page 1 *** 14? On October 26th, this edition published the article "Helping thieves cash IOUs also constitutes theft" by Yan Meisheng. This paper analyzes a case: Li owed others 1.5 million yuan in payment and issued an iou. After the thief got this debt, he called according to the phone number left by Li on the debt, saying that as long as Li was willing to pay 31,111 yuan, he would give the debt to Li. After Li wants to get the debt, the creditor has no evidence to claim the debt from him, so he can default on the debt and "make a deal" with the thief. Unexpectedly, it was discovered a few days later. The author believes that Li's transaction with the thief triggered the final end of the theft, which turned the thief's attempt into accomplishment. Together with the thief, it constitutes theft and is an accomplice. For this bizarre case, the editor thinks that there are doubts about whether Li or the thief constitutes a crime and what kind of crime it constitutes, which is worthy of further study. Therefore, this case is discussed as a mystery. As always, many readers actively participated in the discussion, and even some netizens set up discussion topics on the forum of China Court Network, and many netizens posted their opinions. The editor is very moved by this enthusiasm for discussing legal issues, and I am deeply grateful here. There are so many viewpoints in this discussion that the editor didn't expect them. Now they are summarized and published for readers' further thinking. The thief and Li constitute theft. Zhu Qianli, Intermediate People's Court of Suqian City, Jiangsu Province: The debt is of no value to the thief. The money paid by Li to the thief is not the payment of the debt stolen by the thief, but the reward paid by Li. The thief neither stole the money of the owner of the debt, nor stole Li's money. The thief's behavior of stealing IOUs is combined with Li's behavior of buying IOUs to refuse to perform debts, which infringes on the property rights of others and constitutes theft. But it was not Li who helped the thief to steal, but the thief helped Li to steal. First of all, the two have the same intention of stealing. The thief's purpose is to get Li's reward by helping Li, while Li's purpose is to use the thief's theft to get back his debt certificate and gain benefits. The purpose is different, but the intention is the same. Secondly, the two men cooperated with each other. The thief first stole the IOUs, and Li paid the thief to get the IOUs. The effect was actually the same as that of Li stealing the IOUs himself. If the debtor steals back the IOUs and destroys the evidence of the relationship between creditor's rights and debts, he can possess the creditor's property for free, which is no different from ordinary theft in nature. This is the same reason that robbery IOUs constitute robbery. Wang Xuetang, court of Chancheng District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province: The key of this case lies in the identification of the thief's act of stealing IOUs. At present, the civil litigation emphasizes the burden of proof of the parties, the legal truth instead of the objective truth, and the debating litigation mode in which judges judge in the middle. Assuming that the creditor has no debt, the court may not accept it, let alone win the case. Therefore, it is completely out of touch with the development of the times to emphasize that IOUs are only evidence rather than property rights, and not to impose criminal sanctions on theft. It is generally believed that as the object of crime of theft, it must have the characteristics of economic value, disposable, movable property and relative legality (referring to the fact that some property can not be the object of crime of theft and constitute other crimes). After careful analysis, IOUs fully conform to the concept of "property" in the sense of theft, and it is enough to identify the act of stealing a large amount of IOUs as a crime. Page 2 *** 14 Fu Jun, qingbaijiang district Court, Chengdu, Sichuan: The IOU is a record of the creditor's property. The creditor's rights do not involve the interests of a third party. The debt owed by the thief does not exempt the debtor Li, and the thief can't obtain other people's property just by owing money. However, after the thief sold the IOUs to Li, Li hid or destroyed the IOUs in order to avoid the debts, which made the creditors lose the only proof to claim their rights (it can be presumed that Li invested 31,111 yuan to buy IOUs). Li intends to permanently occupy the debt that should be returned to the creditor by illegally depriving the creditor of his claim. From the point of view of the substantive rationality of criminal trial, what is infringed is the creditor's ownership of the debt. Thieves steal IOUs, and the crime has not yet been completed. Selling IOUs to debtors should be regarded as the continuation of theft. Li's participation made the victim lose control of the property on the iou, and their * * * peers violated the victim's property ownership, and the theft crime was finally completed. Li's behavior was called the inherited * * * offender. The thief's secret stealing behavior and Li's purchase behavior knowing the origin of the iou contributed to the occurrence of the criminal result, which is a * * * crime. All * * * prisoners should be responsible for the consequences of * * * peers' actions-illegal possession of the victim's 1.5 million yuan. As for the 31,111 yuan that the thief got from selling the IOUs, it can be regarded as the distribution of the stolen money. Tang Ling and Chen Xiaobo of Sihong County Court, Jiangsu Province: The identification of the nature of the IOUs in this case and the identification of the nature of reselling IOUs are the keys to this case. As for the identification of the nature of IOUs, the author believes that, first of all, theft infringes not only tangible property, but also the legal ownership of public and private property. Although the IOU itself is not property, it is the main certificate of property rights in entity, and some even the only certificate. Procedurally, the existence of IOUs is the litigation evidence for the debtor to request the court to realize the creditor's rights. Formally, the relationship between