fraud cases involving Huang Fanming, Li Zhengsong, Liang Wujing, and Li Guangman

11. Lin Tongzhuo Fraud Case

1、 Li Mouqiang Contract Fraud Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On July 15, 2008, Xia Mousheng, the legal representative of a company in Qujing City, made a phone agreement with Li Mouqiang, the defendant engaged in business in the name of a company in Kunming, to purchase steel. Xia Mousheng transferred more than 210000 yuan from his personal bank card to Li Mouqiang's personal bank card account on the same day as requested by Li Mouqiang. After receiving the payment, Li Mouqiang fled to Cambodia. After Li Mouqiang was brought to justice, he compensated all the payment for goods and economic losses of 30000 yuan and obtained an understanding.

（2） Judgment results

Given Li Mouqiang's repentance in truthfully confessing his crime, actively compensating the victim for economic losses, and obtaining understanding, he may be given a lighter punishment. The defendant Li Mouqiang committed the crime of contract fraud and was sentenced to three years in prison, suspended for five years, and fined RMB 50000.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical contract fraud case. The crime of contract fraud refers to the act of using fraudulent means such as fabricating facts or concealing the truth to defraud the other party's property, with the purpose of illegal possession, in the process of signing and fulfilling a contract, in order to obtain a relatively large amount of money. With the continuous development of China's market economy, cases of using contract signing to defraud money have become increasingly fierce. This not only infringes on the property rights of others, disrupts market order, but also makes it extremely difficult to distinguish and identify economic disputes, making it a hot topic in judicial practice.

2、 Fraud cases involving Zeng, Yu, and Chen

（1） Basic facts of the case

On August 22, 2014, the defendant, Zeng, fell and injured his waist at his home. As he did not purchase medical insurance, he and his husband, Yu, discussed using the name of Chen for hospitalization treatment to defraud the reimbursement of compensation for the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme. After learning of the situation, Chen still handed over the procedures for the new rural cooperative medical insurance to Yu for reimbursement. Later, Zeng was hospitalized at Gulin County Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital from August 22 to October 8, 2014, and was defrauded of a reimbursement of 28402.2 yuan from the New Rural Cooperative Medical System. After the incident, Zeng and Yu returned all the stolen funds.

（2） Judgment results

On June 4, 2015, the People's Court of Gulin County, Sichuan Province ruled in the first instance that:

1、 The defendant, Zeng, committed fraud and was sentenced to one year and six months in prison, suspended for two years, and fined RMB 30000.

2、 The defendant Yu committed fraud and was sentenced to one year and four months in prison, suspended for one year and six months, and fined RMB 30000.

3、 The defendant Chen committed the crime of fraud and was sentenced to one year in prison, suspended for one year, and fined RMB 20000.

After the verdict was pronounced, none of the defendants appealed, and the prosecution did not raise a protest. The case has now taken legal effect.

（3） Typical significance

The crime of fraud refers to the act of fraudulently obtaining a large amount of public or private property with the purpose of illegal possession, by fabricating facts or concealing the truth. According to the interpretation of Article 266 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, fraudulently obtaining social insurance benefits or other social security benefits such as elderly care, medical treatment, work-related injury, unemployment, childbirth, etc. through fraud, forgery of proof materials, or other means, belongs to the act of defrauding public and private property as stipulated in Article 266 of the Criminal Law. In this case, the three defendants conspired to defraud the New Rural Cooperative Medical Insurance funds by using the name of Chen for hospitalization and reimbursement of medical expenses, causing losses to public property. Their behavior constitutes a crime of fraud and should be investigated for criminal responsibility.

The new rural cooperative medical system, abbreviated as "New Rural Cooperative Medical System", refers to a system of mutual medical assistance and assistance for farmers, organized, guided, and supported by the government, voluntarily participated by farmers, and raised funds from individuals, collectives, and the government, with a focus on overall planning for major diseases.

