A study of receiving money by issuing defective deposit receipts

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to convict the offender of real concurrence offenses of the most severe offense and applying the most severe penalty will result in no distinction between the perpetrator who conducted more than one act and the one who conducted only one act. This approach deviates from the purpose of criminal law. The real concurrence of offenses means several offenses, the perpetrator’s dangerousness and culpability are much higher than the perpetrator who commits just one crime, so combined punishments for several offenses should be applied to the real concurrence of offenses.

Design/methodology/approach

If the depositors are acquaintances or relatives and friends, the relationship can be explained by “personality trust.” If the depositors are strangers, but they have complied with their duties of care, the deposit relationship can be explained by “system trust.”

Findings

The real concurrence of offenses means several offenses, the perpetrator’s dangerousness and culpability are much higher than the perpetrator who commits just one crime, so combined punishments for several offenses should be applied to the real concurrence of offenses.

Originality/value

The principle of choosing the most severe punishment applied to the real concurrence of offense should be abolished. As the perpetrator separately conducts two acts at different times, these acts infringe on different legal interests. Although these acts exist closely, the authors cannot deny that these acts constitute more than one offense.

Citation

You, C. (2020), "A study of receiving money by issuing defective deposit receipts", Journal of Money Laundering Control, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 457-476. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-11-2019-0090