Judging from false litigation's means and objects of infringement, false litigation belongs to the category of obstruction of justice in the second section of Chapter VI of the Criminal Law, and can be convicted and punished for perjury and obstruction of testimony.

Crimes against property cannot fully summarize the situation in false litigation. False litigation is also known as litigation fraud. Judging from judicial practice, false litigation is not limited to property disputes, but also includes providing false evidence to defraud the court's judgments and rulings in non-property disputes such as marriage, adoption, guardianship and inheritance. The basis for evaluating property crimes is the amount involved, because this amount is of great significance to conviction and sentencing. If false litigation is identified as a property crime, then the evaluation of false litigation's behavior will be based on the amount, which cannot fully reflect the harmfulness and degree of false litigation's behavior.

The object of false litigation's behavior mainly belongs to the category of obstruction of justice. False litigation violated the complex object, not only the property right and qualification right of the victim, but also seriously hindered the normal litigation activities of the judicial organs. However, in essence, false litigation mainly achieved illegal purposes such as infringing on property through malicious use of litigation procedures, which not only seriously wasted judicial resources, but also affected judicial justice and efficiency. Therefore, among the objects infringed by false litigation, the infringement of property rights, qualification rights and other rights is general and special, accidental and inevitable, secondary and primary, compared with obstructing the normal litigation activities of judicial organs. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the object infringed by false litigation's behavior, reflecting its particularity, inevitability and primary characteristics, and classify false litigation as a crime of obstruction of justice.

The classification of obstruction of justice in false litigation is the common direction of criminal justice at home and abroad. The Supreme People's Procuratorate's "Reply on How to Apply the Law to Deceive the Civil Judges of the Court with Forged Evidence" stipulates that the act of falsifying evidence to deceive the civil judges of the court to possess other people's property mainly infringes on the normal trial activities of the court, and the court can deal with it in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law. It is not appropriate to investigate the criminal responsibility of the perpetrator for fraud ... If the perpetrator instigates others to commit perjury and constitutes a crime, he shall be investigated for criminal responsibility for obstruction of testimony. 2065438+On September 25th, 2004, the Supreme People's Procuratorate informed the procuratorial organs of the implementation of the revised Civil Procedure Law, which clearly pointed out that false litigation in civil litigation seriously interfered with the normal economic and judicial order. It can be seen that the Supreme People's Procuratorate's two responses both indicated that false litigation belongs to the category of obstruction of justice. In addition, most foreign countries define false litigation as a crime of obstruction of justice, so it is in line with the development trend of criminal law to include false litigation in the crime of obstruction of justice.

Second, it meets the constitutive requirements of fraud.

Subjectively, the actor of false litigation has the intention of illegally occupying other people's property, objectively, he has fabricated facts, concealed the truth and defrauded other people's property, so he should be convicted and punished for fraud.

False litigation made the obligee dispose of the property on the basis of wrong understanding. The biggest difference between false litigation and general fraud lies in whether the deceived object is the same person as the person who disposes of the property and the victim. In general fraud cases, the victim voluntarily delivers the property to the other party because of misunderstanding, and the victim does not know that the other party is cheating when delivering the property. The victim in false litigation knows that the other party is cheating, but he is still forced to deliver the property to the other party because of the coercive force of the court decision. The author believes that the separation of property ownership and disposal right is common in daily life, and the misunderstanding object of fraud should not be limited to property owners, but also include those who have the right to dispose of property. In judicial practice, the actor was tricked into delivering the property by the obligee of property disposal, and many cases have been identified as fraud. For example, when buying goods in a shopping mall, it is considered fraudulent to cheat the clerk to deliver the goods by returning them many times and making the goods fake. Obviously, it is not the shopkeeper but the clerk, that is, the person who has the right to dispose of the property.

