A Conviction Study Of In Behavior Of Alipay’s "Ant Check Later" On The Cash

With the development of Internet finance,there appears brand-new purchase methods,such as Jingdong “Baitiao”,Ant Check Later,and Suning wayward paymen.These methods brought economic growth and accompanied many problems.Some people use these new payment methods to cash out.For example,in order to cash out other people’s accounts,steal other people’s Alipay account information,steal,and rob others’ mobile phones to log in relevant credit products for illegal cash.Compared with the original credit card cashing and POS cashing,the internal mechanism of this method seems more complicated and changeable.There are still many differences in the practice and academia on this kind of fraudulent use of other people’s "Ant Check Later" to cash out and consume.Combining many real-life cash cases,it was found that the verdicts were mostly charges of theft,fraud,credit card fraud,contract fraud,or loan fraud.This article will explore the legal relationship in depth in combination with typical cases in reality,digging deeper into the nature of the services behind the Ant Check Later program,provide a certain reference for future convictions and sentencing.This article focuses on three typical cases which occur in reality,This article will analyze the results of the first and second trials of the court and related judicial interpretations,and sorts out the theoretical viewpoints and some new claims put forward by relevant scholars to lay the foundation for the final conclusions of this article.Form my personal opinions and opinions.The article is specifically divided into the following three modules:The first chapter focuses on the analysis of three typical cases in the judicialpractice("Wang Moumou","Chen Moumou",and "Li Moumou").Through deeply analysis,we understand that there are several points of controversy.First of all,who is the real victim of the loss? Second.Secondly,what is the difference between theft and fraud;Thirdly,whether there must be consciousness of dispose if it constitutes a crime of fraud;Fourth,whether it constitutes a crime of ordinary fraud or a credit card fraud,or a crime of contract fraud or a loan fraud when it constitutes a crime of fraud.The second chapter mainly analyzes the legal reasoning of the controversy of the court’s decision.First,who is the real victim in the case? From the level of interpretation of the crime of fraud,and looking for relevant evidence from the provisions of the penal law,and use triangle fraud as a reference to analyze the ultimate victim when the tripartite subject appears;Secondly,strictly distinguish between the two crimes of theft and fraud,so as to obtain the final conviction required by this article.Thirdly,carry out whether the crime of fraud need consciousness of dispose and discuss the composition of the crime of fraud.The cash-out behavior of "ant check later" which is newly occurred to distinguish from previous credit card cash-out behavior,thus provides a more detailed reference for the cash flow of the ant flower.The third chapter summarizes this article and refines the point of view.Firstly,the real victim of fraudulent use of the "Ant Check Later" is the small loan company behind Alipay.Secondly,cash-out behavior of "Ant Check Later" constitutes crime of fraud.Thirdly,explore the necessity of consciousness of dispose if it constitutes the crime of fraud.Fourth,discuss the crime of theft,credit card fraud,contract fraud,finally this article analyze this behavior constitutes the crime of loan fraud.Give corresponding suggestions on this basis.First,introduce relevant judicial interpretations for such problems;secondly,speed up the issuance of guidance cases;thirdly,scientifically distinguish the problem of concurrence and related crimes in order to convict and sentence more accurately.