论刑法上的占有及其认定

占有在财产罪的认定中具有重要意义。刑法上的占有与民法占有概念除占有类型稍有差别外,两者没有不同。占有概念的核心是人对物事实上的控制与支配,但由于人们社会生活实际的需要,占有概念被扩张与限缩,并形成了观念占有概念,即推定占有与辅助占有。占有的构成要件,包括占有事实与占有意思。对占有的认定应从有无占有事实与是否形成占有意思二个方面加以把握。     

浅谈刑法中的占有

财物是否被权利人占有是区分盗窃罪与侵占罪的核心，由此如何认识刑法中的占有是区分此罪与彼罪的必要奈件。本文的基本观点是，刑法中的占有更强调事实性支配；占有意思不是认定占有的必要条件，而只是在事实性支配很微弱时起补充认定作用；遗忘物必须是脱离占有之物，短暂遗忘以及处于他人事实性支配领域内的财物，不论权利人主观上是否遗忘都不属于遗忘物。     

刑法上的财产占有概念

刑法上的占有是指对物的事实上控制与支配 ,它的成立必须兼具客观支配状态与占有意思两个要件。自罗马法以来 ,就存在着民法与刑法上占有的区别。较之于民法上的占有 ,刑法占有的客观支配形态更为现实 ,主观占有意思更具规范成份 ,占有性质合法与否也不重要 ,这与两种占有制度在法律体系中的地位与功能密切相关。几种特殊情形的占有归属 ,如存在上下主从关系的占有、共同占有、以及包装物、死者财产、不动产和遗忘物的占有 ,应依具体的事实支配关系来确定。     

共同占有人擅自处分占有物行为的定性考量

共同占有作为一种客观常见的占有形式,其占有事实和占有归属的认定具有一定的复杂性和疑难性.根据共同占有的不同情形,需要区分共同共有下的共同占有与不具有共同共有的共同占有、共同共有下数人轮流单独占有与数人共同支配占有以及存在上下主从关系的共同占有与对等共同占有等不同情形下占有归属的认定,进而分析占有人擅自处分占有物的行为性质.在具体案件中,行为人占有事实和占有归属的判断以及占有支配程度和范围的考察应是判断共同占有人擅自处分占有物行为定性的关键.     

论刑法中的占有

刑法中的占有是人对财物事实上支配、管理的状态。排他性只是它的一个特性 ,并非它的本质属性。占有的有无以及占有的归属 ,对于财产罪的成立乃至构成何种财产罪有重要意义 ,一般要从财物的种类、性质、形状、所处的位置以及人们的社会观念、人与财物之间的关系等方面来作判断。对几个接触财物者之间存在上下、主从、对等关系以及受委托保管、搬运的对象为被包装物时如何划清占有的归属 ,非法取得死者生前持有的财物应该如何处理等问题则应结合具体案情作具体分析     

财产犯罪中占有判断的类型化

随着社会经济形态及生活方式的发展,财物占有方式越来越复杂化,给刑法理论带来新的挑战。对于复杂的占有形态,采纳"新二重性占有概念"并建立类型化的占有认定标准是必要且可行的操作路径,即区分单人物理性支配和多人事实性支配的不同层次进行类型化判断:首先判断行为人是否存在单人物理性支配,如存在,则可直接肯定其存在占有;如不存在,进入多人存在事实性支配的场合,依据"社会一般观念"和民事合同、事实性要素的辅助进行判断。进行占有判断的类型化,有助于司法实践中相关案件的妥善处理:错误汇款及错误转账分别处于银行与第三方支付平台的物理性支配之下,归银行及第三方支付平台占有,实践中的该类案件都应按侵占罪处理;使用中的共享单车处于使用者和共享单车公司等多人的事实性支配之下,最终判断为归合法使用者占有,使用者将其隐匿的行为构成侵占罪,而只有非合法使用者隐匿单车才构成盗窃罪,实务中的相关处理方案值得改进,对于多次盗用共享单车等共享物品的行为,未来实务中也应区分情形按盗窃罪或者侵占罪处理。     

论死者的占有——对“占有”概念的重新解读

死者的占有是一个争议很大的刑法问题。无论是死者占有说、死者生前占有说,还是死者生前占有延续说都有疑问。问题产生的关键是,传统刑法对占有的界定过分强调其＂事实上的支配＂这一要素,但在现实当中,一般的社会观念对于占有的认定更为重要。因此,认定刑法上的占有,关键在于明确占有主体对占有客体的＂排他性支配＂,在此基础上,继承人占有说是更为妥当的主张。     

从占有到物权--论占有在物权法中的基础地位

占有是物权的起点.在不具任何法权因素的纯粹占有中,包涵了物权法的全部最为基本的特征:意志性、支配性和排他性.虽然物权法以理性的权利设计,取代了占有的事实要求,而成为支配方式的核心,但是占有在物权法中的重要角色并未因此丧失.相反,占有构成物权实现其支配性和排他性的基础.     

