How to deal with virtual property crime: Judicial dilemma and a theoretical solution from China

In recent years, China has evidenced a large number of criminal precedents on virtual property crime, but how to deal with it remains controversial, both theoretically and practically. Thus, systematic studies based on relevant precedents and doctrines are urgently needed from three perspectives: the conceptual boundary of virtual property, the judicial application of virtual property crime and the determination of the quantitative element of virtual property crime. Accordingly, the current research also seeks to shed light on other countries facing the same issues. In the context of criminal law, virtual property should be screened by three substantive criteria: digitization, value and scarcity. Whether virtual property is identified as a property right or a contractual claim in the field of civil law will not substantially affect the determination of criminal responsibility. Virtual property has both property and data features, and the different legal interests carried by both should be protected by criminal law. For the judicial application of virtual property crime, there are three approaches: property crime, data crime and computer crime. The three do not have a ranking or mutually exclusive relationship, and the principle of ideal concurrence (Idealkonkurrenz) should be applied. When determining the quantitative element of property crime, two different types of users and game operators should be distinguished, and the actual property damage standard should be favoured. When considering data and computer crime to determine the quantitative element, we should not rely excessively on the criteria of illegal income and economic loss, but should make a comprehensive Judgment around the degree of legal interest infringement.