拾得存折提取存款行为之案例研究

发布时间：2018-06-19 18:01

本文选题：存款归属 + 债权占有　；参考：《上海师范大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：本文列举了日常生活中常见的拾得存折提取存款的案件。通过对三个案例的分析,即行为人拾得写有密码的存折直接提取存款、猜配密码提取存款以及利用失主身份证挂失密码后提取存款,对不同情形的对比发现比较类似的问题。首先,是存款占有问题,这涉及到存款的性质以及刑法对占有的理解。在日本,由于严格区分债权与物权,认为存款是种债权,由此引发了“占有”是否包含“法律意义上的占有”的讨论,进而又引申出享有债权是否就意味着确立了“法律意义上的占有”的讨论,并在讨论中形成存款人名义占有说与银行占有说。而我国与日本不同,对债权与物权的界限比较模糊,存款既可以是债权,也可以是物(资金)。而我国刑法对占有的理解,若以学者所言,侵犯财产罪中的财物应该包含财产性利益,那么债权也可以是犯罪所占有的对象。本文认为,存款是种债权,存入银行的资金由银行占有,银行在事实上占有控制支配这笔资金,存款人占有的实际是对银行的债权,而刑法应该保护这种占有债权的状态。其次,是权证的法律评价问题,这涉及到财产凭证与其所记载资金之间的关系。对于捡得、盗窃、骗取存折进而取款的案件,通常拆分为两个阶段,即取得债权凭证之前行为与利用债权凭证获取对应资金之后行为。故相关的争议指向于占有债权凭证是否等于占有对应资金。由此产生一体性观点与分离性观点,它们对前后行为的侧重点不同。不过,如果承认侵犯债权构成犯罪,那么借用民法上的准占有制度会发现,这其实是一个占有权利的完整行为过程。与以往债权一体性观点的不同,本文认为占有债权凭证并非一定就占有了债权,存款名义人也并非始终“排他性的”占有债权,需要通过外观要素与行为要素综合判断,同时法律评价的重点是这种外观要素,即行为人以何种方式达到上述占有债权状态。本文一共分为四章:第1章绪论,开篇概述本论文的选题背景及意义、研究现状、论文的研究重点和研究方法。第2章案例概要,列举了李某诈骗案、程剑诈骗案、肖某诈骗案三个案例的案情和分歧意见,分歧意见中发现共性的问题。第3章焦点问题研究,将存款的争议展开,通过梳理日本学说与我国学说,找出所面临的问题。在此基础上讨论占有的内容,分析刑法占有的含义,得出存款名义人对银行资金及存款债权能否成立占有的结论。此后,进一步分析占有债权与占有债权凭证之间的关系,在已有资料的基础上进行改良。第4章案例定性评析,分析三个案例之不同,在前述结论的基础上,分别对行为人的犯罪行为进行定性评析,最后认为李某应定侵占罪,程剑应定盗窃罪,肖某应定诈骗罪。
[Abstract]:This paper enumerates the common cases in daily life of collecting passbooks to withdraw deposits. Through the analysis of three cases, namely, the doer picked up the passbook with the password to withdraw the deposit directly, guess the password to extract the deposit, and use the lost ID card to withdraw the deposit. The comparison of the different cases found the similar problem. First, the problem of deposit possession, which involves the nature of deposit and the understanding of possession in criminal law. In Japan, due to the strict distinction between creditor's rights and real rights, deposit is considered as a kind of creditor's right, which leads to the discussion of whether "possession" includes "possession in the legal sense". Furthermore, whether the creditor's rights are enjoyed means the discussion of "possession in the sense of law" is established, and in the discussion, the theory of depositor's nominal possession and the theory of bank possession are formed. But our country is different from Japan, the boundary between the creditor's right and the real right is blurred, the deposit can be either creditor's right or object. However, the understanding of possession in criminal law of our country, if, according to the scholars, the property in the crime of infringing property should contain property interests, then the creditor's rights can also be the object of the crime. This paper holds that the deposit is a kind of creditor's right, and the funds deposited in the bank are possessed by the bank. In fact, the bank controls the possession of the funds, and the depositor actually holds the creditor's right to the bank, and the criminal law should protect the state of the possession of the creditor's rights. Secondly, it is the legal evaluation of the warrant, which involves the relationship between the property certificate and its recorded funds. For the case of picking up, stealing, defrauding passbook and withdrawing money, it is usually divided into two stages, that is, the behavior before obtaining the creditor's rights voucher and the behavior after using the creditor's rights voucher to obtain the corresponding funds. Therefore the related dispute points to whether the possession of creditor's rights is equal to the possession of the corresponding funds. Therefore, the unity view and the separation point of view have different emphasis on the behavior before and after. However, if we admit that infringing the creditor's rights constitutes a crime, we can find that it is a complete process of action of possessory rights by borrowing the quasi-possession system in civil law. Different from the former viewpoint of oneness of creditor's rights, this paper holds that the creditor's rights are not necessarily possessed by the documents of creditor's rights, nor are the depositors always "exclusive" in possession of creditor's rights, which need to be judged comprehensively by the elements of appearance and behavior. At the same time, the emphasis of the legal evaluation is this kind of appearance element, that is, how to achieve the state of possession of the creditor's rights. This paper is divided into four chapters: chapter 1, introduction, the beginning of this paper summarizes the background and significance of the topic, research status, research emphasis and research methods. Chapter 2 summarizes the case, enumerates the cases of Li, Cheng Jian and Xiao, and points out the common problems in the different opinions. Chapter 3 focuses on the issue of deposit, through combing the Japanese theory and Chinese theory, to find out the problems faced. On this basis, the content of possession is discussed, and the meaning of possession in criminal law is analyzed. After that, the relationship between possession creditor's rights and possessory creditor's rights is further analyzed and improved on the basis of existing data. Chapter 4: qualitative analysis of cases, analysis of the differences between the three cases, on the basis of the foregoing conclusions, respectively, the qualitative analysis of the perpetrator's criminal behavior, and finally concluded that Li should be convicted of embezzlement, Cheng Jian should be convicted of theft, Xiao should be convicted of fraud.
【学位授予单位】：上海师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】