法院：犯诈骗罪获刑4年 鉴于被告人小郭到案后能够如实供述自己的罪行，且自愿签署认罪认罚具结书，有悔罪表现，法院对其 予以从轻从宽处罚，以诈骗罪判处小郭有期徒刑4年，并处罚金人民币2万元。 法官提醒，隐瞒亲属死亡事实骗领养老金的行为，可能触犯刑法，会受到法律的惩处。同时社会公众要 认识到，在亲属去世后应及时上报，合法申领丧葬抚恤金等相关待遇，并办理养老金等社保待遇终止手 续，而非触碰法律红线违规骗取、冒领社保基金。 父亲去世，他隐瞒不报，冒领26万元养老金。近日，成都青羊法院审理了这样一起案件，被告人获刑4 年。 华西都市报-封面新闻记者 戴竺芯 被告人小郭的父亲郭师傅生前系某集团公司的退休职工，2015年3月去世后，小郭未按规定报告真实情 况，冒领由四川省社会保险管理局发放的郭师傅养老金。 2021年6月，某县社保中心接到举报，获悉小郭存在冒领养老金的情况，遂上报省社保局展开核查，从 次月起暂停发放郭师傅的养老金。 随后，公安机关立案侦查，2025年8月10日，公安机关将小郭挡获。经统计，2015年4月至2021年6月期 间，他共骗取养老金26万余元。 青羊法院经审理认为，被告人小郭以非法占有为目的，采取隐瞒 ...

男子因诈骗罪获刑3年，法官解读法律依据 北京市东城区人民法院经审理认为，被告人翟某以非法占有为目的，虚构事实，隐瞒真相，骗取公私财 物，且数额巨大，已构成诈骗罪，依法应予惩处。鉴于翟某到案后能够如实供述所犯罪行，认罪认罚， 法院对其予以从轻处罚。最终，判处被告人翟某有期徒刑三年，并处罚金人民币三万元，责令其退赔人 民币16万余元，发还北京市东城区社会保险基金管理中心。 一般情况下，老人去世后应当向社保经办机构申报，终止领取养老金。如果隐瞒不报，继续领取去世亲 人的养老金，其行为可能涉嫌诈骗犯罪。 微信公众号"最高人民法院"消息，12月25日，最高人民法院披露了一起相关案件。文章显示，一男子在 母亲去世后隐瞒不报，在长达两年多的时间里冒领其母养老金，被北京市东城区人民法院判处有期徒 刑。目前，该案已生效。 以下为全文： 男子隐瞒母亲死讯骗取16万养老金，全部用于个人消费 男子翟某无业，与母亲刘老太相依为命。2022年4月，刘老太因病在河北省三河市去世，并在当地火化 安葬。母亲去世后，由于担心失去经济来源，翟某动起了"歪心思"，他并未向北京市东城区社会保险基 金管理中心申报母亲死亡，办理养老待遇终止手续，而是隐瞒 ...

近日，商家时女士在社交媒体曝光：半年来她被一买家刘某利用平台漏洞，用6个账号"仅退款"225件331单，她因此损失5.4万余元，并已就此事报案。 图：时女士称自己已报案 据了解，刘某每次会在店铺购买多样商品，商品价格从十几元到几百上千元不等，然后在快递还未签收时，将贵价商品申请仅退款"拦截快递"，再将低价 商品的面单与贵价商品交换，把低价商品当成贵价商品退回。 此外，刘某还经常在粉丝群里炫富，营造富婆人设。有网友向时女士提供的截图显示，2020年，刘某曾经发朋友圈称："你们都在搬砖，我在搬人民币， 都是一袋子一袋子给，这两天光安排人存钱了！" 不止如此，除时女士外，有其他商家表示，自己也遭到了这名"顾客"的"仅退款"。上海的一位服装店店主刘女士发视频声援时女士，称自己也被以同样手 法诈骗。 刘女士在声援时女士的视频中提到："某女子仅退款225个（快递），我也是受害者。不是这次的热搜事件，我是万万没想到吃瓜能吃到自己头上……" 图：刘某高调"炫富"，来源：极目新闻 时女士将此事在网上曝光后，立即引起了网友的激烈讨论。12月7日，话题#仅退款225个快递女子打造富婆人设#还一度冲上微博热搜。 值得一提的是，这一事 ...

