How to characterize the behavior of selling rented cars without authorization? Let's look at a similar case first.
On October 2nd, 2065438+00 2065438+00/kloc-0, the defendant Wang and his friend Li discussed renting a car to pick up the waiter in a hotel, and then introduced him to a karaoke bar to earn some agency fees. Then Wang used his ID card to sign a car rental contract with Zhang, an employee of Oil Production No.1 Mine, to rent Zhang's dark blue Jetta. But at this time, Li went back on his word and didn't want to do it. In order to raise gas money, that night, the defendant Wang sold the CAST DVD player and PDOIX subwoofer in the car to a car decoration shop in the town, from which he got 200 yuan. 65438+10.3, Wang drove to Qingyun County to find his friend Zheng, and the two discussed "so poor, let's sell the car for some money." 65438+10.4, they sold the car to Sun in Laoling City on the grounds that it was used as business mortgage, and got a sum of 3,500 yuan.
case analysis
First of all, Wang does not constitute fraud (and certainly does not constitute contract fraud). Wang did rent a car. There is no fraud or intentional fraud when renting a car. The intention to sell the car was improvised after the failure of cooperation with Li. In the process of selling cars, it is cheating, but it is not cheating. Moreover, fraud is an act of fabricating facts, concealing the truth and defrauding property. When selling a car, it's not the owner who cheated. Simply put, it is not so much cheating as cheating. If the owner is not cheated, it does not constitute fraud. At this time, Zheng did not intervene at all and could not be classified as fraud.
Secondly, when renting a car, Wang has the right of possession and the obligation of custody. Failure to return the car at the expiration of the lease period is a civil breach of contract, but it does not constitute a crime of embezzlement, because failure to return the car after the expiration of the lease period does not mean refusing to return the car, and then he sells the car and expresses his unwillingness to return the car by illegal behavior, which constitutes a crime of embezzlement. The process of Wang's illegal punishment is the process of constituting a crime. What needs to be explained here is that the legal possession in the crime of embezzlement refers to the legal reason of possession, not the legal possession state at the time of crime.
Let's take a look at how Zheng's behavior is qualitative. Zheng does not constitute the crime of shielding (that is, the original crime of selling stolen goods). First of all, the object of this crime is the proceeds of crime or stolen goods, that is, it must be the property obtained by crime. As mentioned above, the process of Wang's illegal punishment is the process of constituting a crime. When Zheng helped to dispose of the property, Wang's crime had not yet been constituted. Zheng's behavior is to help Wang commit crimes, not to commit crimes alone. Therefore, both Wang and Zheng's actions constitute embezzlement.
Rent a 700,000 BMW and sell it for 200,000. How to transfer ownership? Personally, I think this car has definitely not been transferred through formal procedures. The second-hand car dealer may have guessed that the source of the car is wrong, but it is too tempting for him to sell a 700 thousand car for only 200 thousand. Therefore, driven by interests, second-hand car dealers illegally bought this car.