Research On The Crime Of Infringing Property By Using Third-party Payment Platforms

With the increasing popularity of third-party payment in China,property crimes become more and more frequent and more and more complex,which brings great difficulty to the court's trial and conviction.Especially in the third party payment tools on the suspected theft or fraud of property crimes.Therefore,this thesis will interpret some representative cases,in order to discuss some controversies about the use of third-party payment tools to commit crimes.For example,different opinions about theft,fraud,or credit card crime.Believes that the key to distinguish theft from fraud in the triangulation is whether the person cheated has the right to dispose of his property and the third-party payment platform does not have the possibility of cheating.Then the property used through the third-party payment platform is divided into prepayment fund,bank card fund and financial business fund,and then analyze the offender in different types of illegal transfer others account capital punishment and the bogus identity.In combination with the above contents,the aim is to convict more accurately the behavior of infringing others' property by using the third-party payment platform: When the perpetrator carries out illegal transfer in the provision account,the payment platform has the disposal authority but no possibility of being cheated,so it constitutes the crime of theft.When the perpetrator transfers the provisions enter an item of expenditure in the accounts,the bank of the provisions has the disposition status,and has the responsibility and ability to recognize,which constitutes the crime of fraud.When the actor transfers the funds of the associated bank card,the false instructions issued by him not only include the behavior of obtaining the user's credit card information,but also include the use of the information through the Internet,which constitutes the crime of credit card fraud.When the actor illegally transfers funds of the nature of financial services,the funds are not owned by the user,but by the institution providing funds.Therefore,the illegal transfer belongs to contract fraud in the name of others,which constitutes the crime of contract fraud.Finally,according to the above analysis,the controversial issues in the case are solved,and it is determined that Shi's illegal transfer of balance constitutes the crime of theft,and Liu's behavior of transferring other people's property should constitute the crime of contract fraud.