<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc='http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/' xmlns:oai_dc='http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/' xmlns:xsi='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance' xsi:schemaLocation='http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd'>
<dc:creator>Stati, V.</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2010-12-01</dc:date>
<dc:description xml:lang='en'>The study contains the analysis of some controversial issues of penal responsibility for the offence under art.238 of the Penal Code of the Republic of Moldova. It is shown that, in the context of that crime, the credit acts as goods acquired through committing a crime. The same role is carried out by the undue share of credit, which is made up by the difference among the credit in increased proportion and the due credit, as well as the credit obtained on favourable terms, of which the offender was not entitled to benefit; in the context of the same offence, the false information, presented by the offender, fulfil the role of means to commit the crime. It is explained why, in the case of the offence of obtaining a credit by means of fraud, it can not be spoken about the existence of a material object or of a product of crime. It is shown that committing the offence, specified in art.238 PC RM, involves the direct offensive influence on the crime’s victim, by its deception, via presenting some false information, namely by providing the means of committing the crime. It is argued that the victim of the offence in question can be only a financial institution that carries on the credit granting activity, including the National Bank of Moldova. This activity can not be confused with the borrowing of funds activity.</dc:description>
<dc:source>Revista Naţională de Drept 123 (12) 2-10</dc:source>
<dc:title>Infracţiunea de dobândire a creditului prin înşelăciune (art.238 C. pen. RM): noi tendinţe şi abordări(Partea I)
</dc:title>
<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>