The exemplary significance of this case is that the three defendants conspired to embezzle the funds of the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme, ultimately leading to a tragic outcome of being sentenced and fined, guiding people to establish the concept that cheating on the funds of the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme is not a trivial matter, ringing an alarm for those who attempt to break the law due to their weak legal awareness, and jointly safeguarding the safety of the funds of the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme, so that the vast number of farmers truly become beneficiaries of the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme.

3、 Liu Yushan and others engaged in fundraising fraud and illegal absorption of public deposits

（1） Basic facts of the case

Liu Yushan is the actual controller of Yunnan Yulingbaozhitang Jewelry Co., Ltd. In March, May, and July 2011, Liu Yushan successively established Baozhitang branches in Luzhou, Nanchong, Suining, and other places. She organized Yang Youhong, Xiang Yanji, Li Tong, Hou Mingliang, Liu Shaolong, and others to carry out jade wearing and maintenance business under the guise of high return on "labor costs" as bait, and hired some customers with good social connections and certain promotional capabilities as "financial advisors" for promotion. Through fictional jade wearing and maintenance value-added The company has strong funds, guaranteed investment without risks, and other false appearances, encouraging unspecified individuals in society, especially middle-aged and elderly people, to actively contribute funds. As of the incident, a total of RMB 62.4268 million was absorbed, and during the deduction period, the "labor fee" and contract payment have been refunded. There is still a debt of RMB 58.14795 million in fundraising funds. Liu Yushan and others used the vast majority of their funds for loan repayment, loan sharks, high commissions for company employees, daily expenses operation, and treasure hunting scams, resulting in the inability to recover and return most of the funds, and the company has no normal investment profit income. After the incident, 2060 people from Suining, Nanchong, Luzhou and other places reported the case to the public security organs. The public security organs have successively recovered 13.71 million yuan of stolen funds.

（2） Judgment results

Suining Intermediate People's Court's First Instance Judgment: The defendant Liu Yushan committed the crime of fundraising fraud, was sentenced to life imprisonment, deprived of political rights for life, and concurrently confiscated all personal property; The defendant Yang Youhong committed the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits and was sentenced to eight years in prison with a fine of 300000 yuan; The defendant Hou Mingliang committed the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits and was sentenced to four years in prison, with a fine of 150000 yuan; The defendant, Xiang Yanji, committed the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits and was sentenced to three years in prison, with a fine of 150000 yuan; The defendant Li Tong committed the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits and was sentenced to two years in prison, with a fine of 100000 yuan; The defendant Liu Shaolong committed the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits and was sentenced to two years in prison, with a fine of 100000 yuan; The illegal gains of each defendant and the seized property involved in the case shall be recovered and returned to the victim. Defendants Liu Yushan, Yang Youhong, and Xiang Yanji are dissatisfied and file an appeal. The second instance of the Sichuan Provincial High Court upheld the first instance verdict of the Suining Intermediate Court.

（3） Typical significance

In recent years, the combined impact of the increase in social wealth and the limitations of formal financial services has significantly increased the volume of private financing. With the rapid activity of the private financing market, there are also financial illegal and criminal activities represented by illegal fundraising.

This case is a typical criminal case of illegal fundraising, involving a large amount of over 60 million yuan; The number of victims is large, involving thousands of people in Suining, Nanchong, and Luzhou; The majority of the funds absorbed in this case are difficult to recover, resulting in significant economic losses of over 40 million yuan. Due to the majority of middle-aged and elderly people aged 40 to 60 who have been deceived into participating in illegal fundraising, many of their life savings have been turned into nothing overnight, leading to difficulties in their lives and triggering collective petitions from the victims, posing a great threat to social stability in Suining, Nanchong, Luzhou, and other places. The judicial authorities punished Liu Yushan and others for their illegal fundraising crimes in accordance with the law, and recovered some of the losses for the victims. This case is of great significance in urging relevant functional departments to increase their daily supervision of illegal fundraising, strengthening public opinion promotion and guidance on fundraising fraud, enhancing people's awareness and discernment of investment risks, ensuring the safety of people's property, maintaining financial management order, and ensuring social stability.

