Purpose/SignificanceThe crime of loan fraud is one of the most serious crimes involving large targets and damaging the financial order in the crime of financial fraud. In judicial practice, the definition of the crime of loan fraud, loan fraud and other crimes involving loans is not clear. In the investigation and trial practice, it is even suggested that the subjective purpose of the crime of loan fraud should be determined by judicial presumption. In addition, the qualitative dispute over unit loan fraud has not been well resolved. In order to solve the above problems, this paper carries out the related research.

Method/processThe core difference between the crime of loan fraud and other crimes involving loans is whether the purpose of illegal possession exists or not. Instead of adopting a simple judicial presumption method, the purpose of illegal possession should be recognized by adopting the method of unifying the subject and the object. By examining the changes in legal regulations and the practical application effect in judicial practice, we can see that there are many problems in the definition of unit loan fraud, whether it is the past definition of unit loan fraud as contract fraud or the current investigation of criminal responsibility for natural person loan fraud, and it is necessary to perfect the relevant laws.

Result/ConclusionWhether the purpose of illegal possession of loan fraud originates in loan application or in using the loan should not affect the identification of loan fraud. Objective and subjective evidences should be used to identify the purpose of illegal possession; a single objective judicial presumption should be put to an end. The subjective scope of loan fraud should be expanded to include units.