逃费行为应当构成盗窃罪

享受服务之后逃缴费用的行为已屡见不鲜,但对其如何处罚则众说纷纭。有力说主张构成盗窃罪,但这种观点遭到了强烈反对。然而,反对逃费构成盗窃罪的观点,主要是基于德日刑法理论而展开的,在我国立法和司法的背景下,其理由均经不住推敲。盗窃罪的实质是人对财产的支配状态发生转移,在涉及债权债务关系的场合,支配状态的转移是指债权人丧失对债权实现的支配力,导致债权在事实上无法履行。逃费涉及的服务合同具有交易匿名性、履行即时性等特性,债权人支配着一个空间范围,进而能有力地请求身处其中的债务人履行债务,当债务人逃离了该空间范围时,债权人事实上无法向债务人主张债务,也无法向法院诉请债务人履行债务,实质上使得他人支配的公私财物发生了转移,应构成盗窃罪。

Behavior of Escaping Expenditure Should Constitute Larceny

It is a common occurrence that to escape expenditure after enjoying services,but there are different opinions about how to punish it.Some people think that it constitutes the larceny,but this opinion has been strongly opposed.However,the opinions opposing the charge of larceny against the behavior of escaping expenditure are primarily based on the German and Japanese criminal law theory.Under the background of legislation and judicature in our country,all the arguments can not withstand deliberation.The essence of the larceny is to transfer the people’s domination state over property.The transfer of domination state refers to the creditor’s dominance over the realization of creditor’s rights,resulting in the fact that creditor’s rights cannot be fulfilled in the case of the debtor-creditor relationship.The service contract involved in escaping expenditure has the characteristics of transaction anonymity,performance timeliness and so on.The creditors dominate a space scope,in which they can strongly request the debtors to perform their debts.When the debtors escape away from the space scope,the creditors can not claim the debts to the debtors in fact,nor submit a case to the court to sue the debtors for fulfiling obligations.Essentially,the debtors’performance of debts causes the transfer of public and private property possessed by others,which should constitute the larceny.