In 2010, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Illegal Fundraising", which clearly listed the 4 conditions and 11 behaviors that constitute the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits, and listed the 11 behaviors and 8 situations that constitute the crime of fundraising fraud, which can greatly help the general public identify illegal fundraising behaviors. However, the lack of awareness of the rule of law in society and the insufficient ability of the public to identify risks provide opportunities for illegal fundraising and criminal activities.

Strengthening the promotion of the rule of law, law enforcement supervision, and judicial protection to form a social encirclement and suppression of illegal fundraising and other crimes is an important way to solve the current chaos of private financing. I hope that by reflecting on this case, it will help to form a legal high-pressure system against illegal fundraising and build a three-dimensional prevention and control system with the participation of the whole society.

4、 Liang Jiancheng Fraud Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

During March and April 2010, the defendant Liang Jiancheng, citing the invitation of the victim Li Xin to invest in Huijing Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of Hunan Huitong Electric Power Company, collected a total of RMB 100000 from the victim Li Xin as a shareholder three times and promised high returns, Afterwards, the defendant handed over a receipt to the victim stating that "Jiang Zhibiao from the Safety Supervision Bureau of Huitong County has now received a share capital of one hundred thousand yuan (100000 yuan) from Huijing Co., Ltd. of Hunan Huitong Electric Power Co., Ltd.". The recipient of the receipt was Wang Xiaojun, and the payment was made on April 1, 2010. The defendant, Liang Jiancheng, did not invest the 100000 yuan in Huijing Co., Ltd. after receiving the victim's 100000 yuan share capital, but lent the money to others to obtain interest from it. After investigation, it has been found that Hunan Huitong Electric Power Co., Ltd. has not established "Hunan Huitong Electric Power Co., Ltd. Huijing Co., Ltd." since the joint-stock reform in June 1999. The receipt handed over by the defendant Liang Jiancheng to Li Xin was not written by Wang Xiaojun, an employee of Hunan Huitong Electric Power Co., Ltd., but was forged by the defendant Liang Jiancheng.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Huitong County, Hunan Province, in accordance with the law, sentenced the defendant Liang Jiancheng to fraud and sentenced him to four years and eight months in prison, and also fined RMB 8000. After the verdict was pronounced, the defendant Liang Jiancheng filed an appeal. The Intermediate People's Court of Huaihua City, Hunan Province ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The defendant in this case, Liang Jiancheng, used the method of fabricating facts and concealing the truth for the purpose of illegal possession to defraud others of a total amount of RMB 100000, which is a huge amount. His behavior has constituted the crime of fraud. The biggest difference between civil economic disputes and fraud lies in: 1. whether to fabricate facts; 2. Is there a purpose for illegal possession. The defendant in this case, Liang Jiancheng, fabricated facts for the purpose of illegal possession, which constitutes the crime of fraud and does not have a civil economic relationship with the victim. In the era of rapid economic development, economic disputes are also increasing year by year. On the one hand, we should be down-to-earth and not seek small gains to avoid being deceived. On the other hand, we should understand the principle of "gentlemen love money and take it wisely", and strive to be a law-abiding citizen, contributing our meager efforts to the progress of society.

5、 Zhang Feng Credit Card Fraud Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

In July 2008, the defendant Zhang Feng applied for a Hunan civil servant credit card with card number 6282886968225860 in his own name from Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Huaihua Hujing Branch. From September 16 to 26, 2008, a total of 20000 yuan of principal was overdrawn. The defendant, Zhang Feng, refused to repay the above-mentioned amount despite multiple reminders from the issuing bank after the overdraft exceeded the specified period. As of June 1, 2014, a total of 91423.52 yuan of principal and interest were owed to the bank. After the incident, as of December 15, 2014, Zhang Feng had already fully repaid the overdraft interest totaling 102029.66 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Hecheng District, Huaihua City found that the defendant Zhang Feng maliciously overdrawn his credit card for the purpose of illegal possession, with a large amount, and his behavior constituted the crime of credit card fraud. After Zhang Feng was brought to justice, he was able to truthfully confess his crime and had a good attitude of confession. Before the second instance was announced, Zhang Feng had already repaid all the principal and interest owed by his credit card overdraft. The criminal circumstances were minor, and Zhang Feng could be exempted from criminal punishment according to law. Based on this, the court ruled in accordance with the law that the defendant Zhang Feng was guilty of credit card fraud and was exempted from criminal punishment.