2025年12月8日，该案在湖北省随州市曾都区人民法院作出一审判决："新娘"尹某某因犯诈骗罪，被判 处有期徒刑四年六个月，并处罚金两万元；继续追缴尹某某违法所得89，140元，发还给被害人申某 某。 在11月17日的庭审现场，面对法官关于是否认罪及是否愿意退赃以争取被害人谅解的询问时，尹某某曾 表示："不需要谅解，也不会退赃。" 智通财经记者 魏凡 陪嫁的金条、银行存单是网购的，"高官父亲"、"模特母亲"是找人演的，豪车、别墅是租的，"新娘"实 际上已结了两次婚，仍在婚姻存续状态…… 随州市曾都区人民法院认为，根据相关证人证言，能够证明尹某某以非法占有为目的，在婚姻关系存续 期间化名尹某迪，通过互联网结识多名男性发展成为恋爱关系，并在交往过程中捏造自己是1994年出 生，从事美容行业，家境优渥的富家女形象，后以怀孕为由索取打胎费用，如索取不到钱财，迅速结束 该段关系，转移目标。 本案中尹某某与申某某也是通过同样的方式结识。尹某某在与申某某交往中，购买虚假怀孕单向申某某 索要钱财，后申某某想与其结婚，尹某某又请人扮演自己的父母与申某某及申家父母见面，在申某某欲 与其分手时，尹某某找到情感主播金某从中协调劝和，虚 ...

Group 1 - The Supreme People's Court has issued an interpretation regarding the application of laws in cases of counterfeiting currency and related crimes, aiming to enhance legal clarity and enforcement [1] - The act of illegally manufacturing counterfeit currency that mimics the design, shape, and color of real currency is classified as "counterfeiting currency" under Article 170 of the Criminal Law [1] - Altering genuine currency through methods such as cutting, modifying, or reprinting is classified as "forgery of currency" under Article 173 of the Criminal Law [1] Group 2 - If both counterfeiting and forgery methods are used to create mixed currency, it will be prosecuted as counterfeiting currency under Article 170 [1] - Crimes involving counterfeit foreign currency will be prosecuted according to Articles 170 to 173 of the Criminal Law, with the amount calculated based on the exchange rate published by the China Foreign Exchange Trading Center or authorized institutions [2] - Counterfeit ordinary commemorative coins and precious metal commemorative coins will also be prosecuted under Articles 170 to 173, with the amount for counterfeit ordinary coins calculated by face value and for precious metal coins by initial sale price [2] Group 3 - Using or attempting to use counterfeit discontinued currency will be prosecuted for fraud under Article 266 of the Criminal Law [2] - This interpretation supersedes any previous judicial interpretations that are inconsistent with it [3]

每经编辑｜许绍航 近日，有商家在社交媒体曝光：半年来她被一买家刘某利用平台漏洞，用6个账号"仅退款"225件331单，她因此损失5.4万余元，目前已报案。 图：时女士称自己已报案 据悉，刘某每次会在店铺购买多样商品，商品价格从十几元到几百上千元不等，然后在快递还未签收时，将贵价商品申请仅退款"拦截快递"，再将低价商 品的面单与贵价商品交换，把低价商品当成贵价商品退回。 时女士表示，她事后了解到，刘某将骗来的物品在二手平台和粉丝群内低价销售，给顾客排单发货，营造供不应求的氛围。 此外，刘某还经常在粉丝群里炫富，营造富婆人设。有网友向时女士提供的截图显示，2020年，刘某曾经发朋友圈称："你们都在搬砖，我在搬人民币， 都是一袋子一袋子给，这两天光安排人存钱了！" 图：刘某高调"炫富"，来源：极目新闻 时女士将此事在网上曝光后，立即引起了网友的激烈讨论。12月7日，话题#仅退款225个快递女子打造富婆人设#还一度冲上微博热搜。 有关此事报道的评论区内，不少网友认为刘某应该被严惩，也有网友指出这个事件中快递员和驿站没有尽到保护义务，也有责任。 图：部分网友就此事的评论，来自极目新闻 时女士称，在事件曝光后，她收到了多 ...

Core Viewpoint - The rise of illegal debt optimization and rights protection organizations has led to a significant shift in judicial recognition from "fraud" to "extortion," indicating a new phase in the crackdown on financial black and gray industries [1][2][3] Group 1: Nature of Illegal Activities - These organizations operate under the guise of helping overdue clients reduce debts but engage in coercive tactics against financial institutions, including forgery and malicious complaints, to extract profits [1][2] - A recent case revealed a gang that, since 2022, used purchased overdue customer information to lure clients into paying for their "rights protection" services, resulting in illegal gains exceeding one million yuan [2][3] Group 2: Legal and Judicial Developments - The judicial system has begun to classify the actions of these organizations as extortion, which carries heavier penalties compared to fraud, thus increasing the legal risks for offenders [3][4] - The shift in legal classification allows for a comprehensive crackdown on the entire criminal chain, targeting both the deception of clients and the coercion of financial institutions [3][4] Group 3: Impact on Financial Institutions - The illegal activities have raised operational costs for financial institutions and disrupted the normal regulatory environment, leading to broader implications for social credit systems [5][6] - The involvement of personal information violations is prevalent, as criminals require sensitive data to execute their schemes, which can lead to further criminal activities such as fraud and money laundering [5] Group 4: Collaborative Governance Efforts - A multi-departmental approach is being implemented to combat the black and gray financial industries, with law enforcement and regulatory bodies working together to enhance legal enforcement and administrative oversight [5][6] - Recent initiatives include the establishment of risk models using technology to identify and warn against malicious complaints, demonstrating a proactive stance in regulatory measures [5][6] Group 5: Achievements in Law Enforcement - Significant progress has been made in various regions, with numerous cases being prosecuted and substantial amounts of money involved, indicating a strong legal deterrent against these illegal activities [6]