物的概念和占有的概念

通说认为，物是一种可“实际控制或支配的物质客体”，占有是“对于物的事实上的控制和支配”。这实际上是对物和占有的循环定义。物是可占有的财产；占有是对对象物理属性的具有外观表现形式的全面控制行为。在此认识基础上，对通说关于物和占有的若干观点作了商榷，得出了新的结论。     

占有行为的规范分析

占有行为是指占有的取得或丧失行为,它既不同于遗失等可归于自然事实的占有取得或丧失,也不同于埋藏物发现等形式上有占有要素、但该要素并无实质效用的形似行为,还不同于善意占有变为恶意占有等占有变更。占有行为包括了取得占有或丧失占有的目的意思,该意思不能独立于取得或丧失对物支配的事实状态,故占有行为是目的意思不独立的事实行为。尽管占有行为与法律行为相当不同,但它们之间存有协力、制约、衔接、并存等紧密的规范关联。在法律效果归属领域,在适用占有辅助规范和间接占有规范的基础上,还应类推适用代理规范。     

Postmemory and Possession

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique - This paper examines the phenomena of ‘postmemory’ as a mode of possession that...     

论占有改定

占有改定是观念交付的方式之一,它带来了交易上的便捷与灵活.占有改定在让与担保、买卖合同和抵贷返租中得以适用,但在质权设定、金钱占有与动产善意取得制度中却受到限制.由于占有改定这一交付方式使第三人无法从外部征象上知晓物权变动状况,从而打破了动产以交付为物权变动方法的传统物权法原理,于公示不利.本文将在界定占有改定内涵的基础上就占有改定与有关的物权法律制度之间的关系作一探讨,以分析其存在的合理性.     

Adverse Possession of Land

The decision of the House of Lords in J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. Graham [2002]3 W.L.R.221 has not only reaffirmed the importance of possession in the common law tradition as had been understood historically, but it has also explained that it is long sustained possession that is the root of a successful claim to adverse possession. It does not matter that the adverse possessor does not have an actual subjective belief that he is acting as the owner. Neither does it matter that the possessor is willing to pay for the occupation of the land, providing that there is possession which is inconsistent with the paper owner's title. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

In Defense of Criminal Possession

Criminal law casebooks and treatises frequently mention the possibility that criminal liability for possession is inconsistent with the Voluntary Act Requirement, which limits criminal liability to that which includes an act or an omission. This paper explains why criminal liability for possession is compatible with the Voluntary Act Requirement despite the fact that possession is a status. To make good on this claim, the paper (1) defends the Voluntary Act Requirement, (2) offers an account of the nature of omissions of the kind that need be included in that for which criminal liability is imposed in the absence of a voluntary act, and (3) argues that possession is a status that is constituted in part by an omission of this sort. The result is that to hold people criminally liable for possession is to hold them criminally liable both for a status and for an omission, an omission that is part of what it is to have that status. The paper also distinguishes possession from vagrancy, which is not a proper object of criminal liability, precisely because of constraints placed by the Voluntary Act Requirement. And the paper argues that possession incident to dispossession is not a proper object of criminal liability because it does not involve an omission of the kind that other forms of possession involve.     

论知识产权与占有制度

一、导言 民法典知识产权篇专家意见稿第五条明确规定:“知识产权的客体表现为一定的信息,一般不能作为占有的标的,故不适用与占有相关的制度,如取得时效制度等。”然而,这一观点在民法学界并非没有异议。早在二十世纪五十年代,史尚宽先生就曾经指出知识产权至少可以适用占有制度中的取得时效和准占有。有介于此,本文将对占有制度在知识产权领域内的可适用性进行一些抛砖引玉的探讨。     

占有概念及其构成要件探究

占有是一项重要的物权法制度 ,而我国现行民法迄今未对“占有”做出规定。为了完善我国物权法 ,必须明确占有的本质、概念及其构成条件。     

The Unfairness of Risk-Based Possession Offences

This is a study of possession offences, with the focus on those intended to penalise the risk of a serious harm. Offences of this kind are examined in the light of basic doctrines of the criminal law, and in the light of the proper limits of endangerment offences. They are found wanting in both respects, and are also found to pose particular sentencing problems. The conclusion is that many risk-based possession offences are unfair, save those that require proof of a further intent or those aimed at a failure properly to safeguard a dangerous object.     

District Judges and Possession Proceedings

In this article, we draw on data obtained in interviews with District Judges about the factors which they say influence the exercise of their discretion in possession proceedings. Analysing the data set enabled us to create three ideal types of judicial decision—making which we have labelled 'liberal', 'patrician', and formalist'. We discuss the differences between each ideal type across five different variables: the District Judge role; approach; view of occupiers; the problem; behaviour of occupiers. Our data demonstrate a set of reasons to explain different approaches and outcomes between different District Judges (as well as the perhaps unlikely identification of a 'maverick' or 'idiosyncratic' style of judging). We conclude by suggesting on the basis of our data that, despite calls to structure or remove the discretion from District Judges, any such changes are unlikely to have much effect.     

Possession of cannabis legal for now

In two recent rulings the Ontario Court of Justice threw out charges of possession of cannabis contrary to section 4(I) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA). The courts found that the accused in each case had been charged with an offence not known to law. Parliament never re-enacted the CDSA section prohibiting simple possession of cannabis (marijuana) after it was struck down by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Parker case.     

占有制度探析

占有是一种常见的事实，目前我国对占有制度的研究和立法比较薄弱，从民法原理上对其加以探讨和认识，意义重大。