creditor's rights and debts is eliminated, which also formally eliminates the realization of ownership. Therefore, stealing IOUs is an act of infringing on the property ownership of others. Secondly, if Li wants to eliminate the debt, let the thief steal the IOUs, and then Li pays the thief a reward of 31,111 yuan. Although this is reversed from the behavior process in this case, its nature is the same. The author thinks that the thief and Li Mou * * * stole the property rights of the victim with RMB 51,111, and the thief got an illegal benefit of RMB 31,111, while Li Mou realized the criminal purpose of eliminating the creditor's rights of RMB 51,111. (Editor: Other people who hold this view are Wang Min, Wu Jianhua and Liu Jianping of lichuan county Court in Jiangxi, Liu Xizhong of Fugou County Court in Henan, Wang Hecheng of Luxian County Court in Sichuan, etc. The thief constitutes a crime of extortion. Luo Jian' an, a court in Xinjian County, Jiangxi Province: The crime of extortion refers to the act of forcing others to deliver a large amount of public or private property or provide property benefits by means of violence, threat or coercion for the purpose of illegally possessing public or private property or illegally obtaining property benefits. Subjectively speaking, the thief has the purpose of illegally demanding property benefits, and the small thief gets an iou of 1.5 million yuan. The iou itself has no practical significance to him. In order to obtain illegal benefits, he has the idea of blackmailing the debtor Li. From an objective point of view, the thief asked Li for 31 thousand yuan, which was a blackmail method. Although IOUs are different from securities and have no natural value, it is "luck" for a specific party to get IOUs without money. For Li, it is also "worthwhile" to spend 31,111 yuan on page 3 *** 14 and lose 21,111 yuan. Because Li was eager to pay debts, the thief succeeded in extorting 31 thousand yuan. The thief's behavior conforms to the subjective and objective elements of extortion, so his behavior constitutes extortion. Zhou Zhengyu, court of Zhalantun City, Inner Mongolia: In this case, the thief could not constitute theft because the stolen goods did not reach the legal amount. However, the thief suddenly found the "value" of the stolen IOUs and called Li to buy them for 31 thousand yuan. This behavior of a thief constitutes a crime of extortion. The reason is that the thief took advantage of Li's desire to recover the debt and demanded 31,111 yuan from Li for the purpose of illegal possession of shopping, which is in line with the crime of extortion. (Editor: Readers who hold this view naturally do not think that Li, who was blackmailed, constitutes a crime. ) Li or a thief constitutes a crime of (contract) fraud Tu Shaomeng: I believe that Li constitutes a crime of contract fraud (preparatory crime) and the thief also constitutes a crime of contract fraud (instigator). At the instigation of the thief, Li spent 31,111 yuan to buy the IOU. Obviously, he had the motive to avoid the debt. The act of buying the IOU itself also prepared him for the next step, which constituted a crime preparation. The crime of contract fraud refers to the act of defrauding the other party's property in a large amount for the purpose of illegal possession in the process of signing and performing the contract. There was originally a contractual relationship of creditor's rights and debts between Li and others, but in the process of performing the contract, Li had the intention of denying having borrowed money by buying back the loan. Although his criminal intention was not there at the time of signing the contract, it also met the requirements of contract fraud in the process of performing the contract. Although IOUs are not as abstract as stocks and bonds, they can be used as proof of rights. Therefore, objectively, even if Li gets back IOUs, he may not succeed, but even if he fails to succeed, he can only attribute it to the impossibility of committing fraud by means, and cannot erase the essence of his fraud crime. Although the thief stole the loan, he could not cash its value and could not be characterized as theft. However, his instructions to Li gave him the motivation to buy back the loan and deny the debt. Without the convenience provided by the thief and this "painstaking persuasion", Li did not have the conditions and determination to commit fraud. Obviously, the thief constitutes an instigator of contract fraud. Hu Lei, Dalian Naval Academy: Fraud can be either an act or an omission. Inaction fraud means that the actor has the obligation to inform the other party of a certain fact, but fails to fulfill this obligation for the purpose of obtaining illegal benefits, which makes the other party fall into a wrong understanding and dispose of the property, so as to obtain illegal benefits. The relationship between creditor's rights and debts belongs to the adjustment of civil law. After seeing the IOUs, Li has the obligation to inform the creditors of the fact that the IOUs have been stolen and who is in charge now according to the principle of good faith. However, Li did not fulfill this obligation, but instead "bought" the IOUs with money far below the amount owed, hoping that the creditors would never know, hoping that by controlling the IOUs themselves, the creditors would never find the IOUs, making them fall into a wrong understanding-the IOUs have disappeared, and they can't ask Li to pay their debts according to the IOUs, and then dispose of the property based on this wrong understanding-they reluctantly give up their claims. Finally, Li achieved the illegal goal of not paying off debts, and obtained illegal benefits. Li's behavior fully conforms to the basic composition of fraud and belongs to attempted fraud. Yang Hanping, the court of Dongxihu District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province: The thief lured Li to conduct an invalid "transaction" with him. For the thief, he used the stolen IOUs as props and used Li's legal misunderstanding of IOUs to commit fraud. His behavior constitutes attempted theft and accomplished fraud, and should be punished for several crimes. And Li is only the object of fraud when the thief commits fraud after the theft has been