破产欺诈指采取欺诈手段滥用破产制度之不足以谋求不正当利益的行为。我国在应对破产欺诈上采取控制主义而非识别主义的制度构建方式，然而此种建立在整体制度关联上的覆盖性控制机制仍待完善。在破产原因制度上，第一阶原因所包含的“停止支付”可能导致债权人欺诈发生，可通过设置未完全清偿程度标准、限制债务性质及其认定范围的方式进行限缩调整，但不宜设债权人发起标准。作为第二阶原因的“资不抵债”有待通过强化惩罚、督促尽职等方式遏止债务人欺诈性滥用认定依据标准下的优势地位，同时应将继续经营价值作为一种普遍的认定计算标准引入审查。“明显缺乏清偿能力”与“资不抵债”形成互补，亦可发展出“即将支付不能”的新破产原因。此外，有必要借助扩大破产犯罪制度覆盖范围等方式弥补受理前形式审查的真实性缺陷，但不宜赋予法官基于申请人主观目的的额外裁量权。未来还须引入第三方监督介入以改善受理后审查乏力问题、扭转“高门槛”路径困局并减少欺诈对整体制度运行和程序转换的拖累。客观主义立场下的破产撤销权制度无法回避破产欺诈控制不完全的问题。在欺诈撤销权制度上，“无偿转让财产”无法涵盖全部无偿行为，可调整为“无对价地处分财产权益”，并以财产权益实际变动的时点进行认定。企业日常赠与行为不应豁免，企业公益性捐赠行为应区分具体类型予以相应撤销。“以明显不合理的价格进行交易”应采取综合判断法而非沿用70%机械价格法进行欺诈认定从而解决多种价格规避风险。实践因素和制度因素均支持撤销致使债权超过诉讼时效的不作为行为。在偏颇清偿撤销权制度上，应进一步承认执行行为可撤销性，将现行撤销规则主观标准降低至“债权人非善意”。在可能新增的常规营业给付豁免规则上，应将以客观行业标准作为上限标准的三要素当事人常规营业标准设置为唯一认定标准。个人破产免责制度在立法中应设置严格免责考察期，并构建满足欺诈滥用筛选要求的提前届满激励规则。同时，应设置不得免责事由强回溯审查规则，降低主观要件证明标准，细化撤销免责事由。在破产犯罪制度上，应采取降低行为处罚门槛、取消主体限制等措施扩大欺诈处罚范围，改善刑事责任层次性缺位，重构虚假破产罪各构成要件以发挥兜底性规制作用，增强惩戒力度。控制破产欺诈是系统性法律工程。单一的制度漏洞和保护失衡可产生短板效应，各制度间的相互叠加效应又直接影响防范收益与运行成本。后续修订应优先强化发展滞后的后期制度以获得超额系统收益。

Bankruptcy fraud refers to any abuse of the deficiencies of the bankruptcy system to seek illegitimate benefits fraudulently. China adopts a control strategy instead of a recognition strategy in bankruptcy fraud legislation. China tries to control all fraudulent acts directly by interrelated bankruptcy subsystems. However, this control mechanism in the bankruptcy law of China still needs to be improved.In the bankruptcy petition system, “stop-payment” is regarded as a cause of bankruptcy, which is also one of the first level causes in the system. But this kind of setup of the bankruptcy petition system may lead to creditor fraud problems. It should be limited by setting up a standard of unpaid debt. The nature and scope of unpaid debt should also be considered. However, it is not appropriate to set a limit on the number of creditors who try to file an involuntary bankruptcy petition and the amount of claims they hold. “Overindebtedness” is one of the second level causes in the system. This setup of the system may lead to the problem that the debtor may fraudulently abuse its dominance of evidence under the criteria. It can be solved by strengthening the punishment measures on the debtors and the accountants. Meanwhile, a new calculation method based on going-concern value should also be widely introduced into the bankruptcy examination in China. “Obvious incapacity to pay off the debt”, which is another cause of bankruptcy, are systematically complementary with “overindebtedness”. “Imminent insolvency”, which is originated from “obvious incapacity to pay off the debt”, may be introduced into the bankruptcy law of China as a new cause of bankruptcy. In addition, it is necessary to overcome the authenticity defect of formal examination before the acceptance of the bankruptcy petition by expanding the coverage of the bankruptcy crime system and other measures. But it is not appropriate to give judges additional discretion based on applicants’ subjective purposes. In the future, in order to improve the bankruptcy examination after the acceptance of the bankruptcy petition, deal with the dilemma of "high threshold for bankruptcy petitions", and reduce the impact of bankruptcy fraud on overall system operation and procedural conversion, a third-party supervision mechanism shall be developed.The avoiding power system, which is set up according to the objectivism legislative strategy, cannot avoid the problem of incomplete control over all kinds of bankruptcy fraud. First, in the fraudulent conveyances avoiding system, the concept of “transferring the assets free of charge” in the bankruptcy law is not equivalent to the concept of the gratuitous act. It should be replaced by the concept of disposal of property rights and property interests with no consideration. Such acts should be confirmed when the property rights and property interests are actually disposed. The ordinary casual gifts given by enterprises should be revoked and the public benefits donation made by enterprises should also be revoked according to specific conditions. Second, in order to solve the problems of fraud based on price presumption, a comprehensive judgment method, instead of rigid mechanical test of 70% normal price, should be used to decide whether the debtors transfer their assets at an obviously unreasonable price. Third, the debtors’ omission, which causes the creditor’s rights exceeded the limitation of action, should be regarded as a way of giving up the creditor‘s rights and therefore be revoked. It is supported by realistic factors and systematic factors. In the preferences avoiding system, the revocability of the act of execution should be recognized to a certain extent. The law should be revised so that the act of execution can be revoked when the creditor is not in good faith. In the future, the transfer in ordinary course of business between the debtor and the transferee may not be revoked in the revised bankruptcy law. Such transfer should be confirmed only according to the 3-factor parties standard, which is limited by the industries standard.The future legislation on personal bankruptcy discharge system should be built with a long-term period of pending investigation. The pending investigation mechanism should include incentives rules, which may give a chance only to qualified honest debtors, who have no intent to fraudulently abuse such rules, to shorten the period. This system should also be built with strict retrospective review mechanism on fraudulent circumstances, lowered standard of proof for subjective elements of the fraudsters, and refined rules on revoking discharge decisions. In bankruptcy crime system, the scope of punishment should be expanded by lowering the punishment threshold of bankruptcy fraud, cancelling the restrictions on the subject of bankruptcy fraud, etc. The lack of hierarchy of criminal responsibility should be solved. The key point in the future revision is to reconstruct the constituent elements of the crime of false bankruptcy so that it can become the general provision to punish the fraudsters and increase the intensity of legal punishment. It is a systematic legal project to control bankruptcy fraud. The vulnerabilities and protection imbalance in a single bankruptcy subsystem can have a short-board effect on the whole system. The overlapping effect of various subsystems can also directly affects the benefits and costs of the whole bankruptcy system. In subsequent revisions, it is the priority to strengthen the imperfect post-control subsystem of bankruptcy fraud, which can bring excess systematic benefits.