Criminal Law Determination Of Goods Paid For Unlawful Reasons

In today’s society,where illegal means are frequently obtained,whether criminal law should be imposed on perpetrators who obtain illegal causes,involving the question of whether illegal payments should be characterized as the object of property crimes.In the discussion of this issue,there are affirmative theories,negative theories and compromise theories,and affirmation is more reasonable,that is,the payment of unlawful reasons should belong to the object of property criminal acts,which is not only the view of "the independence of criminal law" and the requirement of illegal pluralism,but also the inevitable conclusion drawn from the theory of possession of property crime legal benefits.However,only drawing conclusions at the theoretical level is not enough to solve the problem of different judgments in the same case in practice,so in the second half of the paper,the payment of unlawful reasons is combined with the crime of embezzlement and fraud,because it is more reasonable to say that "the payment for illegal reasons is the object of property crimes",therefore,when the perpetrator illegally obtains the payment of illegal reasons through embezzlement and fraud,It shall constitute the crime of embezzlement and the crime of fraud respectively.It is worth noting that this conclusion does not only apply to the determination of the crime of embezzlement and fraud,as long as the relevant constituent elements of the property crime are clarified,it can be concluded that if the perpetrator uses illegal means to obtain the payment,when determining the relevant crime,there is no need to focus on the "illegality" of the payer,nor do he need to be entangled in the issue that the payment for illegal reasons is not protected by civil law,and the payment for illegal reasons should be the object of the property crime,so as long as the perpetrator’s behavior meets the constituent elements of the property crime,The perpetrator shall establish a corresponding property crime.Specifically,first of all,through the analysis of judicial data,it is found that after discussing the issue of "whether the payment for illegal reasons should be protected by property crimes",the conclusions reached are different,and naturally there are problems of inconsistent recognition in practice,and some judgments do identify the relevant circumstances as property crimes,but there are still a large number of judicial judgments that identify this situation as non-property crimes.Therefore,this paper discusses this theoretically,hoping to provide some solutions to this problem.Secondly,reasonable solutions should be proposed to the problems mentioned above,but the focus of the dispute should be clarified before proposing countermeasures,that is,"is the payment for unlawful reasons the object of property crimes" ? The views on this issue are divided into three camps: affirmative,negative and compromise,and the above three views and theoretical support have their own merits.Thirdly,based on the two reasons that "illegal pluralism is reasonable" and "possession theory can provide theoretical support for affirmative theory",affirmation is more reasonable than the other two views,that is,the payment of goods for illegal reasons should become the object of property crimes.It is worth noting that in the process of case search and literature reading,whether at the theoretical level or at the level of judicial practice,when determining "what specific crime is constituted by obtaining payment for illegal reasons by illegal means",the focus of the dispute is the relationship between the payment of illegal reasons and the crime of embezzlement and fraud Therefore,in the last part of the paper,the crime of embezzlement and fraud are taken as examples,and how the affirmation should be used in judicial practice is explained.Finally,the final conclusion is drawn: it is more reasonable to say that the payment for unlawful reasons should belong to the object of property crime,which is both a requirement of the theory of illegal pluralism and an inevitable conclusion of the possession theory on the protection of property crimes.Specific to judicial practice,it is not so complicated when determining relevant crimes,as long as the perpetrator’s behavior meets the constituent elements of property crimes,the perpetrator should establish corresponding property crimes.