completed but failed. Its behavior is not a * * criminal behavior that helps the thief to realize the continuation of the theft and succeed, but an illegal "transaction" with the thief under the condition of subjective misunderstanding. His behavior does not produce any change of rights in the legal sense at all in civil relations. Although his behavior is obviously illegal, there is no corresponding provision for conviction and punishment in China's criminal law. According to the basic principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a crime, he should not be convicted and punished. (Editor: Cui Yongfeng, a court in Sihong County, Jiangsu Province, also holds this opinion. Zhang Hairong, Intermediate People's Court of Xi 'an City, Shaanxi Province: If we only look at this case according to criminal thinking, we will usually get confused about conviction and sentencing, but if we look at it from a civil perspective, we will find that this case is not so complicated. When the thief traded the stolen IOUs with Li, the purpose of both parties was obviously illegal, at the expense of harming the interests of the third party (the stolen person) (the loss of creditor's rights certificates). Judging from the contract law, their actions are of course invalid. It is only for the elimination of debts borne by IOUs that Li is actively pursuing subjectively, while thieves are letting themselves go. If we face up to the consistency of the behavior of the thief and Li in destroying the creditor's rights of the stolen person, and at the same time, from the perspective of rights representing interests, the creditor's rights damaged by their behavior belong to the category of property, so it should be justified to characterize the trading behavior of the thief and Li as * * * intentional destruction of property in combination with subjective and objective performance. It is only because the act did not cause actual damage to the borrower, it should be treated as attempted. Li and the thief constitute the crime of embezzlement. Xu Qingyu, Chuzhou District Court, Huai 'an City, Jiangsu Province: The creditor's rights can only be realized, and there is no theft or robbery. The author thinks that the act of stealing and robbing IOUs in an attempt to illegally occupy public and private property constitutes a crime of embezzlement. Based on the contractual relationship, Li, the debtor in this case, actually occupies the creditor's property rights (the payment of the contract counterpart), which belongs to "custody on behalf of" in terms of its nature. "Custody on behalf of" should be interpreted broadly or broadly, as long as the interpretation does not exceed the possible meaning of the criminal law term. On purpose, Li bought the iou stolen by the thief in an attempt to make the creditor exercise public relief without evidence, thus achieving the purpose of illegally possessing other people's property. Li's subjective aspect is for the purpose of illegal possession of other people's property, and his objective aspect shows that he refuses to return the property that should be paid to others, and his behavior has met the constitutive requirements of embezzlement. The thief provided the IOU to Li, and together with Li, he illegally possessed other people's property, which constituted a crime. Page 5 *** 14 Li constitutes the crime of buying stolen goods. Luo Xiangyuan, Intermediate People's Court of Foshan City, Guangdong Province, and Zhu Daohua, Law School of Foshan University of Science and Technology: The criminal law clearly stipulates that buying it knowing that it is stolen goods obtained from crime constitutes the crime of buying stolen goods. In this case, there is a clear communication and transaction between the thief selling IOUs and Li buying IOUs, and Li's behavior fully meets the constitutive requirements of the crime of buying stolen goods. The thief sold the IOU to Li, and both sides paid the money and delivered the IOU for their own benefit. This is not substantially different from the thief selling a car worth hundreds of thousands of yuan to the receiver for tens of thousands of yuan, but the IOU is a special kind of stolen goods. According to the logic of the original text, if the iou is from robbery, won't Li become a robber? According to the theory of criminal law, after the actor's behavior completely conforms to a specific crime constitution, the actor's handling of the stolen goods does not constitute a new crime. The same is true of the thief looking for Li to cash the debt. Liu Hongchao, court of Yanling County, Henan Province: If the thief sneaked in several thousand yuan of shopping vouchers, can the exchange behavior of the operator be classified as theft? Obviously too ridiculous. Li is just a tool for thieves to realize 31 thousand yuan of stolen money, just like withdrawing money from an ATM after stealing a credit card. The only difference is that Li's criminal intention is added in the middle. The IOU in this case, as stolen goods, is not only an important evidence to expose and prove the thief's crime of theft, but also an object to recover the victim's loss. Although Li had the purpose of making illegal profits, he bought an iou that he knew was stolen goods for 31 thousand yuan, which mainly infringed on the normal activities of the judicial organs. This is not substantially different from Li's purchase of a stolen car worth 151 thousand yuan for 31 thousand yuan. Li should be convicted and punished for buying stolen goods. Chen Zhichao, nanchang district Court, Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province: In this case, Li's subjective desire to buy IOUs is not to help the thief to complete the theft, and he has no intention to commit the theft. He just wants to get IOUs and get rid of his debts. Li didn't know the thief's theft beforehand and didn't participate in it, so his behavior can't be regarded as theft. However, Li constituted the crime of buying stolen goods. The IOU itself is not valuable, but it is of great value to Li, who is a debtor. Li spent 31,111 yuan to buy more than just a piece of paper, but 1.5 million yuan that was readily available after a civil lawsuit without suspense. Therefore, Li has already learned that the IOU is stolen goods on the phone.