转账错误受领人拒绝归还行为的定性分析

发布时间：2018-06-05 00:03

本文选题：转账错误 + 拒绝归还　；参考：《大连理工大学学报(社会科学版)》2017年03期

【摘要】：转账错误情形下受领人与汇款人之间并无交易关系,因此受领人不具有支取账户内错汇款的正当权限。受领人占有错汇款债权的事实,在民法上应被认定为不当得利,受领人有返还汇款人错汇款的义务。但财产犯罪具有双重性,行为人既违反了民法所调整的财产法律关系,也侵害了刑法所保护的财产法益。我国刑法并未严格区分财物和财产性利益,作为错汇款的存款债权完全可以被侵占罪中的财物涵摄。而占有也并不是仅指以物为客体而对物事实上管领力,也包括因某些权利而形成的准占有。由此,受领人占有汇款人错汇款债权,可以解释为侵占罪第二款规定的遗忘物。所以,受领人拒不返还汇款人错汇款行为情节严重的,既须承担返还汇款人不当得利的民事责任,也可根据侵占罪的相关规定追究其刑事责任。
[Abstract]:In the case of wrong transfer, there is no transaction relationship between the recipient and the sender, so the recipient does not have the proper authority to withdraw the wrong remittance in the account. The fact that the recipient holds the creditor's right of wrong remittance should be regarded as improper enrichment in civil law, and the recipient has the obligation to return the wrong remittance. But the property crime has dual character, the perpetrator not only violates the property legal relation regulated by the civil law, but also infringes the property law benefit protected by the criminal law. There is no strict distinction between property and property interest in our criminal law. As a wrong remittance, the creditor's right of deposit can be taken into account in the crime of embezzlement. Possession is not only about the object as the object, but also includes the quasi-possession formed by some rights. As a result, the recipient's mis-remittance creditor's right can be interpreted as the oblivion stipulated in the second paragraph of the crime of embezzlement. Therefore, if the recipient refuses to return the remittance, if the circumstances are serious, he should not only bear the civil liability of improper enrichment, but also be investigated for criminal responsibility according to the relevant provisions of the crime of embezzlement.
【作者单位】：四川大学法学院;
【基金】：2016年司法部重点课题:“刑法立法方法研究”(16SFB1004)
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】