Core Viewpoint - The case discusses the legal implications of a village official's abuse of power in the context of public property and compensation, highlighting differing opinions on whether the actions constitute a crime under the law [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Classification of Actions - There are three opinions regarding the classification of Chen's actions: 1. Chen and Pan are co-conspirators in embezzlement due to Chen's facilitation of Pan's fraudulent claims [2]. 2. Pan committed fraud independently, while Chen's actions, though improper, do not constitute complicity in fraud due to lack of intent to illegally possess public property [2]. 3. Chen, while assisting the government, can be considered a public official and his actions amount to abuse of power, leading to significant losses for the state [2][3]. Group 2: Definition of Public Officials - Village officials can be recognized as public officials when assisting government functions, as per legal interpretations that include those acting on behalf of state agencies [3][4]. - The case illustrates that Chen, as a village party secretary and committee director, was acting under government delegation, thus qualifying as a public official [4]. Group 3: Subjective Intent and Actions - Chen lacked the intent to illegally possess public property, as his actions were driven by personal relationships rather than a desire for personal gain [5][6]. - The absence of a conspiracy to embezzle public funds between Chen and Pan indicates that Chen's actions were not criminally conspiratorial [5][6]. Group 4: Objective Consequences of Actions - Chen's failure to properly audit compensation claims led to significant financial losses for the state, amounting to over 4 million yuan in fraudulent compensation [1][6]. - The abuse of power manifested through Chen's negligence in fulfilling his duties, resulting in substantial harm to public interests [6].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights a case of fraud involving the forgery of consumer receipts to redeem shopping mall points, which were then used to pay for parking fees on behalf of others, leading to criminal charges against the perpetrators [1][7]. Group 1: Incident Overview - Shanghai Changning police uncovered a fraudulent scheme during the "Lijian 2025" operation, where two suspects were arrested for allegedly using fake consumption records to redeem shopping mall points [1][7]. - The management of a shopping mall reported an unusual spike in points redeemed from various dining merchants, prompting an investigation into the sale of these points on a second-hand trading platform [1][3]. Group 2: Method of Fraud - The suspects, employees at a gold sales counter in the mall, exploited customers' lack of request for receipts by collecting these receipts and using their registered accounts to exchange them for points [5]. - To meet the increasing demand for points, the suspects resorted to using photo editing software to fabricate receipts, resulting in the creation of nearly 500 fake receipts within two months, amounting to hundreds of thousands of yuan [5][6]. Group 3: Legal Consequences and Recommendations - The suspects have been taken into custody under criminal coercive measures for fraud, and the case is under further investigation [7]. - Authorities have urged shopping mall management to enhance daily oversight and improve verification mechanisms to prevent similar fraudulent activities in the future [7][8].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal classification of a case involving a public official, highlighting the distinction between bribery and fraud in the context of influence peddling [1][2][3]. Group 1: Case Overview - The case involves a public official (甲) who accepted 1 million yuan from a private entrepreneur (乙) in exchange for a promise to influence another official (丙) to assist乙 in avoiding criminal charges [1][2]. - There are three differing opinions on how to classify 甲's actions: as fraud, as attempted bribery, or as completed bribery [2][3]. Group 2: Legal Framework - According to Article 388 of the Criminal Law, public officials who use their position to obtain improper benefits for others and accept money can be charged with bribery, specifically influence peddling [2][5]. - Influence peddling is not a separate crime but a form of bribery that protects the integrity of public officials' duties [2][4]. Group 3: Analysis of Actions - 甲's actions meet the criteria for using his position to provide improper benefits, as he had the potential to influence丙 due to their relationship [3][5]. - The payment of 1 million yuan was based on 乙's trust in 甲's influence, indicating a direct relationship between the payment and 甲's position [6]. Group 4: Conclusion - The article concludes that 甲's acceptance of the payment, despite not having communicated with丙, constitutes completed influence peddling, as the act of accepting the money itself indicates a breach of duty [6].