The main object of false litigation's infringement is property rights. General fraud infringes on a single object, that is, property rights. The object of false litigation's infringement is a complex object, that is, property rights and normal judicial order, but its purpose is to illegally possess the victim's property, and the use of judicial power is only a deception, so false litigation's fraudulent nature cannot be denied. In fact, this is where false litigation is more "clever" than ordinary fraud. It is the intention of the actor to infringe on the property of others by means of the judicial power of the court. Although this behavior also affects the normal judicial order, this result is not the behavior of the actor. Therefore, the object of infringement in false litigation should be judged by its purpose. For example, the crime of false accusation and frame-up also uses litigation as a means to achieve illegal purposes by fabricating facts and forging evidence, thus making the other party bear adverse litigation consequences. It can be seen that this behavior infringes on a complex object, that is, it infringes on the normal judicial order and citizens' personal rights and democratic rights, but it is classified as a crime of infringing citizens' personal rights and democratic rights in criminal law, not a crime of obstructing justice. Similarly, according to the principle of the unity of subject and object, it should be recognized that the main object of false litigation's infringement is property rights.

False litigation should be punished. Compared with general fraud, false litigation is subjectively vicious and socially harmful. This kind of behavior cheats the judge's trust by providing formal and legal false evidence, which is concealed and deceptive, indicating that its subjective malignancy is even greater. The litigation means adopted by the actor not only damages the judicial credibility and despises the judicial authority, but also consumes a lot of judicial resources. If we only deal with this behavior in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, false litigation's behavior will not be effectively curbed due to the imbalance of costs and benefits. Moreover, according to the principle of non-prosecution and disregard, the court's active investigation and evidence collection authority in civil litigation is small and the means of investigation are limited. Therefore, in order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties to the greatest extent, false litigation should be included in the adjustment scope of the crime of fraud, and the most severe negative evaluation should be given in the name of the country, so as to urge the actors to take the initiative to measure the gains and losses and seek advantages and avoid disadvantages.

Three, should be held accountable for extortion.

Judging from the object, objective characteristics and subjective aspects of false litigation's behavior of withdrawing money, this kind of behavior should be investigated for extortion.

The main object of false litigation's behavior is property rights. Although false litigation's behavior not only seriously interferes with the normal litigation activities of the judicial organs, but also directly infringes on the property rights of the victims, from the logical "analogy method", it is in line with the legislative intent to determine the main object of false litigation's behavior infringement as property rights. Specifically, according to "positive analogy", no matter whether it is false accusation or false litigation, the judicial process is started with fictitious facts, which hinders the normal litigation activities of the judicial organs. The crime of false accusation and frame-up is classified into the chapter of infringement of citizens' personal rights and democratic rights, that is, to determine that the main object of the crime is the personal rights and democratic rights of others. Similarly, the main object of false litigation's infringement should be identified as property rights, not the normal litigation activities of judicial organs. According to "reverse analogy", there are many types of behaviors that hinder the normal litigation activities of judicial organs in false litigation, such as defrauding the identification of well-known trademarks through collusion litigation, transferring property through false litigation or evading debts. In order to distinguish false litigation's behavior from other false litigation's behaviors from the perspective of infringing property rights, the main object of false litigation's behavior should be determined as property rights.

False litigation's behavior conforms to the essential characteristics of the crime of extortion, that is, "obtaining property through psychological coercion". First of all, the court plays the role of "pressurizer" in false litigation. False litigation will affect the court's judgment on the property legal relationship between litigants, so that the judgment will essentially give false litigation undue "legal authority" and form "psychological pressure" on the victims. Secondly, false litigation's behavior pattern contains the content of psychological compulsion. False litigation's behavior includes fictional facts, forged evidence and other elements such as litigation preparation, filing a lawsuit and applying for compulsory execution, which will inevitably make the victim feel psychological pressure, because the actor in false litigation realizes the purpose of illegally possessing the victim's property by deterring the victim from filing a lawsuit or taking corresponding compulsory measures. Finally, the transfer of property is due to psychological coercion. The author believes that only the property transfer under the free will of the property owner belongs to delivery. In false litigation, the victim's property transfer is not controlled by his will, but by a force independent of the victim, which does not belong to delivery. Just as the victim transfers property to the perpetrator in robbery, the transfer of property is not delivery but seizure.

False litigation's subjective aspect is intentional. False litigation's actor takes illegal possession as the purpose, knowing that his actions will infringe others' property rights, and he hopes and actively pursues the occurrence of this harmful result, which conforms to the subjective and intentional requirements of extortion. To sum up, it is better to punish false litigation for extortion.