Research On Interests Of Property In Crimes Of Property Violation

The development of society and the age of the Internet make new forms of crimes emerge in an endless stream,and the object of crime is expanding.Thus,the object of the crime in crimes of property violation is not only limited to entities,which are tangible,but also extended to abstract rights and interests gradually.The comprehension of property in the traditional theory of criminal law has been challenged.Therefore,the concept of interests of property has gradually entered our field of vision.The meaning and connotation of interests of property in Chinese criminal law,and whether it is the object of the crime in crimes of property violation according to Chinese criminal law,are still in dispute.However,the above problems are particularly important to determine the nature of certain crimes.Therefore,this article aims to draw my own conclusions by analyzing and making researches on the above problems,and determine the nature of the existing crimes relevant to interests of property,which we make analysis and conclusion on.The purpose is to be of some help to the current judicial practice and provide useful theoretical reference and feasible solutions.This article mainly analyzes and discusses the related problems of interests of property from the following three aspects:The first part mainly discusses the nature of interests of property anddiscriminates it with other concepts.First,the connotation of "property" in the Chinese criminal law should be clearly defined.The meaning of "property" is the same as "object",and there is no inclusion relationship between them.The object is divided into the res corporales(the same meaning as "tangible property")and the res incorporales(the same meaning as "intangible property"),and interests of property belongs to the res incorporales.Next,The concept of "interests of property" was originally introduced from Japan.According to the implication of interests of property in Japanese criminal law,the meaning of it can be basically equivalent to "obligatory right",or other interests related to obligatory right.In Japanese theory,there are two methods for doers to infringe others' interests of property.The one is to obtain positive interests such as obtaining obligatory right,making someone provide labor services and so on.The other is to obtain negative interests,such as being exempted from debt,being deferred payment of debt and so on.Interests of property should have such characteristics as possibility of management and economic value and so forth.Finally,we distinguish interests of property from virtual property and intellectual property rights——the two concepts which are easily confused with interests of property.Although virtual property,intellectual property rights and interests of property all belong to the category of res incorporales,their extension does not coincide each other.Virtual property does not have the nature of obligatory rights,while intellectual property right is different from obligatory rights.They are not the same rights.This part mainly makes the meaning of interests of property clear,and lays the foundation for further discussion of the later texts.The second part focuses on discussing whether interests of property can be regarded as the object of the crime in crimes of property violation.First of all,the article considers that the belongings stipulated in the criminal law in our country can be interpreted as property through substantive interpretation,which does not exceed the semantic scope of the belongings.Such interpretation,which belongs to amplified interpretation rather than analogy explanation,does not violate the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime.Thus,because property includes interests of property,the latter can be the object of the crime in crimes of propertyviolation,which refutes the opinion of negative theory.Secondly,although the restrictively affirmative theory approves that interests of property can be the object of the crime in such crimes of property violation as the crime of fraud,it denies that interests of property can be the object of the crime in theft.This article argues against the view above,and holds that we should not draw a conclusion which interests of property can not be the object of the crime in theft just because it is difficult to steal interests of property.It will lead to incongruity of the application of the criminal law.Furthermore,the article points out that the value of property should be separated from interests of property,which is more propitious to clarify legal relations and determine the nature of a certain crime.The value of interests of property should not be directly equivalent to the value of its carrier.Therefore,we think further about the relationship between criminal law and civil law.In the opinion of the article,although the criminal law is independent of civil law,the meanings of some basic concepts in criminal law still should refer to civil law and be consistent or corresponding with civil law.The conclusion is the prerequisite for the study of specific problems in the later texts.The third part discusses the identification of interests of property in specific situations.First,the evidence of indebtedness is substantially the carrier of interests of property.Consequently,the securities,whether inscribed securities or bearer securities,are all the carriers of interests of property,not the belongings in narrow sense.The obligatory right reflected in the paid service belongs to the interests of property.Secondly,we determine the nature of the behaviors which someone reports the loss of the bank card registered in one's own name and withdraws others' deposit deposited in the bank card mentioned before.The relationship between the cardholder of bank card and the bank is actually the debtor and the creditor,and the bank deposit is possessed by the bank.The bank card is substantially an evidence of indebtedness,and the cardholder has the obligatory right of bank deposit.This article considers that the nominal depositor possesses the obligatory right of the deposit legally,and the behaviors mentioned before constitute a crime of embezzlement,that does not transfer the possession.In addition,we should analyze the behavior of "using theft" concretely combined with specific cases,the object of which is not necessarily interests ofproperty.For example,the behavior of embezzling vehicles,the object of which is not interests of property,may constitute a crime of theft or do not constitute a crime according to different circumstances.The behavior of stealing rent actually violates the usage right of the house,which constitutes a crime of unlawful intrusion into residence,not a crime of theft.As to the opinion that the behavior of stealing rent constitutes a crime of fraud,although the person deceived and the victim are not the same person,the person deceived does not dispose the property of the victim.Therefore,the behavior does not constitute a crime of triangle fraud,so that it does not constitute a crime of fraud.