A Qualitative Study On The Behavior Of Cheating And Collecting Bank Card And Binding Alipay

With the continuous penetration of the Internet,the use of third-party payments has basically covered the production of various industries and people's daily life.Since the birth of Alipay in 2004,with its simple,safe,rapid advantages,fundamentally changed the concept of human consumption.But it has also spawned a series of crime cases linked to the platform,typically involving two categories of Alipay agencies: the theft of Alipay balances and the theft of Alipay-bound bank accounts.The qualitative dispute of this kind of case is quite big in the theory circle,and the phenomenon of the different judgment of the same case in the judicial practice is also more prominent.It is therefore necessary to carry out such cases Analysis and inquiry,in order to deepen the understanding of the nature of such crimes.In addition to the introduction,the full text of a total of four parts,a total of more than30,000 words.The first part is the basic situation of the case.Including the cause of the case,case presentation,differences of opinion and dispute focus four aspects.In this case,Liu and others used forged identity documents to deceive Xu as the name cardholder's bank card,and then associated with his Alipay account,and withdrew the balance of Alipay account for use.Characterization of the case: the prosecution believes that it constitutes a crime of credit card fraud.The above-mentioned behavior obviously belongs to the fictional fact method,using the credit card to carry on the fraud;The court of first instance held that it constituted a crime of theft,because Liu and others played a decisive role in the process of obtaining the money of the victim in the Alipay account,and the means of secret theft played a decisive role.The defendant does not commit deceit to the victim,its behavior constitutes the crime of larceny;The court of second instance considered that it constituted a crime of fraud,because the three defendants made use of Xu's Alipay account under the false name and transferred the balance of its account,which was examined and agreed by the Alipay platform,so it was impossible to "secretly steal" from Alipay Company.Not a crime of theft,but a crime of fraud.After clarifying the differences of opinion on the fraud case of Liu and others,it then summarized the controversial focus of the case: how to define the transfer behavior of fraudulent collection of bank cards and binding of Alipay.The second part is the legal analysis of the related problems.The first part of the debate focus on the legal analysis.First of all,the two ways of credit card fraud in this case are analyzed,and the conditions of using fraud-collar credit card fraud and fraudulent credit card fraud are clearly applied.Secondly,analyze the related problems of the indirect principal of larceny.Third,analyze the constituent elements of triangular fraud,and clarify the requirements of the third party in triangular fraud.Fourthly,the crime of credit card fraud,fraud and larceny are divided into two parts: the crime of fraud,the crime of fraud and the crime of theft.The third part,the analysis and conclusion of the case.On the basis of legal analysis,the behavior of Liu et al in this case is characterized.First,the behavior of Liu and others does not constitute the crime of theft.Because the behavior of Liu et al accords with the appearance structure of the indirect principal of larceny,but it does not accord with the objective requirements of the indirect principal of larceny.Moreover,Liu et al.'s infringement is a complex object,and only punishment for larceny will lead to punishment loopholes;second,Liu et al.'s behavior is in line with the crime of fraud.Because,the behavior of stealing Alipay account conforms to the behavior structure of triangle fraud,Alipay platform is the third person in triangle fraud;third,Liu et al.'s behavior constitutes credit card The crime of fraud Liu and other people use deception to obtain bank cards,and then use.The behavior of the actor deceiving a bank card is that of a financial institution,and the use of the "bank card" undermines the state's regulatory order over the bank card and the ownership of public and private property.In the case of the use of a credit card fraudulently obtained with a false identity in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 196;Fourth,the behavior of Liu and others constitutes both the crime of credit card fraud and the crime of fraud,which belongs to the concurrence of articles of law and should be punished by the crime of credit card fraud.The fourth part,the research enlightenment of this case.At present,there is a high incidence of money infringement cases involving third-party payments,in which the lack of multi-identity authentication and the poor management of users' personal information are the important reasons for the lack of multi-identity authentication in third-party payment management institutions.In addition,legislation and judicature have different understanding of the nature of the legal problems caused by the new type of third-party payment,which to a certain extent has also affected the degree of punishment for this kind of money-infringingbehavior.Therefore,first,it is necessary to perfect the identity authentication system of Alipay platform and strengthen the consciousness and ability of users' own security prevention;secondly,the legislation is lagging behind,and the current legislation and judicature of Alipay,a new type of payment method,is of great importance to the improvement of the authentication system of Alipay platform.In order to achieve judicial unity,it is necessary to issue judicial interpretation or improve relevant legislation,to clarify the nature of the third-party payment institution and the standard for the identification of such cases in order to achieve judicial unity because of the lack of clear recognition of its legal status in property crimes.