论信用卡诈骗罪中“恶意透支”的认定

发布时间：2018-05-07 08:01

本文选题：透支 + 催收不还　；参考：《湘潭大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：随着消费观念的改变,越来越多的人开始利用明天的钱来满足当下的物质需求,于是信用卡透支就成为实现这种消费观念的选择。“恶意透支”是指持卡人在非法占有目的的支配下,实施了超过规定限额或规定期限的透支,并且在2次催收后3个月仍然不归还欠款的行为。根据“恶意透支”的要素构造包括透支和恶意,从客观要素和主观要素对“恶意透支”的认定问题展开分析。对于信用卡诈骗罪中“恶意透支”的认定关系到三个问题:首先,对于超过规定限额的理解有两种观点:第一种观点认为超过规定限额透支无法实现,建议取消;第二种观点认为规定限额是指发卡行给予持卡人欠款数额的上限。其次,对小额还款行为是否属于不还有肯定说、否定说和折中说三种观点。最后,对于非法占有目的的认定依据目前有三种观点:第一种观点认为是持卡人超过规定期限或规定限额透支,并且催收不还;第二种观点认为是《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》中的6种情形;第三种观点认为以催收不还为前提,依据《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》来综合判断非法占有目的,并且允许行为人提出反证。上述观点都有自己的独特价值,但或多或少存在一些不足。“恶意透支”的认定涉及到透支、不还和非法占有目的之理解。在理清上述几个问题后再对信用卡诈骗罪中“恶意透支”的认定问题进行系统分析。具体而言考虑到超过规定限额透支无法实现,故建议取消比较合适。发卡银行催收后,归还欠款的最低还款额以上数额的小额还款不属于不还。在符合催收不还前提下,依据《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》来综合判断非法占有目的,并且允许行为人提出反证。
[Abstract]:With the change of consumption concept, more and more people begin to use tomorrow's money to meet the current material needs, so credit card overdraft becomes the choice to realize this consumption concept. "malicious overdraft" refers to the behavior that the cardholder, under the control of the purpose of illegal possession, overdraws beyond the prescribed limit or time limit, and still fails to return the arrears three months after two calls. According to the construction of the elements of "malicious overdraft" including overdraft and malice, the identification of "malicious overdraft" is analyzed from objective and subjective elements. The identification of "malicious overdraft" in the crime of credit card fraud is related to three problems: first, there are two views on the understanding of exceeding the prescribed limit: the first view is that overdraft beyond the prescribed limit cannot be realized, and it is suggested that the overdraft should be cancelled; The second view is that the limit refers to the maximum amount owed by the card issuer to the cardholder. Secondly, there are three views on whether small repayment behavior belongs to positive, negative and eclectic. Finally, for the purpose of illegal possession on the basis of the current three views: the first view is that the cardholder overdraft beyond the prescribed time limit or a prescribed limit, and the collection will not be returned; The second view is that there are six situations in the explanation of the specific application of the law in criminal cases concerning the handling of obstruction of credit card administration. The purpose of illegal possession is judged synthetically according to the explanation of some problems in the application of law in criminal cases dealing with obstruction of credit card management, and the perpetrator is allowed to present counter-proof. These views have their own unique value, but more or less there are some shortcomings. The identification of malicious overdraft involves the understanding of the purpose of overdraft, non-return and illegal possession. After the above problems are clarified, the problem of "malicious overdraft" in the crime of credit card fraud is systematically analyzed. Specifically, considering that overdraft beyond the prescribed limit can not be achieved, it is recommended that cancellation is more appropriate. Card-issuing bank collection, the return of the minimum amount of arrears above the amount of small repayment does not belong to non-return. According to the explanation of some problems in the application of law in dealing with the criminal cases of obstruction of credit card management, the purpose of illegal possession is judged synthetically, and the perpetrator is allowed to present counter-proof.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】