“用公开促公正 建设核心价值”主题教育活动

诈骗犯罪典型案例

目录

1.李某强合同诈骗案

2.曾某某、余某某、陈某某诈骗案

3.刘玉珊等集资诈骗、非法吸收公众存款案

4.梁建成诈骗案

5.张峰信用卡诈骗案

6.朱效明合同诈骗、信用卡诈骗案

7.张某信用卡诈骗案

8.黄彩梅诈骗案

9.黄炳光诈骗案

10.黄繁明、李正松、梁武经、李光满诈骗案

11.林统灼诈骗案

一、李某强合同诈骗案

（一）基本案情

2008年7月15日，曲靖市某公司法定代表人夏某生以该公司的名义与以昆明某公司名义从事业务的被告人李某强电话约定购买钢材后，夏某生按李某强的要求于同月20日从个人银行卡转账21万余元存入李某强个人银行卡账户，李某强收受货款后逃匿柬埔寨。李某强归案后赔偿全部货款和经济损失费3万元并取得谅解。

（二）裁判结果

鉴于李某强能如实供述罪行、积极赔偿被害人经济损失并取得谅解的悔罪表现，可从轻处罚。 被告人李某强犯合同诈骗罪，判处有期徒刑三年，缓刑五年，并处罚金人民币五万元。

（三）典型意义

本案是典型的合同诈骗案。合同诈骗罪是指以非法占有为目的，在签订、履行合同过程中，采取虚构事实或者隐瞒真相等欺骗手段，骗取对方当事人财物，数额较大的行为。随着我国市场经济的不断发展，利用签订合同骗取钱财的案件大有愈演愈烈之势，不仅侵犯了他人财产权，扰乱了市场秩序，而且与经济纠纷极难区分与识别，因而成为司法实践中的一个热点问题。

二、曾某某、余某某、陈某某诈骗案

（一）基本案情

2014年8月22日，被告人曾某某在其家中摔伤腰部，因其未购买医疗保险，遂与其丈夫余某某商量冒用陈某某名义住院治疗，以骗取新农合医疗报销补偿款。陈某某在得知该情况后，仍将新农合医疗保险手续交给余某某，用于办理新农合报销手续。后曾某某于2014年8月22日至10月8日在古蔺县中医院住院治疗，骗得新农合医疗报销补偿款28402.2元。案发后，曾某某、余某某将赃款全部退还。

（二）裁判结果

2015年6月4日，四川省古蔺县人民法院一审判决：

一、被告人曾某某犯诈骗罪，判处有期徒刑一年六个月，缓刑二年，并处罚金人民币30000元。

二、被告人余某某犯诈骗罪，判处有期徒刑一年四个月，缓刑一年六个月，并处罚金人民币30000元。

三、被告人陈某某犯诈骗罪，判处有期徒刑一年，缓刑一年，并处罚金人民币20000元。

宣判后，被告人均未提出上诉，公诉机关也未提出抗诉。该案现已发生法律效力。

（三）典型意义

诈骗罪，是指以非法占有为目的，用虚构事实或者隐瞒真相的方法，骗取数额较大的公私财物的行为。根据全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于《中华人民共和国刑法》第二百六十六条的解释，以欺诈、伪造证明材料或者其他手段骗取养老、医疗、工伤、失业、生育等社会保险金或者其他社会保障待遇的，属于刑法第二百六十六条规定的诈骗公私财物的行为。本案中，三被告人共谋由曾某某冒用陈某某的名义住院治疗报销医疗费，骗取新农合医疗保险资金，致使公共财产受到损失，其行为构成诈骗罪，应予追究刑事责任。

新型农村合作医疗，简称“新农合”，是指由政府组织、引导、支持，农民自愿参加，个人、集体和政府多方筹资，以大病统筹为主的农民医疗互助共济制度。

本案的示范意义：三被告人合谋侵吞新农合资金，最终落得退赃判刑又被处罚金的可悲下场，引导人们树立骗取新农合资金非小事的观念，给那些因法制观念淡薄、企图以身试法的人们敲响一记警钟，共同维护新农合资金的安全，让广大农民真正成为新型农村合作医疗的受益者。

