近年来，经济高速发展中的金融犯罪问题越来越严重，各类金融诈骗案件频发，其中集资诈骗案件的数量更是大幅攀升。集资诈骗罪作为一种涉众型经济犯罪，它往往涉及到众多被害人，涉案金额有时达数千万甚至数亿元，严重侵犯了国家的金融管理秩序和社会公众的合法权益，容易引发社会不稳定，产生社会治安问题，从而影响社会发展与和谐稳定。2007年的吴英案更是引发了社会公众的广泛争议。吴英是否构成集资诈骗罪？吴英该不该死？吴英案引发了学者们对集资诈骗罪的更多探讨。司法实践中该如何认定集资诈骗罪，集资诈骗犯罪与民间借贷争议的区别在哪里？是否应该废除集资诈骗罪中的死刑？吴英案已不仅仅是一桩刑事案件了，更重要的是它引起了学者对集资诈骗罪的认定、民间借贷及集资诈骗罪的死刑存废等问题的思考。本文从吴英案的视角出发，对集资诈骗罪的认定、民间借贷、集资诈骗罪死刑存废等方面的问题进行探讨。全文共分为三部分：第一部分：2007年3月16日，吴英涉嫌非法吸收公众存款罪而被批准逮捕，浙江省金华市检察院以集资诈骗罪向金华市人民法院提起公诉，吴英被以集资诈骗罪判处死刑。吴英不服一审判决提起上诉，二审法院驳回了吴英的上诉，维持原判。最高人民法院死刑复核时裁定发回重审。最终，吴英以集资诈骗罪被判处死刑，缓期二年执行。在此案的审理过程中，控辩双方围绕着吴英是否具有非法占有目的、吴英的行为是否构成集资诈骗罪、本案属于单位犯罪还是自然人犯罪等问题展开了激烈的辩论。第二部分：从“非法占有目的”、“非法集资”、“诈骗方法”、“诈骗数额”四个大的方面展开论述。把非法占有目的的内涵分为两个层次来理解，即行为人主观上具有非法占有投资者资金的意图和行为人没有给投资者投资回报的意图两个方面。笔者承认可以存在事前非法占有目的和事中非法占有目的，但是对于事后非法占有目的却予以否认，但是明确了非法占有目的产生时间向后延伸的趋势。在非法占有目的的认定上，可以采用通过客观的行为去猜测、推想行为人的内心想法，认定其是否具有非法占有目的。对于非法集资的认定，首先应当从广义上理解“未经有权机关批准”，其次理解社会公众时,虽然集资的范围特定但是由于集资的对象不明确，随时有增加的可能，也应认定为向不特定的社会公众非法集资。根据集资诈骗罪的实质来认定行为人是否使用了诈骗方法。对于诈骗数额的认定，司法解释采用的是“实际所得数额”，但是本论文认为采用总数额更加合理，对于案发前已返还的部分及司法机关追偿后挽回的损失，作为从宽处罚的量刑情节，但不应影响集资诈骗罪的定罪。第三部分:我国没有关于民间借贷专门的法律规定，完善民间借贷的法律制度是当前需要解决的主要问题。我国应该废除集资诈骗罪的死刑，但是在当前条件不具备的情况下，应当从法律规定及法律适用两个方面对集资诈骗罪的死刑进行限制以保障法律的公平与正义。

In recent years, financial crime is becoming more and more serious in the process of rapid economic development. All kinds of financial fraud cases occur frequently,especially the number of fraudulent fund-raising crime cases is more sharply. Fraudulent fund-raising crime as a kind of economic crime, it often involves many victims.Sometimes, the amount of money involved is up to tens or even hundreds of millions yuan, it also seriously disrupts the country's financial management order and violates the social public 's legitimate rights and interests. It is easy to cause the social instability, and the social security problems, which affect the social development and harmony and stability. In 2007 the WuYing case triggered the public widespread controvery. Does Wu Ying constitute the fraudulent fund-raising crime? Should Wu Ying die or not? Emergence of the Wu Ying case causes more scholars to discuss and research the fraudulent fund-raising crime. How to identify the fraudulent fund-raising crime in the judicial practice? Where is the boundaries of fraudulent fund-raising crime and folk lending dispute? Should we abolish the death penalty of fraudulent fund-raising crime? Wu Ying case is not just a criminal case any more, It is more important that it attracts more scholars to think about how to identify the fraudulent fund-raising crime and folk lending and the abolition of death penalty. This article starting from the perspective of the Wu Ying case to discuss how to identify the fraudulent fund-raising crime and folk lending and the abolition of death penalty.The paper is divided into three parts:The first part: On march 16, 2007 Wu Ying was approved arrest for the crime of illegal deposits from the public,then prosecuted for fraudulent fund-raising crime.The trial court sentenced Wu Ying to death penalty for fraudulent fund-raising crime. Wu Ying verdicted the first trial of appeal. The second instance court rejected Wu Ying's appeal, upheld the original verdict. The Supreme People's Court review of the death sentences ruled remand.Finally, Wu Ying were sentenced to death for fraudulent fund-raising crime, suspended for two years. In the process of trial, prosecution and defence launched a fierce debate around whether Wu Ying has the purpose of illegal possession, whether Ying Wu's behavior constitutes fraudulent fund-raising crime,it belongs to unit crime or natural crime.The second part: Discusses “Purpose of Illegal Possession”、 “illegal gathers capital”、 “the cheating method” and “the amount of fraud”. Form two levels to understand the purpose of illegal possession. Behaviors have the subjective intent of illegal possession of investor's funds and no means to return the investors. Definite the purpose of Illegal Possession in advance and things in the purpose of illegal possession, denies the after purpose of illegal possession. But clears that the generation time of the purpose of illegal possession extends backwards. In the identification of the purpose of illegal possession, the subjective state of mind, the objective behavior of the perpetrator can be used to identify whether it has the purpose of illegal possession. To recognize the illegal fund-raising , firstly we should broadly understand”without the right to authorities”.Secondly, understand the public that although the fund-raising range is special, the object is not clear, the number can increase,so it should be identified as illegal fund-raising to non-specific public. According to the essence of fraudulent fund-raising crime to identify whether the actor use cheating methods. The cognizance of the amount of fraud, judicial interpretation use "the actual amount of income", but this paper thinks that the total amount is more reasonable. The irreparable loss can be a lenient punishment, but should not affect the financing fraud conviction.The third part: The laws and regulations of folk lending is scattered in our country, there is no specific law. We should gradually improve the legal system of folk lending. Clarify the legal folk lending and the related criminal crimes. Our country should abolish the death penalty of fraudulent fund-raising crime,but the current conditions are not available,we can from two aspects to limit the death penalty for financial fraud: the law and the law applicable to ensure the fairness and justice of the law.