Research On The “Theft Of QR Code For Payment”

Along with the development of new payment method,QR code payment method is becoming more and more popular.There are also cases with different characteristics of traditional crime of property infringement in the judicial practice,so is the “case of theft of QR code for payment”.Firstly,there are many subjects in the “case of theft of QR code for payment”,including not only the actor,merchants and customers,but also the third-party platforms and banks for QR code transfer.Secondly,whether the nature of the infringed object “QR code for payment” in this case is the property or property interests.Thirdly,there are not only the characteristics of crime of theft,but also the characteristics of crime of fraud of the “case of theft of QR code for payment”;whether the person cheated has the disposal authority and status given by the victim and whether the victim possesses or controls the property,so it is worth exploring whether it is the crime of theft or fraud.Moreover,some scholars put forward the theory of “new triangle fraud” based on the particularity of this case to try to meet the of punishment for new property crime by constructing a new crime of triangle fraud.The judges having heard the case,the people's court in the city of Shishi,Fujian Province issued the verdict that the crime constituted general larceny.However,the criminal law circles hold different opinions on this case due to their different perceptions of the key points.The essay takes the view that the man subjects involved in the case on payment QR code substitution are the customer,who was cheated of money,the business,namely the victim of the larceny,and the perpetrator.It is necessary to make an overall assessment and analysis of the three main subjects with none missing in case of a lopsided assessment of the case.Meanwhile,for lack of the disposition authority and status requisite to the verdict of triangular fraud,the case can't be decided as the triangular fraud.As far as such case is concerned,the business had an ideological possession of the customer's payment,conforming to the characteristics of larceny.Besides,the perpetrator did not commit the physical crime but took advantage of the customer's ignorance and manipulated the business as the instrument of crime,thus infringing on the customer's rights and interests.Therefore,by combing the reasons behind each opinion to clarify the focus of controversy,the essay gives reasonable disposition opinions based on a full understanding of such case that the perpetrator involved in this larceny should be decided as the indirect principal offender of this larceny.