恶意透支型信用卡诈骗罪中“催收”问题研究

根据目前的法律及司法解释，“经二次催收不还”是构成恶意透支的一个必要条件，发卡银行必须实施“催收”行为。由于法律及司法解释并未对催收的含义、催收方式、催收效力认定作出明确规定，导致实践中产生很多争议问题，给认定恶意透支带来困难。结合工作实践，通过对立法本意的阐释，对“催收”的本质特征进行分析，提出“催收”是发卡银行向持卡人主张信用卡债权的一种民事行为，“催收”属于犯罪构成的实体要件，“催收”的效力不以对方是否收到催收信息为必要条件。之后对各种催收方式进行归纳分析，并对如何认定催收效力进行论证，最后对立法提出相应建议。

On the Demand for Return by the Bank in the Intentional Overdraft of the Credit Card Fraud Crime

According to the current laws and judicial interpretations,it is a essential condition to determine the Intentional Overdraft(IO) in the Credit Card Fraud Crime(CCFC) that not to pay off the overdraft after demands made twice for return(DFR) by the Card-Issuing Bank(CIB).And the CIB must make demands twice for Return against The Cardholder.However,due to lack clear legislation about the meaning of DFR,the mode of the DFR,and how to determine the effect of the DFR,many controversies are issued and it is very difficult to determine the IO in the judicial practice.This article is written based on the judicial practice.firstly,with the exploration of the legislative intention,the author analyses the Essential characteristics of the DFR,and argues that the DFR is a civil act to assert a claim by the CIB against the Cardholder.Then points that the DFR isn’t a program element of the constitution of the CCFC but a substantive element,and the Effect of the DFR is not related to the receipt of the demands or yet.Secondly,the author summarizes all the Mode of the DFR,and demonstrates the identification of Effect of the DFR.Finally,corresponding suggestions are given to the legislation.