First of all, we must distinguish whether forged passbooks are used to cheat banks or individuals.
First, if a forged passbook is used to cheat a bank, it can directly constitute the crime of financial voucher fraud. The reason for this crime is to defraud banks by using altered bank passbooks, and forged and altered passbooks belong to financial vouchers. His behavior, even if it violates the state's financial management order and public property ownership, is also in line with a constituent element of the crime of financial voucher fraud, so it can be counted as the crime of financial voucher fraud. However, the object of fraud is only the ownership of the company's finance. Moreover, China's relevant laws and regulations have specially set up provisions to stipulate the crime of financial voucher fraud. He separated the crime of financial voucher fraud from the crime of ordinary fraud.
Therefore, in the application of law, we should follow the principle that special clauses take precedence over ordinary clauses.
Second, if you use forged passbooks to defraud individuals or other units, then this only constitutes a crime of fraud. The reason for this is that the passbook is no longer a voucher for withdrawing money, but only a deceptive prop to prove how much money he has. It does not pose another threat, so it is considered fraud.
Except for the crime of forging financial bills caused by this forged passbook. Let's look at other related forged documents, or those who steal, rob or destroy official documents of state organs can be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years. If the circumstances are particularly serious, they can also be directly sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years.
China's relevant laws and regulations also have such clear provisions:
The crime of financial voucher fraud refers to the intentional use of forged bank settlement vouchers, so knowing it is an important element of this crime.
Therefore, this crime must be intentional subjectively in order to judge this crime. We take the bill as an example to show that the following acts cannot constitute a crime.
First, I don't know if it is an invalid bill, but I use it.
2. Misuse of other people's bills or their own invalid bills.
Third. Signed a bad check or an invalid check by mistake.
Fourth, because of my own fault, I made a mistake in recording promissory notes or drafts. Then if you don't have this condition, it can't be counted as the crime of financial voucher fraud. The object of the crime of financial voucher fraud is a very complicated object, which not only infringes on the management system of some relevant documents in the country, but also causes certain damage to the ownership of public and private property.
Therefore, in a broad sense, bills of exchange, promissory notes and checks all belong to bank settlement vouchers, and they all have the same nature as other financial vouchers such as entrusted collection vouchers, remittance vouchers and bank deposit vouchers.
The crime he refers to is a subjective and intentional crime, that is, he still does it knowing that he can't do it, and this boundary is that the crime can be judged by carrying out the act. His decision not to set the amount by the amount is just one of the plots.