（3） Typical significance

Credit card overdraft is a common phenomenon, but if it exceeds the prescribed deadline and is not returned within three months after two bank calls, it is considered malicious overdraft in criminal law. Intentionally changing the bank's reserved phone number to evade bank calls is considered as having the purpose of illegal occupation. The defendant in this case, Zhang Feng, had the purpose of illegal possession and maliciously overdrawn with a credit card, reaching a large amount, which constitutes the crime of credit card fraud. So, maintaining good personal integrity is the key to using credit cards.

6、 Zhu Xiaoming Contract Fraud and Credit Card Fraud Cases

（1） Basic facts of the case

From 2011 to 2013, the defendant Zhu Xiaoming applied for an ID card under the name of "Zhu Jun" and used this false identity to register and establish "Shangqiu Tengfei Building Decoration Engineering Co., Ltd.". During the operation of the company, Zhu Xiaoming used methods such as signing contracts and issuing IOUs in the name of Zhu Jun to defraud Yu Dianqiang, Li Wei, and others of a total of 505885 yuan in material and engineering payments. Zhu Xiaoming scammed and withdrew the money before fleeing.

On August 3 and August 10, 2012, Zhu Xiaoming used false ID cards, driving permits, property certificates and other documents to apply for credit cards at the Agricultural Bank of Xiayi County and the Postal Savings Bank of Xiayi County, with overdrafts of 199934.99 yuan and 99992.89 yuan respectively. At the time of the incident, after being urged by the issuing bank, the overdraft funds mentioned above were not returned.

（2） Judgment results

The court of Xiayi County, Henan Province ruled that the defendant Zhu Xiaoming was guilty of contract fraud and sentenced to six years in prison, with a fine of RMB 100000; Committed the crime of credit card fraud, sentenced to six years in prison and fined RMB 70000. The punishment for both crimes shall be combined, and the sentence of imprisonment shall be eleven years and a fine of RMB 170000 shall be imposed. 2、 Order the defendant Zhu Xiaoming to refund the victim's property obtained through fraud.

（3） Typical significance

In this case, Zhu Xiaoming used illegal possession as the purpose, signed contracts, issued IOUs, and other methods to receive goods and advance payments from the other party before fleeing. Zhu Xiaoming used false identity documents to deceive and obtain a credit card, overdrawn beyond the specified period, and refused to return it after being collected by the issuing bank. Malicious overdraft is a typical violation of social integrity. Strict punishment for such behavior can serve as a warning and education to maintain social integrity and the harmonious production and life of the people.

7、 Zhang's Credit Card Fraud Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

In May 2013, the defendant, Zhang, conspired with others in advance and applied for a job at a Zhongshan Park store of a supermarket limited company in Shanghai under a false identity. He used his identity as a cashier in the supermarket to steal the customer's bank card information and password using a card reader while the customer was swiping their card, and used the stolen information to create a fake card in Guangzhou. On September 18 and 19, 2013, the defendant Zhang used one of the cards to create a fake bank card using the information of the victim Zhu to withdraw 35000 yuan in cash from Huayin City, Shaanxi. On the evening of the 20th of the same month, the defendant Zhang used another bank card that had been forged using the information of the victim Shunzaki (Japanese nationality) to withdraw 20000 yuan in cash from the Wenming Avenue Branch of Bank of China in Anyang City, and transferred another 40000 yuan to the bank card controlled by Zhang. Subsequently, Zhang withdrew 20000 yuan in cash from the bank card under his control. When Zhang was caught preparing to withdraw money again at another Chinese bank, he was found with 71200 yuan in cash, 8 bank cards, 7 ID cards with different names, 4 masks, and 1 hat. After the incident, the public security organs recovered the stolen money of 71200 yuan, refunded the victim Zhu 31200 yuan, and refunded Shun Qi 40000 yuan. It was also found that Zhang was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment and a fine of RMB 50000 by the People's Court of Lucheng District, Wenzhou City on August 15, 2011, for committing the crime of obstructing credit card management. He was released after serving his sentence on December 18, 2011. The prosecution accused the defendant Zhang of forging and using a credit card, which constitutes the crime of credit card fraud and should be punished.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Long'an District, Anyang City, Henan Province, in accordance with Articles 196, 65, 52, 53, and 64 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, issued a criminal judgment (2014) Longxingchu Zi No. 27, sentencing the defendant Zhang to credit card fraud and sentenced him to six years and six months in prison, with a fine of RMB 60000. Order the defendant Zhang to return RMB 3800 to the victim Zhu and RMB 20000 to the victim Shunqi. After the first instance judgment was pronounced, the defendant did not appeal, and the public prosecution did not protest. The judgment has become legally effective.