三、刘玉珊等集资诈骗、非法吸收公众存款案

（一）基本案情

刘玉珊是云南玉灵宝之堂珠宝有限公司的实际控制人。2011年3月、5月、7月，刘玉珊先后在泸州、南充、遂宁等地成立宝之堂分公司，组织杨友洪、相彦吉、李仝、侯明亮、刘少龙等人，以开展玉器戴养业务为名，以高额回报“劳务费”为诱饵，以聘请部分人缘好有一定宣传号召能力的客户为“理财顾问”进行宣传等手段，并通过虚构翡翠戴养养生增值、公司资金雄厚、投资有保障无风险等假象，鼓动社会不特定人员，特别是中老年人积极缴纳资金。至案发共吸收资金人民币6242.68万元，扣除期间已返还“劳务费”和退合同款，尚欠集资款项人民币5814.795万元。刘玉珊等人将绝大部分资金用于还贷款、放高利贷、公司员工高额提成、公司日常开支运转、寻宝被骗等，致使大部份资金无法追回，不能返还，且公司无正常投资性盈利收入。案发后，遂宁、南充、泸州等地有2060人分别向公安机关报案。公安机关先后追回赃款人民币1371万元。

（二）裁判结果

遂宁市中院一审判决：被告人刘玉珊犯集资诈骗罪，判处无期徒刑，剥夺政治权利终身，并处没收个人全部财产；被告人杨友洪犯非法吸收公众存款罪，判处有期徒刑八年，并处罚金三十万元；被告人侯明亮犯非法吸收公众存款罪，判处有期徒刑四年，并处罚金十五万元；被告人相彦吉犯非法吸收公众存款罪，判处有期徒刑三年，并处罚金十五万元；被告人李仝犯非法吸收公众存款罪，判处有期徒刑二年，并处罚金十万元；被告人刘少龙犯非法吸收公众存款罪，判处有期徒刑二年，并处罚金十万元；对于各被告人的违法所得和扣押在案的涉案财物予以追缴，返还被害人。被告人刘玉珊、杨友洪、相彦吉不服，提起上诉。四川省高院二审维持了遂宁中院的一审判决。

（三）典型意义

近年来，社会财富的规模增大和正规金融的服务局限叠加影响，使民间融资的体量显著增加。而随着民间融资市场迅速活跃的，还有以非法集资等为代表的金融违法犯罪活动。

本案即是较为典型的非法集资类刑事案件，涉案金额大，达到6000多万元；受害人数多，涉及遂宁、南充、泸州多地数千人；该案吸收的大部分资金难以追回，造成的经济损失特别巨大，达4000余万元。由于受骗参与非法集资的以四十至六十岁年龄段中老年人居多，许多人毕生的积蓄一夜化为乌有，生活陷入困顿，引发受害群众集体上访，对遂宁、南充、泸州等地社会稳定造成极大危害。司法机关依法对刘玉珊等人的非法集资犯罪行为进行了严惩，为被害群众追回了部分损失。本案对于督促相关职能部门加大对非法集资的日常监管力度，加强对集资诈骗行为的社会舆论宣传引导，增强人民群众投资风险意识和辨别能力，保障人民群众的财产安全，维护金融管理秩序和保障社会稳定具有重要意义。

2010年最高人民法院就发布了《关于审理非法集资刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》，其中较为明确地列举了构成非法吸收公众存款罪的4个条件和11种行为，列举了构成集资诈骗罪的11种行为和8种情形，在很大程度上能够帮助普通大众甄别非法集资行为。然而，社会法治意识淡漠、民众风险识别能力不足为非法集资违法犯罪活动提供了可乘之机。

加强法治宣传、执法监管和司法保障，以形成社会对非法集资等违法犯罪的围剿，是解决当前民间融资乱象的重要途径。希望通过对本案的镜鉴，有助于形成对非法集资的法治高压，和全社会参与的立体化防控体系建设。

