The Division Of Theft Crime And Fraud Crime In The View Of Property Disposition

Theft crime and fraud crime are the most traditional types of crime among crimes of infringing property.In recent years,due to the diversity of criminal means,it has become more and more difficult to distinguish between those cases of theft and fraud.Last year,the case that a thief furtively replaced two-dimensional codes in supermarket in order to steal money was reprinted online by many We Chat public accounts,raising hot discussion among people,but also aroused the author's interest in the boundary points and standard between those two crimes.Through an in-depth search,the author finds that there are a lot of researches on the boundary criterion of the two crimes,both in practical and theoretical aspects.However,only individual cases and individual aspects are studied,and the overall characteristics are scattered,simple and lack of universal applicability.Therefore,the author would like to put forward a clear criterion for the boundary between theft and fraud.Through a thorough research on the composition of the crime of theft and fraud,and the purpose of establishing the two crimes in criminal laws,the author believes that the boundary of the crime of theft and fraud lies on whether property sanctions are involved.This standard is more reasonable and feasible than that applied by the previous research.At the same time,the author studies some difficult cases with research value in judicial practice,with a view to offer some help to the judicial practice.This thesis will explore the division between theft crime and fraud crime,from the unique perspective of the connotation of property disposition.First of all,the establishment of the disposition of property requires the disposer to have the right to dispose.In the case of fraud between the two,the main body with the right to dispose the property includes the owner or the occupant.When the victim is not the owner of the property but does the delivery of property,whether the victim occupies the property is an important criterion for distinguishing fraud from theft,and the identification of possession should be considered from both subjective and objective factors.In triangular fraud,since the nature of the crime between theft and fraud is different,"theory of authorization+ review obligations" should be considered as a standard to determine whether the victim has the right to dispose,and in doing this to distinguish between triangular fraud and theft of indirect offenders.Second,the establishment of property disposition requires the unity of subjectivity and objectivity.On an objective basis,the disposition of property should have a direct causal relationship with the damage of the property.If theft act is involved in the victim's delivery act and property transfer,the theft act should be regarded as theft crime instead of fraud crime.And only in the process of the transfer of property,can property damage be identified;otherwise,the victim should not be identified as suffering property damage.On the subjective point of view,this thesis insists on the necessity of disposition to the effect that in terms of the content of disposition,a loose interpretation is needed rather than a harsh understanding.As for what degree of awareness is required for the disposable property,it should not go beyond the possibility that the victim does not know about the disposition of the property.When the victim does not know about the physical appearance of the property he delivers,it should be defined as theft crime;otherwise,if the actor takes fraud method towards the internal attributes of the property directly,yet the victim knows about the physical characteristics,then it should be defined as fraud crime.Finally,it is generally believed that the object of fraud includes property and property interests,but whether the object of the theft includes property interests still remains disputable.This thesis insists that the property interests should not be the criterion to distinguish between theft and fraud;furthermore,from multiple angles,it demonstrates that property interests should be included in the objects of theft,by analyzing the resent disputable case of replacing payment two-dimensional codes in supermarkets.