（3） Typical significance

The Zhang credit card fraud case is a credit card fraud case that involves copying stolen credit card information and then using the copied counterfeit card to steal cash. It is a new type of crime method that has emerged in credit card fraud cases in recent years. This case clarifies that the act of stealing credit card information while copying counterfeit cards, and using counterfeit cards to steal cash, should be convicted and punished according to the crime of credit card fraud. In recent years, with the rapid development and widespread application of information technology, on the one hand, it has provided efficient and convenient production and lifestyle for people, and on the other hand, it has also provided convenient conditions for some criminals to use information technology to commit crimes. This case not only demonstrates the determination of the people's court to strictly punish crimes committed through the use of information technology in accordance with the law, but also reminds people to enhance citizens' awareness of personal information protection, maintain personal information security, and not give criminals opportunities to take advantage of it.

8、 Huang Caimei Fraud Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

During October 2013, The defendant Huang Caimei passed through Pan Yawu (nicknames "Xiaoxiao" and "Qiaoqiao") Introduce a blind date with Henan male victim Wang Zhishuai. Afterwards, Wang Zhishuai's father and son proposed to visit the defendant Huang Caimei's mother. The defendant Huang Caimei asked Wang Zhishuai to give a red envelope containing 1360 yuan to the elderly based on local customs. After Wang Zhishuai finished the red envelope, he handed it over to the defendant Huang Caimei. On November 1, 2013, the defendant Huang Caimei agreed to marry Wang Zhishuai, but requested a dowry of 38000 yuan. Wang Zhishuai and his father Wang Wenyu agreed, and Wang Wenyu transferred 38000 yuan to the defendant Huang Caimei's account number 621799626100009686865 Postal Savings Bank Card opened on the same day through transfer at the Tianlin County Postal Savings Bank. After receiving the money, the defendant Huang Caimei used various reasons to pass the buck and refused to meet the victim Wang Zhishuai's father and son, as well as to answer Wang Zhishuai's phone call. On March 1, 2014, the defendant Huang Caimei met the Henan male victim Wang Yong'an through the matchmaker Liang Yumei. Before and after the 7th day of the same month, the victim Wang Yong'an was defrauded of a total of 31000 yuan using the above methods. After receiving the money, the defendant Huang Caimei evaded and refused to answer Wang Yong'an's phone call for various reasons. The above-mentioned fraud proceeds were later deposited by the defendant Huang Caimei into the bank account with the account name Xie Xue and account number 6210986261002076417 held by China Postal Savings Bank. After the incident, the public security organs froze the deposits in the above-mentioned cards and returned the victim Wang Yong'an with 31000 yuan on April 17, 2014, and Wang Zhishuai with 39360 yuan the next day. In summary, the defendant Huang Caimei committed two fraud cases, defrauding the victim of a total of 70360 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Youjiang District, Baise City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region found that the defendant Huang Caimei, for the purpose of illegal possession and on the grounds of marrying the victim, demanded a total dowry of 70360 yuan from the victim, which was a huge amount and constituted a crime of fraud. The prosecution shall punish the defendant in accordance with the law for accusing him of having committed a crime. Considering that the defendant Huang Caimei truthfully confessed her crimes after being brought to justice, voluntarily pleaded guilty in court, and had a young baby that she needed to raise and take care of. All of her fraud proceeds have also been returned to the victim, without causing any losses to the victim. Based on the defendant's criminal facts, nature, circumstances, and degree of harm to society, the defendant Huang Caimei will be given a lighter punishment in accordance with the law. According to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law, the defendant Huang Caimei was sentenced to three years in prison and a fine of RMB 15000 for the crime of fraud.

