The Characterization Of Deception Of Other People’s Property With Apparent Agent In The Criminal Law

In economic activities,cases of defrauding others’ property through apparent agency have continued to increase.Among them,apparent agency in civil affairs is often intertwined with illegal acts such as counterfeiting,altering the appearance of authorization,or using blank contracts to defraud others of their property.Therefore,whether in criminal law theory or judicial practice,there are disputes about the criminal nature of defrauding others’ property through apparent agency.The reason lies in the differences in understanding of the criteria for the illegality of criminal and civil law,resulting in divergent views on the interactive relationship between apparent agency and criminal crimes,and whether criminal crimes affect the effectiveness of contracts.However,in judging the illegality of criminal and civil law,we should take into account the shortcomings in the concept of civil illegality and the relative independence of criminal law evaluation under the premise of adhering to the unity of law and order,and use the theory of illegality relativity as the basis for handling the relationship between criminal and civil law.From the perspective of the theory of relativity of illegality,on the one hand,the differences in the legal values of criminal and civil law determine that apparent agency can coexist with criminal crimes,and contracts are not definitely invalid due to criminal crimes;On the other hand,criminal law cannot always follow the attribution of rights established by apparent agency,so apparent agency does not affect the determination of criminal offences.On the basis of the above conclusion,since apparent agency is essentially unauthorized,the actor does not have the convenience of duty and the subjective mentality of encroaching on the property of the principal,and does not constitute a crime of duty encroachment.The perpetrator deceives the opposite party by fabricating the appearance of authorization,causing the opposite party to fall into cognitive error in delivering property and establish the crime of fraud.It should be noted that because the counterpart does not have the authority and awareness to dispose of the property of the principal,it does not constitute a traditional triangular fraud;Due to the fact that apparent agency responsibility is not an element of criminal law evaluation,the crime of fraud belongs to self-harm crime,and there is no applicable space for the new type of triangular fraud.At the normative level,property loss should be divided into two stages:"occurrence of damage" and "allocation of damage",and the criminal law and civil law are in line with each other in determining the occurrence of damage,both of which treat the relative party as the direct victim of the apparent agency;at the same time,the criminal law does not evaluate the property loss in the stage of "damage distribution",and the counterpart is the criminal victim who suffers from property loss.Therefore,the act of defrauding others’ property through apparent agency should be characterized as the crime of fraud.