Property Interest Is The Subject Of Larceny And Limiting It's Scope

In society today,with the diversification of the forms of property,the behaviors of taking the property interests as the objects of infringement gradually increase,which puts forward new difficulties in the application of laws for judicial practice.The question that arouses wide discussion in academic circles is whether the property interest can be the object of theft and if so,how to define its scope.In the first chapter,raising a questions.Combing through the status quo of the protection of property interests in the criminal law,through the comparison of domestic and foreign legislation,found that China's legislative protection of property interests is relatively weak;By combing relevant judicial interpretations and analyzing typical cases,it is found that the judicial practice has a confused understanding of the nature and scope of property interests.Therefore,it is necessary to discuss whether property interest is the object of larceny and define its scope.In the second chapter,to prove that property interest is the object of theft.Firstly,the status quo of theories on whether property interest is the object of larceny is sorted out so as to clarify the focus of controversy.Certainly,from the Angle of hermeneutics,we think "property" can be interpreted as traditional physical property and property interests.In addition,based on the need to protect property interests,it is necessary to recognize property interests as the object of theft.According to the requirement of modesty of criminal law and objective constitution of larceny,negation of property interest is the object of larceny.Both doctrines are indulged in self-consistency of system,both of which are reasonable,both of which are criticized by a lot,and few of them have ever met.The core disputes can be simplified into two aspects: first,the correct understanding of the modesty of criminal law,and whether the expanded interpretation of the object of theft is contrary to the modesty of criminal law;Secondly,whether the property interest can be possessed and transferred.The two theories do not compete in other aspects,so other criticisms of the affirmative cannot prove that it is inferior to the negative theory.In the same way,other criticisms of the negative theory cannot prove that it is inferior to the affirmative theory.The other critical powers of the two are basically the same,both of which are merely appendages of the core disputes.Once the two core disputes are solved,it will be clear which theory is more reasonable.Then,through the in-depth analysis of the connotation of modesty of criminal law,the positive and negative aspects of the interaction test,the author found that it can certainly be compatible with the modesty of criminal law.Finally,by analyzing the criteria of possession,this paper demonstrates that property interests can be possessed and transferred without falling into the dilemma of linguistic interpretation.Therefore,theoretically,it can be proved that property interests are the object of theft.In the third chapter,to limit the scope of property interests.Undoubtedly,the scope of property interests in property crimes needs to be limited,especially the scope of property interests as the object of theft.Otherwise,the boundary of different charges formed around the constitutive elements of specific crimes will no longer exist.Firstly,it points out the shortcomings of the current definition and proves the necessity of redefining the scope of property interests.Then,it defines the property interest with two methods of "exclusion method" and "ex post judgment method",and explores the judgment standard of property interest.Finally,the extension of property interests is defined,and the property interests are divided into three categories: network virtual property,property interests in use and theft and general property interests,and the labor,trade secrets and energy are discussed in depth whether they belong to(general)property interests.