四、梁建成诈骗案

（一）基本案情

2010年三四月期间，被告人梁建成以邀约被害人李鑫入股湖南省会同电力公司下属会靖股份公司为由，先后三次向被害人李鑫共计收取人民币100 000元入股股金，并承诺高利回报，之后被告人交给被害人一张内容为“今收到会同县安全监督局蒋秩标入股湖南省会同电力有限责任公司会靖股份公司股金壹拾万元整（100 000.00）”的收条，该收条落款的收款人为王晓君，时间为2010年4月1日。被告人梁建成收取被害人100 000元股金后，并未将该100 000元入股会靖股份公司，而是将钱转借他人从中获取利息。经查证，湖南省会同电力有限责任公司自1999年6月股份制改造以来未曾设立过“湖南省会同电力有限责任公司会靖股份公司”。被告人梁建成交给李鑫的收条也并非湖南省会同电力有限责任公司职工王小（晓）君所书写，系被告人梁建成所伪造。

（二）裁判结果

湖南省会同县人民法院依法判决被告人梁建成犯诈骗罪，判处有期徒刑四年八个月，并处罚金人民币八千元。宣判后，被告人梁建成提起上诉。湖南省怀化市中级人民法院裁定驳回上诉，维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案被告人梁建成以非法占有为目的，采取虚构事实、隐瞒真相的方法，骗取他人财物共计人民币10万元，数额巨大，其行为已构成诈骗罪。民事经济纠纷与诈骗罪最大的区别在于：1、是否虚构事实；2、是否有非法占有的目的。本案被告人梁建成以非法占有为目的虚构事实，构成诈骗罪，其与被害人之间不是民事经济关系。在经济高速发展的时代，经济纠纷也呈逐年递增的趋势，一方面我们应该脚踏实地，不要贪图小便宜，以免上当受骗，另一方面我们应当懂得“君子爱财，取之有道”的道理，要争做一名遵纪守法的公民，为社会的进步贡献自己的微薄之力。

五、张峰信用卡诈骗案

（一）基本案情

2008年7月，被告人张峰以其本人名义向中国工商银行怀化湖景支行申领了一张卡号为6282886968225860的湖南公务员信用卡。2008年9月16日至26日期间共透支本金20 000元。被告人张峰在透支超过规定期限后，经发卡银行多次催收仍旧拒不归还上述款项。截止至2014年6月1日共欠银行本息91 423.52元。案发后，截止2014年12月15日张峰已陆续全部偿还透支款息共计102 029.66元。

（二）裁判结果

怀化市鹤城区人民法院经审理认为，被告人张峰以非法占有为目的，使用信用卡恶意透支，数额较大，其行为已构成信用卡诈骗罪。张峰归案后能如实供述自己的罪行，认罪态度较好，且在二审宣告前，张峰已经偿还信用卡透支所欠全部本金和利息，犯罪情节轻微，依法可以对张峰免予刑事处罚。据此，法院依法判决被告人张峰犯信用卡诈骗罪，免予刑事处罚。

（三）典型意义

信用卡透支实属常见现象，但如果超过规定期限、经银行两次催收后三个月内仍未归还，在刑法上被视为恶意透支，故意更改银行预留电话，逃避银行催收则被认定为具有法非占用的目的。本案的被告人张峰具有非法占有的目的，使用信用卡恶意透支，达到数额较大，构成了信用卡诈骗罪。所以，保持良好的个人诚信，是使用信用卡的关键。

六、朱效明合同诈骗、信用卡诈骗案

（一）基本案情

2011年至2013年，被告人朱效明以“朱军”名义办理身份证，利用该虚假身份注册成立“商丘腾飞建筑装饰工程有限公司”。在经营该公司期间，朱效明以朱军名义采取签订合同，出具欠条等方法，骗取郁殿强、李伟等人材料款、工程款共505885元。朱效明骗取款后逃匿。

