Individuals who illegally absorb or absorb deposits from the public in a disguised form shall be prosecuted if they exceed a certain amount.

Legal subjectivity:

Article 1 of the Supreme People's Court's "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Illegal Fund-raising" violates the provisions of national financial management laws and exposes the public (including (units and individuals)) and meet the following four conditions at the same time, unless otherwise provided by the Criminal Law, shall be deemed as "illegal absorption of public deposits or disguised absorption of public deposits" as stipulated in Article 176 of the Criminal Law: (1) Absorbing funds without the legal approval of relevant departments or borrowing funds in the form of legitimate operations; (2) Publicizing to the public through the media, promotion meetings, flyers, mobile phone text messages, etc.; (3) Commitment to provide money or in kind within a certain period of time , equity and other means to repay principal and interest or provide returns; (4) Absorb funds from the public, that is, unspecified objects in society. Absorbing funds for specific objects from relatives, friends or within the unit without publicity to the public does not constitute illegal absorption or disguised absorption of public deposits. Legal objective:

For those who illegally absorb deposits due to blackmail from depositors, In practice, some large deposit accounts often threaten their depositing banks or other financial institutions by "removing" their deposits, requiring them to increase the interest rates on their deposits as soon as possible; or they may pay part of the interest difference in advance or provide several cars. Or the right to use the house, etc. Some banks or other financial institutions, especially banks with poor efficiency or "ports", have to give in in order to preserve their deposit quotas. Regarding this situation, there is no express provision in the legislation. In terms of handling methods, there are at least the following three options to choose from: First, both parties are convicted and both are classified as this crime, that is, both parties constitute an illegal crime. Crime of deposit taking. The essence of this crime is that a person with status commits this crime. Therefore, the depositor should be classified as the principal offender because he has a legal status; and the depositor should be classified as an accessory because he has no legal status. Secondly, the depositor should be classified as an accessory. The crime of soliciting bribes and the deposit-taking party are not guilty of "offering bribes" because they were solicited for bribes. Third, both parties are convicted, but both parties are set as co-offenders. That is to say, although both parties are still criminals, they are not criminals of the same crime, but are opposite offenders (also called joint offenders) among joint criminals who are the targets of each other's crimes. In this kind of confluence of criminals, the crimes committed by each party are often different. For example, in the case of this crime, the deposit-taking party commits the crime of the unit illegally absorbing public deposits; while the party asking for bribes commits the unit (or individual) crime of soliciting bribes. Among the three characterization methods, we believe that the third method is more reasonable and legal. Because: The first method of handling is inconsistent with the behavioral characteristics of the depositor. The fact is that the depositor who asked for a bribe did not do anything to help the depositor engage in illegal deposit-taking. According to the second method, if the perpetrators who illegally receive money because the depositors ask for bribes are not punished as crimes, it is also inconsistent with the basic theory of criminal law. Because the essence of illegally absorbing deposits is to illegally absorb deposits through bribery, and according to Article 393 of this Law, those who are forced to pay bribes due to extortion will not constitute a crime only if they "have not obtained any improper benefits". Bribery crime. In contrast, in this case, when the depositor was blackmailed, in order to obtain deposits, he did not hesitate to "sell out" the national laws and dared to directly raise or disguisedly raise the central bank's legal interest rate to obtain the deposits of large households. This kind of " There is absolutely no justification for "interests" at all. Therefore, in this case, the depositor cannot plead not guilty by claiming that he has been "blackmailed". At best, he can use this as a defense against the perpetrator. Characterization and treatment of those who illegally absorb deposits by changing jobs, arranging employment for children of large deposit households, etc. Currently, some banks often use methods such as arranging for children of large deposit households (mainly refers to arranging the legal representative of the unit and relevant persons with rights who can determine the depositors of the unit). Or the children of personnel who are directly in charge of deposit operation management) to solicit deposits by working in banks; for those whose children are already employed, some deposit-taking parties further recruit their children to work in the bank as a bait, and so on. Solicitation of deposits in this way is certainly an "illegal" deposit-taking act, but there is still room for discussion as to whether this behavior can be classified as an illegal deposit-taking crime. This is because the behavioral elements of this crime are not only illegal deposit-taking, but also more serious behavior that "disrupts financial order."

The above-mentioned illegal deposit-taking behavior certainly disrupts the financial order, but compared with the behavior of raising or disguised raising the national interest rate, and the behavior of illegally absorbing deposits by pretending to be a financial entity with the authority to accept deposits, the latter two are more harmful to the situation. The destruction of the financial order is obviously more direct and serious, so it is natural to set the latter two as crimes and punish them with criminal penalties. It is necessary to accumulate judicial practice experience before solving the illegal absorption of deposits by changing jobs, arranging employment for the children of large depositors, etc. The illegal use of loans to attract deposits through "extracorporeal circulation" is dealt with as described above. If someone uses loans to attract deposits in this way, and "causes heavy losses" as a result, his behavior itself violates the provisions of Article 187 of this Law. The crime of using off-book client funds to illegally lend and issue loans. In this way, the actor's illegal means of absorbing deposits has violated two crimes, which conforms to the characteristics of an implicated offender in the criminal law, and should be punished from the first level in accordance with the principles of dealing with implicated offenders. From the perspective of statutory penalties, the statutory penalties for the crime of illegal lending and granting loans are relatively heavier. Therefore, this behavior can be determined as the crime of illegally granting loans based on the specific criminal circumstances, and the penalty can be determined according to the statutory penalties in Article 187. Boundary between this crime and non-crime To distinguish this crime from non-crime, the following three factors should be mainly considered: (1) The amount of deposits from the public. If the amount of deposits taken from the public is relatively small, the circumstances are “obvious, minor and the harm is not serious”, and according to the provisions of Article 13 of this Law, it does not constitute a crime. (2) Whether it is intentional. If it is not done intentionally, it does not constitute a crime. (3) Whether it violates laws and regulations. If there is no violation of laws and regulations, it does not constitute a crime. If the perpetrator raises the interest rate to absorb public deposits within the range permitted by laws and regulations, it cannot be considered to constitute a crime. The difference between this crime and the crime of fraud is: (1) The object of the infringement and the object of the crime are different. The object of the former's infringement is the national financial management system, and the object of the crime is public deposits; the object of the latter's infringement is the ownership of public and private property, and the object of the crime can be any property. (2) Objectively different. The former includes using deceptive methods to absorb public deposits, and also includes using coercion, inducement and other methods to absorb public deposits; the latter only manifests itself in obtaining property through deceptive methods such as fabricating facts or concealing the truth. (3) Subjective aspects are different. The former does not have the purpose of illegal possession; the latter must have the purpose of illegal possession. (4) The main requirements are different. The former can be composed of natural persons or units; the latter can only be composed of natural persons. The difference between this crime and the crime of unauthorized establishment of financial institutions is that there is a certain connection between the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits and the crime of unauthorized establishment of financial institutions. Some persons who establish financial institutions without authorization also illegally absorb deposits, while illegally absorbing deposits also It is the work of financial institutions established without authorization; some first establish financial institutions without authorization and then illegally absorb deposits from the public, or the purpose of establishing financial institutions without authorization is to illegally absorb deposits from the public. Therefore, when judicial organs handle specific cases, , care should be taken to distinguish these two different crimes. The crime of illegally establishing a financial institution and the crime of illegally absorbing deposits have different criminal compositions. Care should be taken to distinguish the differences between the two crimes. If the crime constitutes multiple crimes, the crime shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of concurrent punishment for multiple crimes.