（3） Typical significance

This is a case of using marriage as a medium to defraud others of their property. This type of case mainly occurs in rural areas, and the target of the fraud is mostly outsiders. The fraud is carried out through the introduction of so-called "acquaintances", often using the marriage customs of ethnic minority areas where the bride price is falsely collected to deceive the male partner into obtaining a large amount of gift money. Once the fraud is successful, it immediately disappears or disconnects contact. In this case, the defendant Huang Caimei claimed a total dowry of 70360 yuan from the two victims on the grounds of marrying them, which was a huge amount, resulting in the victim's financial situation and financial difficulties, causing great psychological harm. However, considering that the defendant Huang Caimei was able to return all the fraud proceeds after the incident, and had a young baby to support and take care of, the court imposed a lenient punishment on him.

9、 Huang Bingguang Fraud Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On May 29, 2012, the defendant Huang Bingguang, knowing that he had not been hospitalized due to illness, handed over false hospitalization materials such as his hospitalization disease certificate, detailed list of hospitalization expenses, hospitalization fee receipts, and discharge records to his wife Zhang Shoujin, and asked Zhang Shoujin to declare the total hospitalization medical expenses of 49322.05 yuan at the screening office of the New Rural Cooperative Medical Management Center in Tianwait County. On July 9, 2012, Huang Bingguang received a compensation amount of 37308.9 yuan for hospitalization medical expenses. After verification, it was found that Huang Bingguang's hospitalization invoice, disease certificate, discharge record, expense list, and other hospitalization materials were not issued by the Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat sen University in Guangdong Province.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Tianwait County, Chongzuo City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region found that the defendant Huang Bingguang, with the purpose of illegal possession, used methods of fabrication and concealment of the truth to defraud 37308.9 yuan of new rural cooperative medical funds, with a huge amount. His behavior has violated Article 266 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China and constitutes the crime of fraud. The prosecution was found guilty of accusing the defendant Huang Bingguang of fraud. After the defendant Huang Bingguang was brought to justice, he was able to truthfully confess his crime and voluntarily plead guilty in court, and was given a lighter punishment in accordance with the law. According to the facts, nature, circumstances, and degree of harm to society of the defendant Huang Bingguang's crime, in accordance with Articles 266, 61, 67 (3), 52, and 53 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, According to the first paragraph of Article 1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Fraud, and the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Property Penalty, the defendant Huang Bingguang was convicted of fraud and sentenced to three years and two months in prison, with a fine of RMB 5000. After the first instance judgment was pronounced, the defendant Huang Bingguang refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to the Chongzuo Intermediate People's Court on the issue of not recognizing him as an accomplice in the first instance. After trial, the Intermediate People's Court of Chongzuo City believed that the original judgment correctly determined the facts and applied the law, and the sentencing was appropriate. Therefore, it ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The focus of controversy in this case is whether the defendant Huang Bingguang should be recognized as a master-slave offender. According to Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, joint crime refers to the intentional crime committed by two or more people together. In this case, only the defendant Huang Bingguang mentioned in his statement that the false hospitalization materials held by him at the Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat sen University in Guangdong Province were provided by Huang Liguo, but there is no other evidence to support it. Moreover, Huang Liguo is away from work and his whereabouts are still unknown. Therefore, the existing evidence is insufficient to prove that the false hospitalization materials held by the defendant Huang Bingguang at the Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat sen University in Guangdong Province were provided by Huang Liguo, The fact that there is a joint crime with Huang Bingguang makes it inappropriate to identify the main accomplice in this case. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether there is a problem with the fact of joint crime, let alone the issue of determining the principal and subordinate offenders.