2012年8月3日、8月10日，朱效明利用虚假的身份证、行车证，房产证等证件，在夏邑县农业银行、夏邑县邮政储蓄银行办理了信用卡，分别透支199934.99元、99992.89元。至案发时，经发卡银行催要,上述透支款未归还。

（二）裁判结果

河南省夏邑县法院判决：一、被告人朱效明犯合同诈骗罪，判处有期徒刑六年，并处罚金人民币100000元；犯信用卡诈骗罪，判处有期徒刑六年，并处罚金人民币70000元。二罪并罚，决定执行有期徒刑十一年，并处罚金人民币170000元。二、责令被告人朱效明退赔所骗取被害人的财产。

（三）典型意义

本案朱效明以非法占有为目的，采取签订合同，出具欠条等方法，收受对方当事人给付的货物、预付款后逃匿。朱效明使用虚假的身份证明骗领信用卡，超过规定期限透支，经发卡银行催收后仍不归还，恶意透支，是典型违反社会诚信的行为，对此类行为予以严惩，才能起到维护社会诚信、人民群众和谐生产生活的警示教育作用。

七、张某信用卡诈骗案

（一）基本案情

2013年5月份，被告人张某伙同他人事先预谋后，以虚假身份在上海某超市有限公司中山公园店应聘工作。其利用担任该超市收银员的身份趁顾客刷卡时利用读卡器盗取顾客的银行卡信息并偷记密码，并在广州利用盗取的信息制成伪卡。2013年9月18日、19日，被告人张某使用其中一张利用盗取受害人朱某某银行卡信息制作伪造的银行卡在陕西华阴市取现金3.5万元。当月20日晚，被告人张某使用另外一张利用盗取被害人篠崎某某（日本籍）银行卡信息制作伪造的银行卡在中国银行安阳市文明大道支行取现金2万元，另转款4万元至张某所控制的银行卡上，随后张某又从其所控制的该银行卡上取走现金2万元。当张某在另一家中国银行准备再次取钱时被抓获，从其身上搜出现金71200元、银行卡8张、不同姓名的身份证7张、口罩4个、帽子1个。案发后，公安机关追回赃款71200元，退还受害人朱某某31200元，退还篠崎某某40000元。另查明，张某因犯妨害信用卡管理罪，于2011年8月15日被温州市鹿城区人民法院判处有期徒刑十个月，并处罚金人民币50000元，2011年12月18日刑满释放。公诉机关指控，被告人张某的行为属于伪造信用卡并使用的情形，构成信用卡诈骗罪，应予处罚。

（二）裁判结果

河南省安阳市龙安区人民法院依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第一百九十六条、第六十五条、第五十二条、第五十三条、第六十四条作出（2014）龙刑初字第27号刑事判决书，判决被告人张某犯信用卡诈骗罪，判处有期徒刑六年六个月，并处罚金人民币60000元。责令被告人张某退赔被害人朱某某人民币3800元，退赔被害人篠崎某某人民币20000元。一审宣判后，被告人未上诉，公诉机关未抗诉，判决已发生法律效力。

（三）典型意义

张某信用卡诈骗案是一起将盗取的信用卡信息进行复制，再利用复制的伪卡盗取现金的信用卡诈骗案，是近年来信用卡诈骗案中出现的新型作案手段。该案例明确了盗窃信用卡信息又复制伪卡，使用伪卡盗取现金的行为，应按照信用卡诈骗罪定罪处罚。近年来，随着信息技术的快速发展和广泛应用，一方面给人们提供了高效便捷的生产生活方式，另一方面也给一些犯罪分子利用信息技术实施犯罪提供了便利条件。该案例既彰显了人民法院依法严惩利用信息技术实施犯罪的决心，同时也提醒人们要提高公民个人信息保护意识，维护好个人信息安全，不给犯罪分子以可乘之机。

