Research On Criminal Judicial Identification Of Embezzlement Of Internet Financial Products

With the continuous development of social economy,especially the updating of electronic industry,people's traditional financial concept has changed.However,the emergence of various network financial products APP,while bringing convenience to people,also breeds a new type of crime.This case happened in such a big background,the use of Ping An Group subsidiary Ping An Pay Technology Services Co.,Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as "Ping An Pay Company")named "one wallet" financial products APP system error malicious recharge,to obtain property interests of the case,in judicial practice,how about such cases It is controversial to determine the nature of the crime and how to calculate the amount of the crime.The reason is that it is difficult to determine the nature of mistake and malice in the use of network financial products system,and the boundaries between property crimes are difficult to distinguish,because it is difficult to define the nature of such acts accurately in judicial practice.In view of the above problems,the author takes a theft case of embezzlement of network financial products as an example,combines theoretical knowledge,explores the solution of such cases,and writes this article,hoping to be beneficial to similar cases.This article is divided into four parts,more than 18000 characters.The first part is the basic situation of the case.This part mainly introduces the case to be described in this case,as well as judicial staff on how to deal with the case differences.The article points out that there are three main controversial focuses in this case: first,the understanding of the nature of the act of mistakenly transferring funds into the financial products APP system,that is,whether the act belongs to the category of unjust enrichment or criminal offence in the civil law;second,there are crimes of embezzlement,fraud,credit card fraud and theft in this case.Argument;Third,sentencing,Ye in the "one purse" for the purchase of Ping An Bank's financialproducts more than 8.84 million yuan can be identified as income from crime,as the amount of sentencing.The second part is the jurisprudential analysis of the controversial issues.This part mainly analyzes the jurisprudential content behind the three controversial focuses of the case and draws the following conclusions: First,unjust enrichment and property crimes are not mutually exclusive relations,as long as the perpetrator's acts of infringing on the property of others conform to the constitutive requirements of property crimes,it should be Second,combined with the theory of crime constitution of embezzlement,fraud,credit card fraud and larceny,the difference between embezzlement and larceny lies in the object of the crime refers to the public and private property under the control of the legitimate possession of the person before the crime is committed,and the crime of fraud and theft.The difference between larceny is that the victim needs to have the act of disposing of property,that is,the victim has the act of transferring possession of property and the consciousness of disposing of property;third,the amount of penalty for larceny should be determined by the amount of the victim out of control.The third part is the analysis and conclusion of this case.This part mainly analyzes the case and concludes that Ye's behavior constitutes larceny,and the amount of larceny should be 11.2563 million yuan of the recharge of the card which Ye maliciously binds to APP.The fourth part is the inspiration from this case.Through the legal analysis of the controversial focus,combined with the analysis and conclusion of the case,the author draws the Enlightenment of this case,that is,publishing relevant guiding cases to provide reference for conviction and sentencing of similar cases,while insisting on taking the doctrine of criminal law as the center,paying equal attention to both theory and practice,and striving to improve the level of handling cases by judicial staff.