The Bona Fide Acquisition Of Stolen Goods

China's property legislation was trying to provide the ownership of stolen goods in property law, but in the end ,it has not been mentioned the content. The raising of sales in having no right makes the birth of bona fide acquisition system, and the sales of stolen goods also cannot be avoided as an objective phenomenon, which has become one of the main manifestations of sales in having no right under the view of civil law, and then the civil legislation cannot consider the application in good faith and avoid mentioning. China's traditional civil law theory and judicial practice thought that the stolen goods shouldn't apply the bona fide acquisition system, but this view was formed under the background of the traditional economic system, which emphasis the static safe of property. And the reasons that support the view, such as the stolen property is prohibited circulation of materials, circulation will affect the social order and public security, and judicial handling of cases ,and so on, now have cannot afford to speculate. Today China's market economy system has been firmly established; the transaction security has undoubtedly become the most concerned and demand things in economic activity. Because of frequent trading, people are unable to check the source of each item, the buyers buy goods just under the principle of presumption of public summons for the common items and goodwill. If the law does not allow the purchaser gets the title, not only the purchaser'occupied benefits that has been formed will be broken, but also the security of transactions will be inevitably obstacle, and making buyers feel insecure. Stolen goods apply the bona fide acquisition system is applicable to the justice value choice of the law and the implementation of legal purposes. In view of this, this paper insisted that our civil legislation in stolen goods should be established the bona fide acquisition system to adapt to the reality of development. The main part of this article is arranged as following to express the views.First, defines the scope and nature of stolen goods. Which things is the stolen goods in civil law, what natures the stolen goods haves are the most two critical issues about stolen property acquired in bona fide acquisition system: defined the scope of the stolen goods under the civil law can be known which booties can apply the bona fide acquisition system; from the flow of contrast to the common sense of the nature of objects and stolen goods can be know whether the stolen goods can flow in nature.Second, observes and summaries the domestic and international legislation on state ownership of stolen goods and the theory of domestic differences. Our bona fide acquisition system is largely obtained from foreign legislation. Therefore, if we research bona fide acquisition system of stolen goods, we should firstly look at the relevant legislation before reading our legislation. The theoretical difference of the problem is reason and power to study the problem, trying to eliminate differences is the value of this research.Third, analysis the view that opposing the bona fide acquisition system of stolen goods and the right of requesting surrenders. Any view has its supportive reasons, this paper analysis's its reasons from three aspects as the defines of res extra commercium, the influence to the social order and the need of penal justice, point out the absurdities. Fourth, come up with the affirmed reasons of bona fide acquisition system of stolen goods . and do not establish ownership of the stolen goods, restore the right to request restrictions. Any views have supportive of the reason, this flow of matter from the prohibition of the definition, the impact of social order and the needs of criminal justice to oppose the views of the grounds to be analyzed, identified its unreasonable to explain these ideas to gain a foothold in reality. Set Right, most civil law countries, China and France on the way of handling stolen goods, but this legislative model is not universal truth, this article tries to explain its shortcomings of the legislation is not the future of our country the right to request the establishment of the necessary return of stolen goods.Finally, China should allow for stolen goods in good faith, also think that our future legislation can exclude the right of reply.