Research On The Identification Of The Crime Of Infringing On Property Under The New Mode Of Payment

With the rapid development of economy and the continuous progress of network technology,new payment methods are playing a more and more important role in today’s daily life.Although the emergence of the new payment method simplifies the transaction procedures and improves the transaction efficiency,it also gives birth to many legal problems.Different from the traditional payment method,the new payment method changes the transaction method of unified hand payment and first-hand delivery.Both parties can complete remote transactions only through the Internet.In addition,the third-party payment platform may also be involved in the transaction process,showing a trend of evolution from the traditional two-party legal subject to the three-party legal subject.It is precisely because of the novelty of the means of payment that the types of behavior of the perpetrator have new characteristics,which makes China face many difficulties in judicial practice under the new mode of payment.In this new way of payment,in many cases,it is difficult for us to distinguish the crime of theft from the crime of fraud,and the problem of the state of property possession has become more complex,which has not only brought some challenges to the traditional identification of the crime of property invasion,but also caused debate in the theoretical and practical circles.For example,in the case of illegally transferring the balance in other Alipay accounts,there are disputes such as "triangle fraud","credit card fraud" and "theft theory".In the case of different types of funds involved in the third party platform,such as the balance of Alipay and the balance of Yu Ebao,they should be regarded as electronic money rather than a creditor’s right.In addition,software like Alipay does not possess the ability of human understanding and judgement,so there is no link in the crime of fraud.The balance in Alipay account is still a user’s possession.It’s just an indirect possession.The illegal transfer of the remaining balance in the Alipay account is in line with the characteristics of theft of other people’s property by theft,and should be punished for theft.In addition,there are mainly six different opinions on the qualitative problem of the behavior of stealing and exchanging QR codes in the academic circles,namely "theft theory","ordinary fraud theory","two-way fraud theory","triangle fraud theory","new triangle fraud theory" and "innocence theory".In cases such as stealing QR codes,the money payable by merchants to customers is essentially a kind of conceptual possession,and the perpetrator’s transfer of possession of property is fundamentally based on his own behavior rather than the consumer being cheated,which is more in line with the criminal characteristics of larceny.At present,the identification path of the crime of infringing property in judicial practice ignores the independent characteristics of the behavior of property transfer,and always adheres to the strict interpretation of the concept of possession.This interpretation method can not be applied to the crime of infringing property under the new means of payment.On the basis of rethinking the above arguments,we should look for a new way to distinguish the crime of theft and fraud from the independence of the act of direct transfer of property.Constantly improve the concept of possession,appropriately expand the interpretation of the concept of possession in some cases,and recognize the rationality of the concept of possession.