On withdrawal HOLD own account deposits behavior identified（确定退出持有自己的帐户存款行为）

On withdrawal HOLD own account deposits behavior identified（确定退出持有自己的帐户存款行为） On withdrawal HOLD own account deposits behavior identified Abstract deputy because the business needs and drivers have agreed to use the driver’s ID card to open a bank account, and a large amount of cash deposited in the account will then passbook custody drivers use account then use their own ID card for convenience conditions taken to report the loss took away large amounts of deposits in the account of theft, embezzlement, fraud crimes and does not constitute a crime four perspectives for the discussion of the present case, there is a variety of perspectives debate focused on the civil law sense. property rights and criminal law on property rights identified on the differences. The paper Keywords HOLD report the loss of vested property rights Analysis of the crime or: The vesting of the ownership discussion To discuss the attribution of ownership, we must first discuss the nature of the bank accounts and deposits in the account. Deposits in civil law is generally considered 1 to be a creditor relationship between the depositors and bank passbook is to prove the existence of bonds relations certificate, similar to the general borrowing IOU debt is property rights with the characteristics of the value of the property need to have to honor the immediate and unconditional banking from today’s point of view, the nature of the claims of depositors, no essential difference with the general physical property shall be deemed to be the property protected by the Criminal Law of China. Secondly, in this case the deposit claims ownership, the issue of differences watershed of Zuiyufeizui views view the vesting of the ownership of the deposit does not constitute a crime identified under civil deposits identified. attribution of ownership for deposits take the form of civil law finds that the ownership of the deposit assumes that all deposit accounts according to the head of the household name, account outside the conventions in the civil law do not ask. held theory is based on the departure from the point of view of the presumption of ownership does not constitute a crime perspective, think ownership by credited to your account 2 for this shift in ownership attributed to the driver all, report the loss after driver behavior is the behavior of the exercise of legal rights, and thus does not constitute a crime. This view confuses the identification of ownership in the identification of ownership in civil law and criminal law. Identification of ownership relations in civil law is to determine the changes in civil legal relations, real estate by holding state changes and determine the legal, real estate registration status changes vested in the relationship level. proprietary designations should be in the criminal law on the ownership of human behavior point of view, that is, whether the perpetrator make the transfer of ownership, this behavior should have two aspects of the objective behavior and subjective meaning for this case deputy borrowed the the account deposits driver of this behavior analysis, can be decomposed into two portions before saving money, in that its connection point between deputy and drivers Borrow account conventions. 3 Section before saving money, the ownership belongs to the deputy, but the deputy of the money deposited in the driver’s account whether identified as the ownership of the delivery? I believe that in this case the ownership is not delivered, at least not in the sense of criminal law delivered. the transfer of ownership should have the owner’s objective behavior and subjective meaning two aspects together form, deposit money into the driver’s account, which is a civil law on the transfer of ownership, but in the moment of the deposit ownership transfer is completed. civil law presumption of transfer of ownership is the behavior of the capacity for civil conduct under the intention to make the transfer of ownership relations is identified the main criteria for the transfer of ownership. criminal law on the transfer of ownership of the standard behavior objectively on the validity and the subjective transfer ownership of means. Case, due before the deposit and the deposit between the two parties borrowing accounts conventions, easy to come to the subjective intentions of the perpetrator does not transfer ownership exists, it can not 4 be identified deputy ownership of the deposit to the driver delivery Criminal Law recognized ownership of delivery shall be based on subjective meaning of their own free transfers ownership of rights from this standard, the driver is always in the present case is not legally obtain ownership of the deposit, and then report the loss and extraction account deposits behavior should be recognized as illegal possession of criminal law ownership. In summary, in this case the driver does not form the basis of ownership of a crime does not hold, it is the behavior of the driver behavior of the legitimate exercise of ownership of a look at the loan account contract between the driver and the deputy, although this contract is contrary to the requirements of the Civil Code, but the violation does not lead to the legal transfer of ownership, ownership of other words ultimately attributed to the deputy in this context, the driver knowing that exists between themselves and deputy the borrow deposit contract, indicating that the driver knowing that the ownership of the deposits belonging to others, still use the report the loss of the means to obtain the property of 5 others, which is in line with other people’s property illegally obtained property of crime behavior, and this behavior was against the victim’s ownership, harmful to the society, so the driver’s behavior constitutes a crime. Analysis of this crime and other crimes: possession of Discrimination Can be drawn from the driver’s behavior constitutes a class of property crime, support constitute a crime, the crime of theft, embezzlement, fraud and three different differences of opinion, the dispute focused on the deposits possession attribution. (The three sins relationship of the one count of theft, embezzlement and fraud crimes clarify Three crimes of theft, embezzlement and fraud crimes possession type of property crime, three crime against all manner of illegal possession of this classification is to distinguish between property crime and destruction of property crimes and other destructive. further analysis, occupies a type of property crime can be divided into the type of transfer of possession of property crime and non-transfer of possession of property crime, the 6 distinction between the standard is that the perpetrator violated property originally grouped under the possession of the perpetrator in accordance with this standard to be divided, theft, fraud crimes belongs to the type of transfer of possession of property crime, while the the embezzlement non-transfer of possession type of property crime. The (embezzlement Analysis: deputy possession deposits Support embezzlement view the drivers account holder, he can be taken at any time to report the loss to the bank property rights advocate their own account, it is stored in the driver’s account from the moment the driver always maintain possession of the deposits, but this the species occupies itself non-possession based on ownership, belong to his master possession. taken after the report of loss of deposit withdrawals acts are illegal possession is his main possession of the property in the case, and should therefore be identified as embezzlement. The problem with this argument is that the 7 possession constitutes a condition. First, possession exclusivity. Deposits unauthorized