八、黄彩梅诈骗案

（一）基本案情

2013年10月期间，被告人黄彩梅通过潘亚五（小名“小小”、“巧巧“）介绍与河南籍男子被害人王志帅相亲认识。之后王志帅父子提出到被告人黄彩梅家看望其母亲，被告人黄彩梅以当地风俗要给老人红包为由让王志帅打一个装有1 360元的红包，王志帅打好红包后即交给被告人黄彩梅。2013年11月1日，被告人黄彩梅答应嫁给王志帅，但提出要彩礼38 000元，王志帅及其父亲王文玉表示同意后即由王文玉在田林县邮政储蓄银行以转账的方式将38 000元转入被告人黄彩梅于当天开设的账号为6217996261000096865邮政储蓄银行卡。得钱后，被告人黄彩梅以各种理由推诿并拒绝与被害人王志帅父子见面、拒接王志帅电话。2014年3月1日，被告人黄彩梅又通过媒婆梁玉梅介绍认识河南籍男子被害人王永安。同月7日前后以上述方法骗取被害人王永安人民币共计31 000元。得钱后，被告人黄彩梅以各种理由推诿并拒接王永安电话。上述诈骗所得，被告人黄彩梅均事后存入其持有的在中国邮政储蓄银行开户的户名为谢雪、账号6210986261002076417银行卡内。案发后，公安机关将上述卡内的存款予以冻结，于2014年4月17日发还被害人王永安31 000元、次日发还被害人王志帅39 360元。综上，被告人黄彩梅实施诈骗二起，骗取被害人共70 360元。

（二）裁判结果

广西壮族自治区百色市右江区人民法院经审理认为，被告人黄彩梅以非法占有为目的，以和被害人结婚为由，向被害人索要聘礼共计人民币70 360元，数额巨大，其行为已经构成诈骗罪。公诉机关指控被告人所犯罪名成立，应依法惩处。鉴于被告人黄彩梅归案后如实供述自己的罪行，当庭自愿认罪，且有年幼婴儿需其抚养、照顾，其诈骗所得亦已全部退还被害人，未给被害人造成损失，根据被告人的犯罪事实、性质、情节及对社会的危害程度，依法对被告人黄彩梅予以从轻处罚。依照刑法有关规定，以诈骗罪判处被告人黄彩梅有期徒刑三年，并处罚金人民币一万五千元。

（三）典型意义

这是一起以婚为媒诈骗他人财物的案例，这一类型的案件主要发生在农村地区，诈骗对象多为外地人，通过所谓“熟人”介绍进行诈骗，多是以虚构收取彩礼钱的少数民族地区婚嫁风俗为由向男方骗取数额较大的礼金，诈骗成功后立即消失或者断绝联系。本案中，被告人黄彩梅以和被害人结婚为由，向两名被害人索要聘礼共计人民币70 360元，数额巨大，导致被骗者人财两空，经济陷入困难，心理受到极大伤害。但考虑到被告人黄彩梅案发后能够全部退还诈骗所得，且有年幼婴儿需其抚养、照顾，法院对其从轻处罚。

九、黄炳光诈骗案

(一)基本案情

2012年5月29日，被告人黄炳光明知自己没有生病住院的情况，而将本人在广东省中山大学附属第五医院住院疾病证明书、住院费用明细清单、住院收费收据、出院记录等虚假住院材料交给其妻子张寿金，并让张寿金到天等县新型农村合作医疗管理中心上映经办点申报新农合住院医药费用总额49 322.05元。2012年7月9日，黄炳光获得住院医药费补偿金额37 308.9元。经核实，黄炳光住院发票、疾病证明书、出院记录、费用明细清单等住院材料均不是广东省中山大学附属第五医院出具。

