The Criminal Law Nature Of Illegal Transfer Of Others’ Money In Alipay

With the rapid development of economic globalization and China’s financial reform process,under the background of the increasingly deep integration of the Internet as a high-tech product in the information age with financial services,Alipay,a business representative of Alibaba,has become a typical representative.The third-party payment with intermediary credit guarantee function,which facilitates transactions through network connection,makes social life very rich in technology,convenient and intelligent network payment models.Alipay is like a “universal” wallet,to a certain extent,it provides people with convenience in all aspects of life,such as clothing,food,housing,and transportation,solves the payment problem,and makes payment faster.In today’s social life,economy and finance are inseparable,and financial activities have become the center of current market economic activities.In this context,financial crimes as derivatives have complicated the current social and economic life in China,and have made the division of labor more detailed and diverse.With the increasingly diversified and advanced payment methods,various crimes of wealth infringement are arbitrarily breeding,Alipay,a typical representative of third-party payment,has undoubtedly become the target of criminals,so that in recent years,Alipay’s wealth infringement cases The layers are repeated.At the same time,due to the diversity and complexity of payment methods involved in property crimes,new methods such as gradually diversified crime methods and gradually blurred crime characteristics are exhibited,and for this new type of property crime,criminal law theory and practice do not have a unified Cognition leads to the fact that there are more common cases in the same case but with different judgments.Even in the same case,the public prosecutor and the judicial organs often conflict in their opinions,which is undoubtedly seriously detrimental to The authority and unity of the law.This article attempts to clarify the controversial issues involved in such cases by studying the qualitative issues of Xu’s theft,with a view to providing useful suggestions for the qualitative and handling of cases related to the illegal transfer of money from third-party payment platforms such as Alipay.In addition to the introduction,the text of this article is mainly composed of four parts,a total of more than 30,000 words.The first part is the basic situation of the case.This part mainly introduces the basic situation of the real case of Xu Moumou’s theft and the divergent opinions on how to determine the case.After analysis and comparison,it can be concluded how the defendant Xu Moumou illegally transferred the money in Alipay’s behavior,that is,the issue of this crime and other crimes is the core controversy of this case.Specifically,who is the victim in this case,who is using or possessing the rights and property infringed by the defendant,and what is the status of Alipay software or Alipay network company in this case;the defendant Xu Moumou “transferred” the money Can the behavior be regarded as “fake” in the criminal law;whether the credit card information includes Alipay account number and password and other information.The second part is the legal analysis of related issues.According to the jurisprudence involved in the focus of the dispute in this case,one by one is analyzed: first,from the meaning of possession in the criminal law and the definition of the possession of bank deposits,analyze and determine the specific ownership of the funds in the Alipay account.Through the analysis of relevant legal principles,the balance of Alipay account or the money in the bound bank card are actually held by the depository bank or the bank to which the bank card belongs,and Alipay users bind the bank card and Alipay to the bank and the Alipay company.The money in the account enjoys the creditor’s rights.Secondly,Alipay is a non-financial institution.In the sense of criminal law,Alipay is not a credit card.By defining the specific connotation of credit card information,it can be seen that although the Alipay account number and password may or may be related to the credit card information,the Alipay account number and password are not equivalent to credit card information and do not have the function of identifying credit cards,the two are not the same Sex is not to be confused.Through the analysis of the connotation of the “impersonal use” behavior,the behavior of the actor’s illegal transfer of the money in Alipay’s Alipay does not comply with the “impersonal use” behavior in the sense of the criminal law.Finally,there are three main qualitative conclusions in this case,namely the crime of credit card fraud,the crime of fraud and theft,which are compared and analyzed separately,and then how to distinguish the three under third-party payment conditions.The third part is the analysis and conclusion of this case.Based on the legal analysis,it sorts out and resolves the disputes in this case,and draws a conclusion on how the actor’s transfer of money in this case is qualitatively determined.Xu’s use of Alipay’s account number and password to transfer money from another’s bank card cannot be the same as using another person’s credit card to transfer money.Alipay is a payment tool,independent of the banking system,and as a preset procedure,it cannot be treated like a human being.When the money in the platform account owned by the real user is transferred,because Alipay is only a trading tool and the company it belongs to is a non-financial institution,despite its objective appearance of disposing of the money,it does not actually control The right to the money means that there is no disciplinary authority and subject status;in addition,anyone can operate the account arbitrarily with the platform account and password,and Alipay has no ability or obligation to distinguish whether the person operating the account is a real user of the account,so There is no misunderstanding.At the same time,the bank transfers according to the user’s preset authorization,there is no cognitive error and deception,and no financial management order is involved,thus of course denying the perpetrator Xu and Xu constitute a fraud-like crime.Essentially,the perpetrator has adopted a more moderate means to reduce or destroy the due claims of others.This behavior should meet the requirements of theft.The fourth part is the research enlightenment of this case.On the basis of case studies,this part proposes judicial guidance by issuing guiding cases and judicial communication at all levels to strengthen the communication and feedback of the theoretical basis and practical guidance for the characteristics of cases involving third-party payment platforms and citizens’ personal information security.Combine to promote its integration with the actual development of society;through internal and external joint supervision,restrict and regulate the actual operation of third-party payment platforms;adopt a comprehensive approach to improve citizens’ awareness of the prevention of personal information security risks,and strengthen the governance of citizens’ information security,to implement recommendations to regulate and prevent such cases.