本文選題：存款歸屬 + 債權(quán)占有　； 參考：《上海師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：本文列舉了日常生活中常見的拾得存折提取存款的案件。通過對(duì)三個(gè)案例的分析,即行為人拾得寫有密碼的存折直接提取存款、猜配密碼提取存款以及利用失主身份證掛失密碼后提取存款,對(duì)不同情形的對(duì)比發(fā)現(xiàn)比較類似的問題。首先,是存款占有問題,這涉及到存款的性質(zhì)以及刑法對(duì)占有的理解。在日本,由于嚴(yán)格區(qū)分債權(quán)與物權(quán),認(rèn)為存款是種債權(quán),由此引發(fā)了“占有”是否包含“法律意義上的占有”的討論,進(jìn)而又引申出享有債權(quán)是否就意味著確立了“法律意義上的占有”的討論,并在討論中形成存款人名義占有說與銀行占有說。而我國與日本不同,對(duì)債權(quán)與物權(quán)的界限比較模糊,存款既可以是債權(quán),也可以是物(資金)。而我國刑法對(duì)占有的理解,若以學(xué)者所言,侵犯財(cái)產(chǎn)罪中的財(cái)物應(yīng)該包含財(cái)產(chǎn)性利益,那么債權(quán)也可以是犯罪所占有的對(duì)象。本文認(rèn)為,存款是種債權(quán),存入銀行的資金由銀行占有,銀行在事實(shí)上占有控制支配這筆資金,存款人占有的實(shí)際是對(duì)銀行的債權(quán),而刑法應(yīng)該保護(hù)這種占有債權(quán)的狀態(tài)。其次,是權(quán)證的法律評(píng)價(jià)問題,這涉及到財(cái)產(chǎn)憑證與其所記載資金之間的關(guān)系。對(duì)于撿得、盜竊、騙取存折進(jìn)而取款的案件,通常拆分為兩個(gè)階段,即取得債權(quán)憑證之前行為與利用債權(quán)憑證獲取對(duì)應(yīng)資金之后行為。故相關(guān)的爭議指向于占有債權(quán)憑證是否等于占有對(duì)應(yīng)資金。由此產(chǎn)生一體性觀點(diǎn)與分離性觀點(diǎn),它們對(duì)前后行為的側(cè)重點(diǎn)不同。不過,如果承認(rèn)侵犯債權(quán)構(gòu)成犯罪,那么借用民法上的準(zhǔn)占有制度會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn),這其實(shí)是一個(gè)占有權(quán)利的完整行為過程。與以往債權(quán)一體性觀點(diǎn)的不同,本文認(rèn)為占有債權(quán)憑證并非一定就占有了債權(quán),存款名義人也并非始終“排他性的”占有債權(quán),需要通過外觀要素與行為要素綜合判斷,同時(shí)法律評(píng)價(jià)的重點(diǎn)是這種外觀要素,即行為人以何種方式達(dá)到上述占有債權(quán)狀態(tài)。本文一共分為四章:第1章緒論,開篇概述本論文的選題背景及意義、研究現(xiàn)狀、論文的研究重點(diǎn)和研究方法。第2章案例概要,列舉了李某詐騙案、程劍詐騙案、肖某詐騙案三個(gè)案例的案情和分歧意見,分歧意見中發(fā)現(xiàn)共性的問題。第3章焦點(diǎn)問題研究,將存款的爭議展開,通過梳理日本學(xué)說與我國學(xué)說,找出所面臨的問題。在此基礎(chǔ)上討論占有的內(nèi)容,分析刑法占有的含義,得出存款名義人對(duì)銀行資金及存款債權(quán)能否成立占有的結(jié)論。此后,進(jìn)一步分析占有債權(quán)與占有債權(quán)憑證之間的關(guān)系,在已有資料的基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)行改良。第4章案例定性評(píng)析,分析三個(gè)案例之不同,在前述結(jié)論的基礎(chǔ)上,分別對(duì)行為人的犯罪行為進(jìn)行定性評(píng)析,最后認(rèn)為李某應(yīng)定侵占罪,程劍應(yīng)定盜竊罪,肖某應(yīng)定詐騙罪。
[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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 杜文俊;;財(cái)產(chǎn)犯刑民交錯(cuò)問題探究[J];政治與法律;2014年06期

2 王華偉;;刑民一體化視野中的存款占有[J];法律適用;2014年01期

3 陳洪兵;;中國語境下存款占有及錯(cuò)誤匯款的刑法分析[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2013年05期

4 劉楊東;;提取他人存放在借用本人銀行卡內(nèi)錢款行為的認(rèn)定——基于“占有”兩種學(xué)說的解讀[J];甘肅警察職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年04期

5 郭曉紅;;民、刑比較視野下的刑法“占有”研究[J];法律適用;2011年09期

6 楊興培;;提取他人存放在借用本人銀行卡內(nèi)錢款行為的性質(zhì)認(rèn)定[J];法治研究;2011年01期

7 李強(qiáng);;日本刑法中的“存款的占有”:現(xiàn)狀、借鑒與啟示[J];清華法學(xué);2010年04期

8 王海濤;;論財(cái)產(chǎn)犯罪中債權(quán)憑證的刑法評(píng)價(jià)——以存折、銀行卡等債權(quán)憑證為例的說明[J];政治與法律;2010年04期

9 張明楷;;許霆案的刑法學(xué)分析[J];中外法學(xué);2009年01期

10 黎宏;;論存款的占有[J];人民檢察;2008年15期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 吳國U，

本文編號(hào)：2040784