Qualitative Research On The Behavior Of Taking Money By Illegally Changing Merchant'S Qr Code

Appeared in 2016,foshan city,guangdong province's first "covertly exchange merchants gathering the qr code to get wealth" case,widely attention,appeared in the process of trial in the two different points of view: theft and fraud,theft and fraud as common crime of infringing property class type,usually in a state of confrontation,but this kind of case in the process of committing a crime theft and fraud means are intertwined,and makes the distinguish between the two there are many difficult.Scholars who advocate the view of theft hold that the behavior of "changing the merchant's collection code" is classified as secret theft,and this kind of case conforms to the crime constitution of theft.Scholars who advocate the crime of fraud believe that the behavior of "stealing merchants' collection code" is a fictitious fact and conceals the truth,so it is in line with the crime of fraud.At the same time,there are also internal disputes between the two viewpoints,with their own viewpoints and reasons.In normal civil activities,the merchants and customers to reach a business agreement,the two sides have established a relationship of creditor's rights debt,timely fulfill its obligation to deliver is the corresponding obligation,and pay the corresponding amount of the price is the duty of the customer,the customer through a bank transfer for creditor's rights to complete the payment obligation incurred to the businessman in order to solve their creditor's rights,thereby eliminating creditor-debtor relationship.According to customer's idea,its sweep yards pay according to the instructions of the merchants,if not the fact that the defendant "covertly exchange business credit code",then pay when customers scan code is completed,customers and merchants of creditor's rights debt was completely destroyed,by the means of creditor's rights transfer,merchants would inherit the originally belong to the customer's bank creditor's rights.But in this case,because the actor had "stolen" the receipt qr code pasted by the merchant,the bank's creditor's rights failed to enter the scope controlled by the merchant as the customer wanted.Although the merchant does not possess the creditor's right of the bank at this time,but the customer has fulfilled his payment obligation,so the merchant is the only person who harms this kind of case.From the objective level,the defendant only implemented "covertly exchange business credit code" behavior,but is actually replaced merchants creditor status,make yourself acceptthe location of the creditor's rights transfer,this kind of behavior is the result of broke the ownership,which is expected to make the defendant to establish relations with Banks at the mercy of the creditor's rights,thus completely accords with the crime of larceny.Customers will sweep through code bank creditor's right into the merchant's account,but in fact because the defendant "covertly exchange business credit code" that causes the expected is completely broken,bank creditor's rights and eventually into the control range of the defendant,despite the expected results with customers and merchants are completely different,but the behavior of the more than expected is not customer or businessmen make mistake disposition,on the contrary,the transfer of creditor's rights is both the process of pursuit,just beyond the expected results.The customer obviously has no loss,taking the customer as the victim does not actually have any damage fact from the illegal aspect;Completely in merchants on the one hand,the customer's payment behavior monitoring scope,and flawless completed payment behavior,it is based on the completion of the payment obligation,cause the creditor-debtor relationship between customers and merchants are destroyed,in the process whether businesses because of the loss of bank creditor's rights by losses,apparently has no direct relationship with customers.On the other hand,even if the customer purchased the goods quality flaws or even fraud led to customer damaged goods,is only between merchants have obligations for the customer,the customer didn't have to pay on merchants obligations,once found quality problems,businesses should according to the tort liability law and the consumer rights and interests protection law to the customer for compensation.The merchant does not have any right to ask the customer to pay again,which mainly comes from the fact that the creditor's right relationship between the merchant and the customer has been eliminated,and the customer is impossible to pay the merchant again.Even if the customer pays again,the customer can return the merchant with unjust enrichment.