（二）裁判结果

广西壮族自治区崇左市天等县人民法院经审理认为，被告人黄炳光以非法占有为目的，采取虚构、隐瞒真相的方法，骗取新型农村合作医疗资金37 308.9元，数额巨大，其行为已触犯《中华人民共和国刑法》第二百六十六条的规定，构成诈骗罪。公诉机关指控被告人黄炳光犯诈骗罪的罪名成立。被告人黄炳光归案后能如实坦白罪行，并能当庭自愿认罪，依法予以从轻处罚。根据被告人黄炳光犯罪的事实、性质、情节及对社会的危害程度，依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第二百六十六条、第六十一条、第六十七条第三款、第五十二条、第五十三条，《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理诈骗刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》第一条第一款和《最高人民法院关于适用财产刑若干问题的规定》第二条第一款的规定，判决被告人黄炳光犯诈骗罪，判处有期徒刑三年零二个月，并处罚金人民币五千元。一审宣判后，被告人黄柄光不服一审判决，以一审不认定其系从犯问题向崇左市中级人民法院提出上诉。崇左市中级人民法院经审理后认为，原判决认定事实和适用法律正确、量刑适当，遂裁定驳回上诉，维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案的争议焦点是被告人黄柄光应否认定主从犯问题，根据《中华人民共和国刑法》第二十五条第一款规定，共同犯罪是指二人以上共同故意犯罪。本案中，只有被告人黄柄光的供述中提到其持有的其本人在广东省中山大学附属第五医院的虚假住院材料系黄立国所提供，但无其他证据与之印证，况且黄立国外出务工，至今去向不明，故现有证据不足以证实被告人黄炳光持有的其在广东省中山大学附属第五医院的虚假住院材料系黄立国所提供，与黄炳光存在共同犯罪的事实，本案不宜认定主从犯。因此，连共同犯罪事实是否存在问题都无法认定，更谈不上认定主从犯问题。

十、黄繁明、李正松、梁武经、李光满诈骗案

（一）基本案情

2014年5月至2014年8月，被告人黄繁明、李正松、梁武经、李光满事前通谋分工后，由被告人李正松充当从外地来高价收购手机的老板，被告人李光满充当老板司机(李光满不参与时，李正松自己驾车)，被告人黄繁明充当认识手机销售老板，被告人梁武经充当手机销售老板的弟弟，然后，四被告人分乘两辆车上路，寻找作案目标。当出现目标时，被告人李正松和李光满以找某人为由骗受害人上车带路，被告人李正松对受害人谎称自己是外地来高价收购手机的老板，并将受害人已经上钩的信息，通过手机告知被告人黄繁明、梁武经，以便被告人黄繁明、梁武经设好骗局。途中，被告人黄繁明在路边出现时，被告人李正松便假装问被告人黄繁明是否认识有手机出售的某人，被告人黄繁明谎称认识某人并表示愿意带去找人。当到了他们已经设好的地点时，被告人李正松谎称因为不是做正当生意的，不便与手机销售老板见面，便下车等候，故意让被告人李光满搭载受害人与被告人黄繁明一起去找手机销售老板。当被告人梁武经出现时，被告人黄繁明便假装问充当手机出售老板弟弟的被告人梁武经，说有外地老板来收购手机，被告人梁武经谎称是某人的弟弟，可以自己作主做这笔生意。然后，被告人黄繁明以给收购老板看样机和商谈价钱为名，由被告人李光满载着受害人和被告人黄繁明，在被告人李正松和梁武经之间来回往返，故意让受害人在场听到生意双方给出的价格，让受害人觉得这笔生意有差价可赚，然后设法让受害人出资参与做这笔生意。当骗得受害人钱财时，被告人李正松谎称自己先去取货，让受害人等候通知，借故支开受害人，然后，被告人黄繁明、李正松、梁武经、李光满乘机一起逃离现场。被告人通过上述手段实施诈骗的事实如下：

2014年5月16日，被告人黄繁明、李正松、梁武经、李光满在邕宁至灵山二级公路邕宁区中和路段那良叉路口，骗取受害人施天栋人民币27000元。

2014年6月8日，被告人黄繁明、李正松、梁武经在邕宁区中和乡新安村委会附近的木材厂路口，骗取受害人施本湖11400元。

2014年8月20日，被告人黄繁明、李正松、梁武经、李光满在邕宁区百济乡至钦州市新棠镇县道上，骗取受害人阮大继40000元。

另查明，被告人黄繁明因犯诈骗罪于2006年11月21日被广西壮族自治区环江毛南族自治县人民法院判处有期徒刑六年六个月，罚金一万元。于2011年2月28日刑满释放。