10、 Fraud cases involving Huang Fanming, Li Zhengsong, Liang Wujing, and Li Guangman

（1） Basic facts of the case

From May 2014 to August 2014, after the defendants Huang Fanming, Li Zhengsong, Liang Wujing, and Li Guangman conspired in advance to divide the labor, the defendant Li Zhengsong acted as the owner of the high price mobile phone purchase from outside the city, the defendant Li Guangman acted as the owner's driver (when Li Guangman was not involved, Li Zhengsong drove his own car), the defendant Huang Fanming acted as the owner of the mobile phone sales, and the defendant Liang Wujing acted as the brother of the mobile phone sales owner, The four defendants rode in two separate cars to search for the target of the crime. When the target appeared, the defendants Li Zhengsong and Li Guangman deceived the victim into getting on the car and leading the way on the grounds of finding someone. The defendant Li Zhengsong lied to the victim that he was the owner of a mobile phone purchased at a high price from another place, and informed the defendant Huang Fanming and Liang Wujing through their phone of the information that the victim had already been hooked, so that the defendants Huang Fanming and Liang Wujing could set up a scam. On the way, when the defendant Huang Fanming appeared on the roadside, the defendant Li Zhengsong pretended to ask him if he knew someone who had a mobile phone for sale. The defendant Huang Fanming falsely claimed to know someone and expressed willingness to take him to find someone. When they arrived at the location they had already set up, the defendant Li Zhengsong lied that he couldn't meet the mobile phone sales boss because he wasn't doing legitimate business, so he got off the car and waited, intentionally letting the defendant Li Guangman pick up the victim and the defendant Huang Fanming to find the mobile phone sales boss together. When the defendant Liang Wujing appeared, the defendant Huang Fanming pretended to ask the defendant Liang Wujing, who was the younger brother of the mobile phone seller, that there was a foreign boss coming to purchase the phone. The defendant Liang Wujing lied that he was someone's younger brother and could take charge of the business on his own. Then, the defendant Huang Fanming, under the pretext of showing the acquisition boss the prototype and negotiating the price, had the defendant Li Guang carry the victim and the defendant Huang Fanming back and forth between the defendant Li Zhengsong and Liang Wujing, intentionally allowing the victim to be present and hear the prices given by both parties, making the victim feel that there was a price difference in this business, and then trying to get the victim to contribute to participate in this business. When the victim was cheated of their money, the defendant Li Zhengsong falsely claimed to go to pick up the goods first, asking the victim to wait for notice and using an excuse to disburse the victim. Then, the defendants Huang Fanming, Li Zhengsong, Liang Wujing, and Li Guangman took the opportunity to escape the scene together. The fact that the defendant committed fraud through the above means is as follows:

On May 16, 2014, the defendants Huang Fanming, Li Zhengsong, Liang Wujing and Li Guangman defrauded the victim Shi Tiandong of 27000 yuan at the Naliangcha intersection of Zhonghe section of Yongning District of Yongning Lingshan second-class highway.

On June 8, 2014, the defendants Huang Fanming, Li Zhengsong, and Liang Wujing defrauded the victim Shi Benhu of 11400 yuan at the intersection of a wood factory near the Xin'an Village Committee in Zhonghe Township, Yongning District.

On August 20, 2014, the defendants Huang Fanming, Li Zhengsong, Liang Wujing, and Li Guangman defrauded the victim Ruan Daji of 40000 yuan on the county road from Baiji Township in Yongning District to Xintang Town in Qinzhou City.

It was also found that the defendant Huang Fanming was sentenced to six years and six months in prison and fined 10000 yuan by the People's Court of Huanjiang Maonan Autonomous County, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region on November 21, 2006 for committing fraud. Released after serving his sentence on February 28, 2011.

