Of course, whether or not to return the money after the incident mainly affects the characterization is some cases where the behavior itself is between illegally absorbing public deposits and fund-rai

Of course, whether or not to return the money after the incident mainly affects the characterization is some cases where the behavior itself is between illegally absorbing public deposits and fund-raising fraud. If it can be determined based on the relevant facts and evidence before the incident that the nature of the behavior is illegal collection of public deposits or fund-raising fraud, then the factor of whether to return the stolen money after the incident generally cannot affect the characterization, but can only be considered as a sentencing factor. In judicial practice, all the above factors must be comprehensively considered to determine whether the behavior constitutes the crime of fund-raising fraud or the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits. Take the case of Tang Moumou illegally absorbing deposits from the public. The public prosecution agency alleged that from May 2003 to June 2007, the defendant Tang Moumou initiated illegal fund-raising fraud because he was heavily in debt in business activities, and then instigated several other defendants to use Shunpu University controlled by Tang Moumou to commit fraud. On the pretext that the hotel needed funds, it used high interest rates as bait to defraud more than 250 individuals and entities in the name of "borrowing" a total of more than 170 million yuan (the following currencies are all in RMB), which was used for daily expenses and debt repayment, etc., resulting in The above-mentioned units and individuals suffered losses totaling more than 160 million yuan. Based on this, the public prosecution agency believed that the behavior of the defendant Tang Moumou constituted the crime of fund-raising fraud. After trial, the court found that in August 1997, Shanghai Dongxing Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Dongxing Real Estate Company), of which the defendant Tang was the legal representative, and a Malaysian company *** jointly established Shanghai Shunpu Hotel Co., Ltd. company, and chose No. 2099 Gongyuan East Road, Qingpu District, this city to build Shunpu Hotel. In November of the same year, Tang Moumou established Shanghai Dongxing Real Estate (Group) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Dongxing Real Estate Group) on the basis of Dongxing Real Estate Company, and served as the legal representative of the group. During its operation, Dongxing Real Estate Group suffered from a serious lack of funds due to low gross profit margins on residential development and sales, a large number of bank loans that needed to be repaid, the inability to recover operating income in a timely manner, and blind investment and asset acquisition. From May 2003 to June 2007, the defendant Tang Moumou directly or instigated several other defendants to use Dongxing Real Estate Group to build Shunpu Hotel as an excuse and promised to pay high monthly interest of 0.83% to 12%. In return, more than 140 million yuan was raised from more than 200 individuals and units, which was mainly used to repay the debts of Dongxing Real Estate Group, pay project fees, and daily operations. As of the incident, more than 130 million yuan had not been returned. The court held that there was insufficient evidence for the public prosecution to accuse Dongxing Real Estate Group of not being able to repay its debts when raising funds from outside. The defendant Tang Moumou raised funds from the public for the Dongxing Real Estate Group's need to build Shunpu Hotel and engage in business activities. The funds raised in this case were mainly used for the company's operations. During this process, the defendant Tang Moumou and the other defendants Apart from promising to pay high interest in return, no other deceptive methods were adopted, so Tang Moumou and other defendants cannot be convicted of fund-raising fraud. Dongxing Real Estate Group violated national regulations and absorbed more than 140 million yuan in funds from unspecified individuals in society by paying high interest in return, disrupting the financial order. Its behavior constituted the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits. In this case, the court comprehensively considered the defendant’s purpose of illegally raising funds, the company’s assets when raising funds, the actual use of the funds, and the reasons why most of the funds could not actually be returned, and comprehensively determined that the defendant’s behavior did not constitute the crime of fund-raising fraud. The crime of illegally absorbing public deposits is correct.