The United Kingdom Identity Cards Act 2006 Civil or Criminal?

After much controversy and debate, the United Kingdom Parliamentpassed the Identity Cards Act in March 2006. The new nationalidentity registration scheme established under the legislationwill be in operation in 2 years. Initially the scheme will notbe generally compulsory, though the intention is eventuallyto make it mandatory. The Act uses a mix of civil penalty andoffence provisions as part of its enforcement regime. This articleconsiders the approach of the legislation, particularly thepractical implications of authentication and verification ofidentity under the scheme and the potential impact on the effectivenessof the enforcement regime, having regard to the right againstself-incrimination under the Human Rights Act 1988 (UK) andArticle 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rightsand Fundamental Freedoms 1950, and the common law privilegeagainst self-incrimination.     

论信用卡诈骗罪

信用卡诈骗罪有两种基本类型 :一是利用他人名义下的信用卡诈骗 ;二是利用自己名义下的信用卡诈骗。盗窃信用卡并使用的 ,其性质仍然是利用信用卡诈骗 ,不宜定盗窃罪。恶意透支不具有诈骗的实质 ,不宜定信用卡诈骗罪 ,有必要另立罪名。     

论信用卡恶意透支犯罪

当前信用卡恶意透支犯罪日益剧增,其表现形式也愈来愈复杂,存在着信用卡业务管理的不完善、技术防范手段落后、特约商户把关不严等客观原因,因此,必须从加强宣传教育、健全风险防范机制、完善技术服务手段、加大打击力度等方面入手,才能有效地遏制信用卡恶意透支犯罪。     

信用卡诈骗罪的司法认定

近年来 ,信用卡诈骗发案率呈上升趋势。有关信用卡诈骗罪在司法认定中的一些疑难问题有必要进行深入探讨。信用卡诈骗罪中的“信用卡”应包含借记卡 ;盗窃信用卡并使用中的“信用卡” ,不包括伪卡或废卡 ;对拾得信用卡并获取密码而加以使用的行为 ,应以信用卡诈骗罪论处 ;对伪造信用卡并加以使用的行为 ,应以伪造金融票证罪论处。对于金融机构工作人员侵吞行为的定性 ,应依照刑法规定综合加以考虑 ,按不同情况分别定罪     

智能卡在侦查中的应用初探

智能卡正在越来越多地进入生活。在侦查工作中,智能卡无论作为犯罪工具还是犯罪目标都十分普遍,因此研究其在侦查工作中的应用十分必要。在对智能卡的简单介绍及分类基础上,提出侦查中对银行卡和非银行卡的具体应用方法,尤其是对于最常见的购物卡和公交卡作出介绍并引入相关成功案例作为例证,最后提出智能卡在侦查中确定卡号、信息检索与布控以及信息研判与拓展应用的详细步骤。     

妨害信用卡管理罪若干问题研究

妨害信用卡管理罪自设立以来,围绕其犯罪构成以及与其他信用卡犯罪的区分一直存在较多争议,实践中也遇到不少法律适用方面的疑难问题。伪造的信用卡不仅仅是指外观上的伪造,更侧重指信用卡信息的伪造。不应把仅仅提供虚假资信等身份证明以外资料的行为,也认定为妨害信用卡管理的行为。为避免司法实践中的争议和混乱,应在刑法中增加单位为妨害信用卡管理罪的主体为宜,对单位实施的犯罪行为仅仅追究直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员,而不追究单位本身的责任,不符合罪责自负原则。出售,购买,为他人提供诈骗、捡拾的信用卡是否构成犯罪,法律并未规定,但从法益保护角度分析这些行为造成的社会危害性并不亚于出售、购买、为他人提供伪造的信用卡或以虚假身份证明骗领的信用卡,理应加以惩处。行为人"以虚假身份证明骗领的信用卡"由于持卡人是不真实的,对这种骗领的信用卡加以使用,遭受财产损失的是银行,危害的是金融秩序和银行资金安全,应当以信用卡诈骗罪定罪处罚,而不应以盗窃罪论处。     

社会认同复杂性与认同管理策略探析

社会认同论作为群体间行为的解释理论是群体关系研究中最有影响的理论.由于群体地位的差异,当某一群体在认知、情感上产生对所属群体身份不承认或疏离和自卑时便产生了社会认同威胁.为应对威胁和困境,社会认同管理策略旨在通过不同的策略手段以期获得积极的社会认同,提高个体和群体自尊.社会认同复杂性与管理策略的研究有助于加强我国转型期各群体之间的和谐共生,消减个体认同的困境,促进社会不同群体之间的融入与和谐.     

Familial Identity Theft

Reports of identity theft in the U.S. have risen since the 2000s, which has resulted in financial losses into the billions. Along with this rise is the increased likelihood of familial identity theft. In this study, the differences between familial and non-familial identity theft were explored through the January–July 2012 Identity Theft Supplement collected with the National Crime Victimization Survey. Results showed that family member victims were likely to have experienced one type of identity theft more often than non-family victims were, personal information used for other fraudulent purposes, which included government benefits and driver’s licenses. Factors that allowed for a respondent’s personal information used for other fraudulent purposes included family membership, young persons in the household, and repeat victimization. Findings suggest that few factors can predict the likelihood to experience the misuse of personal information and that familial identity theft may be difficult to detect.     