During the trial of this case, the families of the defendants Li Zhengsong, Liang Wujing, and Li Guangman all refunded and compensated the victims' losses, and obtained their understanding.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the Yongning District Court of Nanning City found that the defendants Huang Fanming, Li Zhengsong, Liang Wujing, and Li Guangman used the methods of fabricating facts and concealing the truth for the purpose of illegal possession to defraud others of their property, with a huge amount of money involved. Their actions constituted the crime of fraud. In the joint crime, the defendants Huang Fanming, Li Zhengsong, Liang Wujing, and Li Guangman worked together, cooperated with each other, actively implemented, and shared the spoils. They all played the main role and were the main offenders. They should be punished according to the law for all the crimes they participated in. The defendant Huang Fanming was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment for committing the crime of fraud. After the execution of the sentence, he committed a crime that should have been sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment or more within five years. He is a recidivist and should be given a heavier punishment according to law. The defendants Huang Fanming, Li Zhengsong, and Liang Wujing have committed multiple crimes and defrauded two elderly people aged 70 and above; The defendant Li Guangman participated in the fraud of one elderly person aged 70 and above; Both parties may be given heavier penalties according to the law. The defendants Huang Fanming, Li Zhengsong, Liang Wujing, and Li Guangman truthfully confessed their crimes and may be given a lighter punishment in accordance with the law. The defendants Li Zhengsong, Liang Wujing, and Li Guangman have all refunded and compensated the victim's losses, and have obtained the victim's understanding. According to the law, they can be given a lighter punishment at their discretion. According to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law, the defendant Huang Fanming was sentenced to five years in prison and fined 5000 yuan for fraud; Li Zhengsong was sentenced to three years and two months in prison and fined 5000 yuan; Liang Wujing was sentenced to three years and two months in prison, with a fine of 5000 yuan. Li Guangman was sentenced to three years in prison and fined 4000 yuan.

（3） Typical significance

The modus operandi of this case is quite typical, with most of the victims being middle-aged and elderly people, but they have repeatedly succeeded. The main reason is that most middle-aged and elderly people have some savings and are also greedy for small profits. The defendant used the means of fabricating facts to make middle-aged and elderly people think it is profitable and fall into the trap of scammers. The defendant in this case has committed numerous crimes and involved a huge amount of money. Each defendant has different sentencing circumstances. The court, taking into account the defendant's criminal facts, nature, circumstances, and degree of social harm, has imposed corresponding penalties on each of them, in accordance with the principle of consistent criminal responsibility and punishment.

11、 Lin Tongzhuo Fraud Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

During the period from April to August 2012, the defendant Lin Tongzhuo, while serving as the head of the planning and construction station in Ma Lu Town, Dongxing City, used his work convenience to deceive others into obtaining land use certificates or property certificates, and forged an agreement with the owner of the documents to mortgage the land or house, fabricated the fact that someone had borrowed money from him with a high interest rate mortgage, and deceived the victim Li Delong and others in providing funds for the loan, Among them, RMB 890700 was defrauded from Li Delong, RMB 172000 was defrauded from Tengxiong Ji, RMB 201800 was defrauded from Song Jinming, and RMB 51200 was defrauded from Su Zuzhong.

（2） Judgment results

On March 7, 2014, the People's Court of Dongxing City sentenced the defendant Lin Tongzhuo to thirteen years in prison and a fine of 200000 yuan in the first instance for contract fraud. Lin Tongzhuo refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to the Intermediate People's Court of Fangchenggang City. After being tried by the Intermediate People's Court of Fangchenggang City, it was found that the appellant Lin Tongzhuo, with the purpose of illegal possession, fabricated the fact that someone had borrowed money from him with a high interest mortgage, deceived the victim into providing funds for his loan, and thus defrauded the victim of a particularly large amount of money. His behavior has constituted the crime of fraud. According to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law, Lin Tongzhuo was sentenced to eleven years in prison and a fine of RMB 200000 for the crime of fraud.

（3） Typical significance

In recent years, with the development and growth of border trade, as well as rampant illegal activities such as smuggling and cross-border gambling, the development of Dongxing's usury market has been indirectly promoted, and many private capital has entered in pursuit of high returns. In this case, Lin Tongzhuo used the victim's psychology to commit fraud. This case reminds people to choose formal channels and rational investment when investing.