possession, possession of non-strict sense because the possession of the property rights only in the matter, the real deposit intangible , but a property right, the only way to set up a quasi-possession. deposits with the general claims there is a distinction between the deposit can be understood as a general property, so either possession or quasi-possession but certainly for the analysis of this case is not too much. is, regardless of possession or quasi-possession is a fact on the tube collar of the control, in a certain space and time, this is undoubtedly exclusive control, so there are two incompatible possession of course also exist auxiliary possession and indirect possession, but these are the actual possession by the hands of others to occupy a certain extent, the others just an extension of the person in possession, the media, the nature of the instrument, the actual possession or the original possessor it occupies should Exclusivity having a certain period of time and space conditions. Reposted elsewhere in the Research Papers Download 8 Possession with voxels and heart prime requirements of both the voxel and heart hormone is a civil law concept, a noun into the criminal law objective behavior and subjective meaning, that occupies the fact that people should have possession and possession the meaning of possession is the organic combination of these two factors, both are indispensable. behavior is the cause of all things state agents of change, occupy as a state can not be divorced from the possession of the facts, so that only the possession of the facts do not mean possession case there is no need to discuss. lies in the existence of the possession of the facts did not occupy mean only possession I believe that this possession does not exist, because possession has always been the property of the exclusive control and pipe collar, the lack of possession meaning I do not know that possession of state, since even the possession of the existence of a state do not know, how can there be for the control of the property and pipe collar? For example, person A sitting on the grass to rest, just sitting on the others lost a ring , this unaware rings have physical control, and actually I do not know already this was subjected to the control, but not 9 completely control and possession of the property collar, can not be considered the possession of the ring. Case, the deputy and the driver agreed to borrow account matters, turn in the deposit bank deposit personal custody matter deputy for the safekeeping of the deposit is exclusive support embezzlement view this, Vice Chairman of possession is not exclusive, because the driver can report the loss to exclude deputy possession this view ignores the possession of property control tightness. occupies a certain space and time control and possession of the property on the collar, Such control and Kanrei of the range can not be infinitely expanded, should be controlled within a certain range, i.e. should have a close control with the controlled object, which should exclude others from the tightness between tightness example, my wallet in the pocket, the thief hand across the pocket pinch my wallet thief holding my wallet, but I apparently did not lose possession, for the men separated by hand with a pocket to hold control wallet close below I placed to control the wallet in the pocket tightness Therefore, my wallet on the control tightness stronger 10 than thieves, exclude the possession of the thief the other hand, this case, the driver can indeed report the loss to the deposit control and pipe collar, but such control shall make use of the bank’s auxiliary and can not be done independently, the deputy direct deposit control, as long as can be achieved by holding a passbook to keep control of the purpose of the deposit, visible deputy deposits tight control is stronger than the driver, the deputy possession of deposits since acquiring exclude the possession of the driver. Secondly, the driver does not actually have possession of meaning, in this case between the driver and the Vice Chairman of the borrowing account convention, in fact, the driver recognized the Vice Chairman of the freedom of access at any time, passbook will pay in the custody of the deputy, identified deputy share deposits recognized, this recognition to exclude his own possession. In summary, deposits placed in under the deputy possession, report the loss of the deputy passbook failure actually occurs deposit share does not comply with the characteristics of the the embezzlement non-transfer of 11 possession, it can not be identified as encroachment behavior. (C defraud Analysis: Banks whether a libertarian The proposition to defraud view, the deposit is actually the Vice Chairman of the All, but the bank did not know the fact, drivers concealment banks to hand over the property originally belonged to the deputy, cheated bank, while the actual property damage is Vice Chairman of the belongs to typical triangular fraud issues. The problem here is: the bank cheated? Whether banks have the ability to determine the authenticity or obligations? Banks do not exist to determine the authenticity of the obligations, and thus can not be said that the bank cheated because, according to the bank’s real-name system rules, report the loss behavior of drivers in the form of a desirable, civil law is emphasized formal legitimate banks to see the head of the household as long as the driver, it shall be presumed under the driver’s account deposits enjoy the ownership does not exist to determine whether the driver is really ownership 12 Therefore, the bank does not does not determine the authenticity of the obligations of the fact, it is impossible to have the ability to judge the bank will not free, there is no cheated like obtaining property by deception young children do not belong to fraud is theft, object to the lack of will of the ability of the premise, there is no need to consider whether they have the ability to judge. So, here the bank has not cheated, payments made in full compliance with the rules of banking operation, even if the operator knows the insider, there is no ability to refuse to pay, the banks lack the freedom of the will. (Conclusion: constitute theft By analyzing the crime or the boundaries of this crime and other crimes, can be found in the behavior of the driver is a transfer of possession of the type of property crime, and has a non-violent nature of their behavior, and take not defraud. excluded does not constitute a crime, embezzlement and fraud crimes, and then try to analyze whether the conduct constitutes theft. 13 Described before, first makes this behavior is under the control of the Vice Chairman of the bond certificate - passbook, here can be understood as a direct possession of property lost, entitled under the possession of such a transfer of possession of the obvious is the Vice Chairman of the I do not know the circumstances occur. Look at the Bank of the role in the behavior, as described before, the bank in this case the free will of other words its delivery behavior is not made through its own will, but the head of the household, which is the driver-based will make, that banks play the role of the media a transfer of possession, the real implementation of the transfer of possession behavior of the driver, the bank here belong Indirect Guilt, therefore, report the loss behavior of the driver in this case do constitute a crime types of the analysis, able to draw drivers to take a secret way to mean a deputy to take possession of the deposits, in line with Theft the secret stolen property of others constitute free banking as a medium, so I believe that the act should be constitute a theft. 14 Reposted elsewhere in the Research Papers Download 15