On Special Property Within Criminal Law

The issue of object of property crime, the inevitable aporia in current literature, requires breakthrough. Authors sprinkle phrases such as Intangible Property, Civil Property Interest, Property Inaction and Immoveable Property page by page, by taking these severe crimes in way of common property crimes despite the tentative endangering the Criminal Conviction Principle. In precedent revisions about Constitution, failing to be repercussive with legislative quandary resulted by incompetence to numerous cases, relative part about Property Crime stays constant; and then diversified objects in property crime in legislation are called for. Identification of Particularity is the paraphrase of Diverse Property Crime, viz. scrutinize on the property in disputation about crime conviction.Chapter1:An overview about particular property. In crime law, the particular property is bound up with many arguments now, more specifically, it is grounded in the latter. Currently, the Chinese academe ushers in two-fold conundrum:in one hand, the demarcation between different popular concepts about property is blurred and therefore the comparison between different researches fails to further consensus about particular property; in other hand, the sporadic works to classify the property refrain from an overall perspective. It entails the oversight to Criminal Conviction Principle in forming paradigm since the extension of interpretation about it must be, usually improperly, be drawn on for civil property interest in judicial practice. The fundamental readjustment implicates more detailed classification about property in various modalities through which the particular property get addressed. The modality is not only the vital trait of property but also the major factor for the way to position it, so it is necessary to take modality of property into account during legislative process. Generally, there are tangible and intangible properties, or in other words, the objective and subjective properties. The tangible property consists of property modality and interest attaching it. By the way, the latter should have not been underestimated in legislation of criminal law. Furthermore, the corporeality would be invisible or visible. The invisible property, something like electricity or property in action, becomes different hotspot in criminal law to its counterpart in civil law research; the visible property should also have been weighted as particular property. In short, I purport that Tangible Property, Intangible Property, Invisible Property and Visible Property constitute a framework that is springboard to particular property issue.Chapter2:Protection of intangible property in criminal law. In civil law, the intangible property amounts to invisible property, and hence in the inchoate it designates creditor’s right, right of instrument and trust right etc. Otherwise, the Intangible Property, in terminology of criminal law, is confused, since it has been employed to designate different things. I proposed that the intangible property, as the information property, mainly correlates with valuable information. The trait of the intangible property is the invisible usage and the current classic definition about Intangible property consists of knowledge and virtual property. The virtual property, bearing by electromagnetic device, is parasite in internet. I categorize the virtual property infringement into cyber crime, based which the severe punishment should be taken through legislation.Chapter3:the Ambit of Property Interest in Criminal Law. Discourses about Property Interest from Japanese academe ever prevailed in China, though the difference in legislative background is marked out of primary stipulation in criminal law. The fundamentalist who argues that the property interest equals with property modality in his untenable approach renders confusion that halts the conviction in criminal law out of inappropriate property classification. It can be asserted that the concern about property interest comes from the ill protection to creditor’s right which is usually viewed as real property, and hence no wonder the realization of property interest is described in process of obviation of creditor’s right. I suggest that the property interest in legislation should center on obligation of paying, the denominate of property interest and creditor’s right, in the purpose distinguishing it from intangible property, invisible property and static property. Thereof, it seems kosher to ascribe the property interest infringement to the civil law rather than criminal law, which calls for fewer convictions. Furthermore, grounded in the research to different cases and the legislation per se, the property interest infringement in legislation should be defined as Interest Fraud Crime, a particular fraud crime with more lenience.Chapter4:the Ambit of Invisible Property in Criminal Law. The Invisible property came out in civil law of ancient Roma. Since19th century, the creditor’s right and knowledge have played important role in legislation, which in some ways dents the passion to invisible property research. The same issue broached in criminal law results from electrical crime since the electricity is no doubt the invisible property. The invisible property, unlike the intangible property and property interest, is objective material though untouchable as the same. In judicial interpretation, the category of invisible property only contains electricity and gas, though it may be other ones. The major debate is about how to define pilferage of invisible property, in Fraud Crime or in Crime in Theft. I suggest that it is particular theft crime about new energy with potential collective as crime subject.Chapter5:Protection of Static Property in Criminal law. The real estate as well as the land is a special static property. As the reform of Chinese housing system and the booming house market, the number of cases about taking and reselling real estate illegally rises, the reflection of which in academe divides into different campaigns. Some uphold that the real estate is crime object; some deny that with intuitional perspective. Otherwise, more and more scholars believe that real estate as criminal object should be widely adopted in conviction of theft crime and robbery crime etc. Nonetheless, the infringement around static property doesn’t tally with classic definitions of crimes characterized by usurpation such as burglary, robbery, and embezzlement etc, neither the crimes with less lesion such as fraud and blackmail etc. This dilemma is in the spotlight in this chapter.