Diferencias entre delito de estafa y apropiación indebida como aporte a la legislación penal ecuatoriana

Abstract:

The work of investigation realized for my thesis, it places in the needs, which the professionals of the right have with regard to the forms and manners of typifying the crime of swindle and undue appropriation, as well as, to interpret the punitive norm, and the methods to try inside this crime. The majority of crimes of undue appropriation and it defrauds, they stay in the impunity since not to could neither to verify nor prove either the existence of the crime or the responsibility of the actors, which leads to the impunity and the patrimonial prejudice in which, they fall the victims or passive subjects. Most of tests contributed by the attorneys remains misestimated since they do not know the efficiency of every evidential instrument, and another problem more is the existing confusion that exists when that exists when there is applied the typology of every studied crime this is they confuse the objective and subjective elements of it her defrauds with the undue appropriation. As result to could establish that the crime of swindle and the undue appropriation for nature they concern the property but it targets and subjectively both types concern the public faith, since, as well as the forger of signatures commits an outrage against the public faith that the notary gives, the swindler concerns the public faith that the passive subjects give inside the company. Since conclusions we can establish that the penal procedural law has not established the correct forms to prove these two crimes.

Año de publicación:

2015

Keywords:

• Impunidad
• Fé pública
• PERJUICIO PATRIMONIAL
• Derecho Procesal Penal

Fuente:

rraae