If an actor deceives others to provide a guarantee (such as mortgage) for him, thereby defrauding a financial institution of a loan, it shall be deemed as the crime of (contract) fraud against the guarantor (for property interests) and the crime of loan fraud against a financial institution (for loans), and it is appropriate to punish several crimes together. On the one hand, the actor deceives others to provide guarantee for himself, which means that others dispose of property interests and obtain property interests themselves, so the crime of (contract) fraud is established. On the other hand, the perpetrator obtained loans from financial institutions by deception, which undoubtedly established the crime of loan fraud. If only the guarantor is found to have (contract) fraud, there is no evaluation of his fraud in the loan. Even if the financial institution finally recovered its losses by realizing the mortgage, it cannot be denied that its loans were defrauded by the actor; It is precisely because the cheating behavior of the actor caused the loan loss of the financial institution that the financial institution recovered the loss by realizing the mortgage right. If only the crime of loan fraud against financial institutions is identified, the fraud against the guarantor is not evaluated (in fact, in many cases, the guarantor eventually becomes a person who suffers losses). In addition, the view that only one crime is identified violates the basic requirement of material identity in property crimes (the property obtained by the actor must be the same as the property lost by the victim).

Whoever borrows money in the name of another person and occupies the loan to make another person a lender shall be punished as loan fraud. If a staff member of a financial institution takes advantage of his position in credit management and fraudulently uses another person's name or fictitious name to defraud the financial institution of loans for personal ownership, it shall be deemed as the crime of corruption or the crime of occupational embezzlement. If ordinary citizens collude with all the people in charge of loans in financial institutions to obtain loans for the purpose of illegal possession, the crime of loan fraud is not established, but should be recognized as crimes such as corruption and duty embezzlement. Ordinary citizens collude with the final decision makers of financial institutions' loans. Although they may cheat loan officers and departmental auditors, those who make disciplinary actions are not caught in a misunderstanding. Therefore, ordinary citizens do not constitute the crime of loan fraud, but should be regarded as the crime of corruption, occupation of duty, illegal loan issuance and so on according to the purpose and nature of their illegal possession. If ordinary citizens collude with the loan officers or departmental auditors of financial institutions for the purpose of illegal possession, deceiving the competent leaders and other people who have the right to decide the punishment, causing the latter to make mistakes in understanding and approving the loan, and at the same time committing the crime of corruption (or duty embezzlement) and loan fraud, they should be treated as imaginative joinder. For the purpose of defrauding loans, the actor's cheating behavior is beyond the scope of behavior stipulated in Article 193 of the Criminal Law, and there is no type of implicated relationship with the purpose of loan fraud, so he should be punished for several crimes. For example, those who falsely report the registered capital of a registered company in order to defraud loans shall be punished for several crimes.

First, the method of deception refers to:

(1) fabricating false reasons such as introducing funds and projects;

(two) the use of false economic contracts;

(3) using false documents;

(four) with false proof of property rights as a guarantee or repeated guarantee beyond the value of collateral; Using false certificates to mortgage the stolen goods obtained from crimes to financial institutions as their own property to obtain loans belongs to using false property certificates as guarantees to defraud loans;

(5) obtaining loans by other means.

Two, the determination of the crime of loan fraud, for one of the following circumstances, it should be recognized as illegal possession:

(1) Fake loans in the name of others;

(2) absconding with money after borrowing;

(3) the loan is not used according to the purpose of the loan, but is used for profligacy, which makes the loan unable to repay;

(4) Change the purpose of the loan, and use the loan for high-risk economic activities, resulting in significant economic losses and inability to repay the loan;

(5) To seek illegitimate interests, change the purpose of the loan, resulting in significant economic losses, resulting in the inability to repay the loan;

(six) the use of loans for illegal and criminal activities;

(7) concealing the whereabouts of the loan and refusing to repay it after the loan expires.

legal ground

Relevant provisions of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC): Article 193.

Under any of the following circumstances, whoever defrauds a bank or other financial institution for the purpose of illegal possession, if the amount is relatively large, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years or criminal detention, and shall also be fined not less than 20,000 yuan but not more than 200,000 yuan; If the amount is huge or there are other serious circumstances, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years but not more than ten years, and shall also be fined not less than 50,000 yuan but not more than 500,000 yuan; If the amount is especially huge or there are other especially serious circumstances, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years or life imprisonment, and shall also be fined not less than 50,000 yuan but not more than 500,000 yuan or confiscated property:

(a) fabricating false reasons such as introducing funds and projects;

(two) the use of false economic contracts;

(3) using false documents;

(four) the use of false proof of property rights as a guarantee or repeated guarantee beyond the value of collateral;

(5) obtaining loans by other means.