在本案审理过程中，被告人李正松、梁武经、李光满的家属全部退赔了受害人的损失，并取得了受害人的谅解。

（二）裁判结果

南宁市邕宁区法院经审理后认为，被告人黄繁明、李正松、梁武经、李光满以非法占有为目的，采用虚构事实和隐瞒真相的方法，骗取他人财物，数额巨大，其行为构成诈骗罪。在共同犯罪中，被告人黄繁明、李正松、梁武经、李光满分工合作，互相配合，积极实施，共同分赃，均起主要作用，均是主犯，依法应当按照其所参与的全部犯罪处罚。被告人黄繁明曾犯诈骗罪被判处有期徒刑，刑罚执行完毕后，在五年以内再犯应当判处有期徒刑以上刑罚之罪，是累犯，依法应当从重处罚。被告人黄繁明、李正松、梁武经多次犯罪，且诈骗七十周岁以上老人二人；被告人李光满参与诈骗七十周岁以上老人一人；均依法可以酌情从重处罚。被告人黄繁明、李正松、梁武经、李光满如实交代自己的罪行，依法可以从轻处罚。被告人李正松、梁武经、李光满全部退赔了受害人的损失，并取得了受害人谅解，依法可以酌情从轻处罚。依照《刑法》有关规定，以诈骗罪判处被告人黄繁明有期徒刑五年，并处罚金五千元；李正松有期徒刑三年二个月，并处罚金五千元；梁武经有期徒刑三年二个月，并处罚金五千元李光满有期徒刑三年，并处罚金四千元。

（三）典型意义

本案作案手法较为典型，作案对象大多为中老年人，但却屡屡得手，主要原因是因为中老年人大多有点积蓄，且又爱贪图小利。被告人通过虚构事实的手段，让中老年人认为有利可图而陷入骗子的圈套。本案被告人作案次数多，涉案金额巨大，各被告人有不同的量刑情节，法院综合被告人的犯罪事实、性质、情节及社会危害程度，对其各自判处相应的刑罚，符合罪责刑相一致的原则。

十一、林统灼诈骗案

（一）基本案情

2012年4月至8月期间，被告人林统灼在任职东兴市马路镇村镇规划建设站站长期间，利用其工作上的便利，骗取他人的土地使用权证或房产证，并伪造证件的主人以土地或房屋向其抵押借款的协议，虚构有人向其高息抵押借款的事实，欺骗被害人李德隆等人为借款提供资金，其中从李德隆处骗取人民币89.07万元，从腾雄机处骗取人民币17.2万元，从宋金明处骗取人民币20.18万元，从苏组仲处骗取人民币5.12万元。

（二）裁判结果

2014年3月7日，东兴市人民法院一审以合同诈骗罪判处被告人林统灼有期徒刑十三年，并处罚金20万元。林统灼不服一审判决，向防城港市中级人民法院提起上诉。经防城港市中级人民法院审理认为，上诉人林统灼以非法占有为目的，虚构有人向其高息抵押借款的事实，欺骗被害人为其借款提供资金，从而骗取被害人钱款，数额特别巨大，其行为已构成诈骗罪。依照刑法有关规定，以诈骗罪判处林统灼有期徒刑十一年，并处罚金人民币20万元。

（三）典型意义

近年来，随着边境贸易的发展壮大，以及走私、跨境赌博等非法活动猖獗，间接地催生了东兴市高利贷市场的发展，很多民间资本为了追逐高回报纷纷进入。而本案中林统灼正是利用受害人这种心理实施了诈骗。本案警醒人们在投资时应选择正规途径，理性投资。

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.