|
|
|
| A Challenge to the Theory of Fraud in QR Code Cases and Demonstration on the Theory of Theft |
| Fu Liqing |
| Law School, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract In the cases of secretly changing the merchant’s QR code to get money, it is necessary to distinguish the victim in civil law from the victim in criminal law. The merchant is not only a victim of property loss, that is, a victim in civil law, but also a victim in criminal law. The customer neither has cognitive deviation in the normative sense, nor disposes the property based on the disposal intention. The customer is neither the cheated nor the victim.The proposition that the actor in QR code cases establishes the crime of fraud, obviously tries to expand the scope of the act of disposition in fraud. And the most important reason for the actor not to be convicted of fraud is that both the customer and the merchant lack the corresponding act of disposition. The nature of this kind of behavior to get money is not an interactive crime of mutual communication. Whether the case is understood as fraud between the two or tripartite fraud, it is difficult to confirm that implementation behavior based on disposal intention exists.Whether from the perspective of the substantiality of crime or from the perspective of the purpose of punishment, the behavior of secretly changing the merchant’s QR code to get money should be treated as a property crime rather than being recognized as not guilty. Treating the behavior that infringes the legal interests and has the necessity to be prevented as a property crime does not violate the principle of caution of penalty in criminal law, but it is more conducive to exert the function of criminal law.QR code cases are the theft against the original intention of the victim, and the object of the behavior is the property interest of the merchant’s creditor’s rights. By stealing or secretly changing the QR code, the actor only obtains the status of the creditor, and creates conditions to obtain other people’s property interests or creditor’s rights. At this time, the actor has not yet obtained the actual property interests, and there is only an abstract danger to the creditor’s rights of the merchant. By now the actor just conducts the preparation behavior. Only when the customer scans the code, the danger of infringement of creditor’s rights is specific, realistic and urgent enough, and should be substantially recognized as the implementation behavior of theft. When the actor’s account receives money, his theft is completed. At this moment, the actor not only obtains but also realizes the creditor’s rights. In the final analysis, QR code cases are the crimes of completely against the victim’s original intention rather than “self-damage” crimes. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize the “conceptualization of the property interest possession judgment” to appropriately expand the establishment scope of the crime of theft and bring such cases into the legal network of theft.Generally speaking, the theory of theft is result oriented and the theory of fraud is behavior oriented. However, it does not violate the basic logic of criminal law that criminal law must take behavior as the core to analyze the problems. Similarly, it does not “unconsciously put the focus of attention on loss compensation”. On the contrary, it just emphasizes the substantive judgment of legal interest infringement rather than formal understanding. Moreover, in judicial practice, the theory of theft also helps to tighten the criminal law network and avoid the punishment loopholes caused by the theory of fraud, which also contributes to implementing the idea of strict but not severe.
|
|
Received: 08 October 2021
|
|
|
|
1 徐凌波： 《置换二维码行为与财产犯罪的成立》，《国家检察官学院学报》2018年第2期，第34-47页。
2 张开骏： 《偷换商户支付二维码侵犯商户应收款的犯罪定性》，《上海政法学院学报》2018年第2期，第107-119页。
3 张庆立： 《偷换二维码取财的行为宜认定为诈骗罪》，《东方法学》2017年第2期，第123-131页。
4 蔡颖： 《偷换二维码行为的刑法定性》，《法学》2020年第1期，第124-137页。
5 马永强： 《盗窃罪中财产性利益占有的规范化解释进路》，《政治与法律》2020年第3期，第52-63页。
6 柏浪涛： 《论诈骗罪中的“处分意识”》，《东方法学》2017年第2期，第97-106页。
7 孙杰： 《更换二维码取财行为的刑法评价》，《政法论丛》2018年第2期，第120-130页。
8 田宏杰： 《偷换收款二维码侵财行为的司法认定》，《检察日报》2019年5月24日，第3版。
9 周铭川： 《偷换商家支付二维码获取财物的定性分析》，《东方法学》2017年第2期，第112-122页。
10 阮齐林： 《“二维码替换案”应定性诈骗》，《中国检察官》2018年第2期，第3-7页。
11 刘宪权、林雨佳： 《偷换二维码侵财行为应以诈骗罪定性》，《检察日报》2017年11月6日，第3版。
12 蔡桂生： 《缄默形式诈骗罪的表现及其本质》，《政治与法律》2018年第2期，第38-49页。
13 董玉庭、杜文辉： 《论偷换二维码非法侵财犯罪行为》，《山东社会科学》2020年第6期，第172-177页。
14 许浩： 《盗窃与诈骗交织类犯罪的定性问题研究》，《法律适用》2019年第1期，第112-118页。
15 张明楷： 《三角诈骗的类型》，《法学评论》2017年第1期，第9-26页。
16 蔡桂生： 《新型支付方式下诈骗与盗窃的界限》，《法学》2018年第1期，第169-181页。
17 前田雅英： 『刑法各論講義』（第6版），東京：東京大學出版會，2015年。 |
|
|
|
2022, Vol. 52 
