The Concept of Appropriation and The Offence of Theft

The English law of theft is confusing and problematic in principle. Since the introduction of the Theft Act 1968 there has been inconsistency in the interpretation of appropriation as court and commentators have grappled with the intuition that appropriation must entail some subjective element and cannot be purely objective. Although subjectivity is traditionally associated with culpability rather than with conduct, it is argued that some acts can be subjective and yet factual and stand as causes to effects. Appropriation is such an act, its necessary and sufficient condition being a mindset, here termed proprietary subjectivity, on the part of the actor. It is argued that clarification of the concept of appropriation can help to resolve misperceived problems. Such clarification will also reveal other problems in the law of theft. Some tentative comments de lege ferenda are made suggesting how these problems can be addressed.     

盗窃罪中财产性利益占有的规范化解释进路

偷换二维码案的认定涉及诸多理论争议。通过对此类案件的构成要件定型分析可以发现,在涉事主体方面,行为人、商户、顾客三方关系是此类案件涉事主体的合理确定。无论是对于诈骗罪还是盗窃罪的行为定型方面,均存在难以解释的问题。特别是认为此类案件构成诈骗罪和新型三角诈骗的主张,在逻辑链条上无法有力地阐明其扩张解释的理由。对此,合理的解释路径是个别、例外地承认在此类涉及侵权行为以及民事请求权消灭的场合下,财产性利益的规范性占有的可能。这种规范化的理解虽然扩张了事实性的占有概念,但具有整体法秩序上的理由,并且符合刑法作为规范学的学科定位。与此同时,通过义务分配的功能性分析,也可以有效地区分不同情况,对于相关案件中的行为作出妥当的、符合罪刑法定原则要求以及司法实践需求的评价。     

盗窃罪中“数额较大”的认定规则

“数额较大”的认定是盗窃罪定罪量刑中的关键问题之一。司法解释采用了数额属性多元化的认定方法,既缺乏理论基础,也难以有效指导实务。司法裁判虽倾向于重视处罚的实质合理性,但并未形成统一的认定规则。通过梳理不同立法例下“损失”要素的定位,可以形成“占有转移”与“财产损失”两种视角下“数额较大”认定的理论方案。基于整体财产保护理念的以客观实质损失作为认定基准的方案,存在忽视我国刑法不同条款对“数额性后果”表述上的差异、对司法实践的认识以偏概全、不能妥适处理轻微实施盗窃的出罪等问题。相对而言,立足个别财产保护思想、以占有转移数额为基础,同时考虑主观指向数额的方案凸显了主观要件对不法和责任的制约,能周延地应对各种案型,值得肯定。该方案的具体规则是:先确定基础性数额即占有转移的财物价值“较大”,以此作为数额上限,再考察故意、排除意思、利用意思等主观要件指向的数额,各数额均需达到“较大”,最终的“数额较大”,是经此多种数额共同认定的结果。     

Beyond griefing: Virtual crime

Because there is so much money involved in virtual worlds these days, there has been an increase in criminal activity in these worlds as well. The gaming community calls people who promote conflict “griefers”. Griefers are people who like nothing better than to kill team-mates or obstruct the game’s objectives. Griefers scam, cheat and abuse. Recently, they have begun to set up Ponzi schemes. In games that attempt to encourage complex and enduring interactions among thousands of players, “griefing” has evolved from being an isolated nuisance to a social disease. Much in the same way crime has become the real world’s social disease. Grief is turning into crime.     

财产性利益盗窃的客观构造

利益盗窃与有体物盗窃共享“财产静态控制关系”的保护法益,其解释论不能突破“盗窃”的语义边界,这是形塑其客观构造的前提。套用占有理论的解释论忽视了利益变动与有体物转移的区别,具有片面性。立足利益盗窃与有体物盗窃的共性,结合财产性利益的特质,利益盗窃的客观构造应为“侵入权利人控制领域-打破权利人控制-取得财产性利益”。这一构造既契合盗窃罪财产静态控制关系的保护法益,也未突破“盗窃”的语义边界。由于利益变动的抽象性,须通过行为要素互补等精细化解释,确保利益盗窃客观构造的明确性。“侵入权利人控制领域”对利益盗窃的成立必不可少;“打破权利人控制”包括了转移、消灭、设定义务三种行为方式;“取得”的认定应注意素材的“同一性”与“同质性”之别,并强调终局性要求。     

Crime and Punishment in Sweden: Historical Criminal Justice Statistics 1750–2000

The article is a summary of a book in Swedish on the development of crime (that is, violence and theft) and punishment in Sweden in a historical perspective. The data stem mostly from conviction statistics. Following a discussion of the reliability of conviction statistics, trends in these statistics are described and various criminological explanations for these trends are discussed.     

论转化型抢劫罪的犯罪形态

中国现行刑法典第2 6 9条规定了转化型抢劫罪,亦称准抢劫罪、准强盗罪、事后抢劫罪,它　　是指在盗窃、诈骗、抢夺的实施过程中或实施完毕后非法状态持续的一定期间内,由于行为人在主客观　　方面出现了特定的变化,使整个行为的性质恶化,从而在法律评价中要以抢劫罪论处的情形。理清转化　　型抢劫罪的形态,把握转化型抢劫罪的适用条件,是刑法理论和司法实践中非常重要的问题。     

再论盗窃与抢夺——引入抢劫概念的探讨

我国刑法理论通说认为盗窃与抢夺行为的界限在于行为的秘密性与否,但是由于这一界限在理论中与实践上遇到了各种挑战,因而备受争议。法学界有新观点借鉴德日刑法理论,认为两行为的区别在于行为的平和与否,引起学界争鸣。抢夺作为介于盗窃罪与抢劫罪之间的罪名,单与盗窃罪进行比较是不全面的,也难以划清界限。不妨引入抢劫罪,借阐述三罪之间的区别,厘清盗窃与抢夺之界限。     

扒窃犯罪本益论

扒窃犯罪是扒窃行为人理性选择的结果和表现。扒窃犯罪的犯罪成本有直接成本、机会成本、惩罚成本，其犯罪收益有直接物质经济利益及心理满足。从犯罪成本与收益的理论来控制、预防扒窃，应该严格公正执法，优化公检法职能机关对扒窃犯罪的诉讼价值；改变刑法对扒窃犯罪的惩罚标准，强化刑罚基本功能，优化刑罚基本功能，优化刑罚效率等。     

论盗窃罪既遂的标准

理论界对盗窃既遂、未遂的标准并未形成一致意见,司法实务界也缺乏科学、统一的标准,影响了法制的统一与公正。有必要从我国刑法理论界关于盗窃既遂、未遂标准的争议入手,结合法理和司法实践经验,分析、界定失控说理论及其相关概念,为统一标准的建立提供参考。