| At about 21 o'clock on April 21,2006, Xu Ting went to a commercial bank at Guangzhou City, Tianhe District to withdrawal some money. Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) Xu Ting put his own bankcard into the Automatic Teller Machine. Originally he intended to withdrawal 100 Yuan, but he entered the instruction 1,000 Yuan to the ATM. Then the ATM gave 1000 Yuan, but the bank accounts showed that it just deducted I Yuan. Xu Ting was so glad that he continued to withdraw 174,000 Yuan. At last, Xu Ting escaped with the money.On November 20,2007, the Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou deemed that, under the purpose of illegal invasion and occupation, Xu Ting took secret means to steal the financial institutions, and the amount is huge. His behavior fits to the larceny. The court sentenced life imprisonment to Xu Ting, deprived of political rights for life and confiscated all of its property.On January 9,2008, the Higher People's Court of Guangdong deemed that the fact in the first instance judgments of the Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou is unclear, and there is insufficient evidences are not sufficient, so it sent back the judgment to the Intermediate People's Court. On March 31,2008, the Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou re-sentenced the case and sentenced the Xu Ting larceny, sentenced 5 years imprisonment to Xu Ting and fined him 20,000 Yuan. Xu Ting should give bake 174,000 Yuan to the victim.In the first Trial of Xu Ting, many people took part in it. Surrounding the Conviction and sentence of Xu Ting, many scholars showed their own opinions. This article will display the different opinions one by one. Then on the base of the analysis, I will show my opinion to the conviction and sentence of the case. There are two different opinions to the nature of the Ting Xu' behavior. The first opinion is that the behavior of Xu Ting is not a crime, it contents many specific points of view:the point of view that the bank has faults, the point of view that Xu Ting can not implement the correct behavior, the point of view the behavior is Invalid transaction, etc.The second opinion is that Xu Ting's behavior constituted a crime, but when it comes to which crime, opinions vary. Some people think it is embezzlement, some think it is Fraud, still some maintain it is larceny. In the opinion of larceny, there are 2 different views too. The first view is that the behavior is a general larceny; the second view, however, think the behavior is not a theft to the financial institutions.Basing on the Xu Ting's case, I analysis all kinds of opinions, and finally I get a conclusion that the behavior of Xu Ting is a larceny, but it is a general a general larceny. ATM can not be taken as the financial institutions. And our criminal law lags far behind the reality, Amount of standard to the larceny does not change while the economic has a great change. And we Inherite the tradition of civil law and do not give the judge full discretion. Under this background the judge came to a seemingly legitimate but unjust and unreasonable conclusion:Xu Ting's behavior is a theft to the financial institutions. On this base, we discuss the related question arising from the case of Xu Ting, point the origin of the problems and give the methods to correct the problems.
|
PDF Full Text Request