“擦边”的职业老赖

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the phenomenon of "institutional arbitrage" in the economic sector, highlighting how individuals exploit legal loopholes to engage in fraudulent activities that are more damaging than traditional scams [1][2]. Group 1: Case Studies - A publishing company faced significant losses due to a partner's failure to pay for goods, which was exacerbated by the partner's strategic evasion of debt through the establishment of multiple companies and changing legal identities [3][4]. - The publishing industry is particularly vulnerable to high bad debt rates due to lenient credit policies, allowing fraudsters to exploit the system and accumulate debts exceeding 100 million yuan [4]. - Another case involved an individual who created a facade of professionalism to gain trust, ultimately leading to a fraudulent investment scheme where the promised returns were never delivered [5][6][7]. Group 2: Mechanisms of Fraud - Fraudsters often establish multiple companies across different regions, frequently changing legal representatives to evade debts and legal repercussions [12]. - They utilize a strategy of "credit sales" and "borrowing" to gain benefits while intentionally delaying payments, leading to numerous disputes that are often too small for victims to pursue legally [12]. - The legal framework presents challenges for victims, as proving intent for fraud is difficult, and many cases are classified as civil disputes rather than criminal fraud, complicating the recovery of losses [14][15]. Group 3: Legal and Systemic Issues - The current legal definitions and standards make it challenging to prosecute fraudsters effectively, as the distinction between civil fraud and criminal fraud is often blurred [10][14]. - The legal protections intended to encourage business innovation are being misused by fraudsters as shields against accountability, allowing them to escape consequences for their actions [15]. - The article calls for reforms in the legal system to close loopholes that enable such fraudulent behaviors, emphasizing the need for a collective response to restore trust in economic transactions [17].