On State, Identity and Rights: Putting Identity First

The paper considers the nature of the state understood as the political unity articulated on the basis of a collective identity which provides the state with its capacity to make decisions. The foremost decision of the state to protect and defend this identity is the source of its authority to enforce laws. Collective identity thus represents an object of special interest, unlike both ??political?? interests (Millian other-regarding acts) and private interests (Millian self-regarding acts). The validation of laws through this special interest is a necessary condition for both of these latter kinds of interests to materialize. Hence, unlike the Millian thesis of two different kinds of interests (self- and other-regarding), here we take that there are three types or spheres of interests. Any conception of rights, then, will cover a subset of interests found in the domains of all of those three types of interests: in the domain of political interest the issue concerns selection among competing sets of legitimate interests, within the domain of private interests the point is to discern those that will be protected by law, while the third type of interests, the object of which is a unique collective identity and its defining specificity, represents an overarching interest that is embedded in any legitimate collective concern. In this scheme, well-suited for democratic theory, the majority/minority discourse is a matter of distinguishing which particular set of legitimate interests is chosen to be dominant (e.g., which political party is in power) and which ones are waiting for the opportunity to achieve their transformation from minority (opposition) to majority (i. e. government). If, however, there is no well-defined collective identity, minorities acquire a new meaning. Rather than being possible future majorities, they form a nucleus of competing collective identities with, sometimes hopeless but still alive, aspirations to sovereignty. Thus they become sources of likely conflicts that may go well beyond political controversies.     

Matters of Identity

Abstract.  The aim of this paper is to provide a philosophic answer to a question, which is not at all rhetoric, as it may seem. The author, in fact, wonders whether identity has to be framed, as usual, as an absolute value, i.e., as an "all-or nothing" question. The conclusion of this inquiry is clearly a negative one: Identity, on the contrary, has to be seen as a value which is highly complex, fuzzy, and allowing for degrees, nuances, and trade-offs. In modern societies there must be an interplay between identity and difference which is capable of ensuring institutional fairness and ongoing multicultural dialogue.     

Identity and its verification

The European Commission's eJustice Strategy seems to contemplate that all lawyers will be issued with an ‘identity card’ card, perhaps intended to include a key for making digital signatures. The Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) is proposing to introduce such a card. The purpose of this article is to clarify what ‘identity’ is and what is involved in verifying it, and to offer some general observations about identity cards. Although written with the eJustice proposals in mind, nevertheless the purpose of this article is to address the topic in its widest sense, which means it affects identity and its verification, whatever the circumstances.     

“冒用他人信用卡”行为司法认定之辨析——兼谈两高《解释》关于“冒用他人信用卡”之规定

2009年两高《关于办理妨害信用卡管理刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》（以下简称两高《解释》）第五条规定,“刑法第196条第一款第（三）项所称‘冒用他人信用卡’,包括以下情形：（一）拾得他人信用卡并使用的;（二）骗取他人信用卡并使用的;     

银行卡线上盗刷案件的责任认定与分配

银行卡线上支付已然成为我们最常用的支付方式,银行卡线上盗刷现象也随之大幅度增加,持卡人与银行频频对簿公堂。由于缺乏立法依据和指引,各地法院在审理因银行卡被线上盗刷而引起民事纠纷过程中认定标准不一,导致同案不同判的情形大量存在,银行与持卡人的责任认定与分配所遵循的标准不一,既无助于解决矛盾又损害了司法权威。面对这一困境,可以由最高人民法院发布指导案例和指导意见,就审理中常见争议焦点的认定给予明确的引导,确保其判决结果的合理与统一。在此基础上进一步总结和提炼审判经验,最终推动相关立法的完善。     

资金查控在涉银行卡类案件中的运用

近年来,涉银行卡类犯罪成为经济犯罪中社会危害最严重和案件数量最突出的案件类型,而资金查控作为第五大技术,在主体、内容、协作部门、方法、作用和手段上都有着特定的内涵理解,其在涉银行卡类经济犯罪案件的侦查中发挥着重要作用。在资金查控的具体运用中,是选择由人到户还是由户到人则要根据案件的具体情况来选择不同的查询路径和查询方法。     

制度认同与政治合法性

在现代社会,政府与公民、公民与公民之间的一切关系都以非人格化的制度为中介,作为政治权力具体表征的各项法律和政策能否获得社会认同,就成为政治合法性的基本判准.制度认同不是盲目的,也不是被迫的,而是建基于认知性期待与规范性期待统一之上的实践证成过程.一切影响和制约人们对制度的认知性期待形成、制度实施效果的因素以及影响每个人规范性期待形成的公民素质,都会对制度认同的形成产生影响,并规定着制度认同建构的可能路径.     

身份信息犯罪内涵之比较研究

随着跨国有组织犯罪和恐怖活动等犯罪的日益猖獗、犯罪的国际分工化以及身份文件的数字化，国际社会对身份信息犯罪越来越关注。从2004年开始，国际社会就号召国际合作，共同打击身份信息犯罪。到2008年国际社会对身份信息犯罪的关注迈上了一个新的台阶。2008年6月联合国毒品和犯罪办公室在奥地利的维也纳举行了身份信息犯罪专家核心小组第二次会议，     

Counteracting Identity Fraud in the Information Age: The Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act

The advent of the information age has created new challenges to the ability of individuals to protect the privacy and security of their personal information. One such challenge is that of identity theft, which has imposed countless hardships upon its victims. Perpetrators of this fraud use the identities of others to steal money, obtain loans, and generally violate the law. The Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 makes the theft of personal information with the intent to commit an unlawful act a federal crime in the United States with penalties of up to 15 years imprisonment and a maximum fine of $250,000. The Act designates the Federal Trade Commission to serve as an advocate for victims of identity fraud. This article first examines the problem of identity fraud and the inadequacy of existing remedies, and then assesses the need for and likely impact of the Act, as well as issues relating to the effectiveness of its future enforcement.