利用他人付款二维码侵财案件的定性反思——基于107份刑事裁判文书的实证分析  

Research on the Criminal Cases about Using Payment QR Code——Based on the Empirical Analysis of 107 Criminal Judgments

作　　者：李淼 Li Miao

机构地区：[1]清华大学法学院 [2]清华大学中国司法研究中心

出　　处：《南大法学》2022年第2期107-122,共16页NanJing University Law Journal

摘　　要：利用他人付款二维码侵财案件在司法实务处理中的问题在于:统一以盗窃罪论处的解决方案未考虑到案件的类型化特质;以骗取手段为由定性诈骗罪的判决结论难言合理;利用他人付款二维码提现的行为能否被认定为冒用他人身份的诈骗。根据是否介入提现行为,可将利用他人付款二维码侵财案件作类型化处理,分为介入提现型与直接扫取型两类。司法实务中将前者认定为盗窃罪或诈骗罪的理由均属不当。一方面,在此以财产性利益盗窃进行说理将面临诸多争议;另一方面,以骗取手段认定构成诈骗罪既遂将会在直接性要件以及财产损失的判断上面临质疑。而认定后者构成盗窃罪的结论尚需论证。在介入提现型案件中,行为人使用他人付款二维码提现等同于冒用他人身份的诈骗。实际的受骗对象为第三方支付平台背后的自然人设置者,从而形成三角诈骗结构。“预设同意”理论不仅能够说明第三方支付平台的处分权限以及处分行为,也能够说明被骗人错误认识的表现形式。The problem of using payment QR code crime in practice is: the solution proposed by the practice field should be further categorized;the treatment of the fraud crime by means of deception is also doubtful;using payment QR code withdrawal can be identified as fraud using identity of others. According to whether or not to intervene in the withdrawal behavior, the using payment QR code crime can be classified into two types: intervening withdrawal type and direct scan type. In judicial practice, it is improper to identify the former as theft or fraud. On the one hand, it will face many disputes about the theft of property interests;on the other hand, the treatment of fraud crime by means of deception will be questioned on the direct elements and property loss. The conclusion the of latter be the theft conclusion still needs to be proved. In the case of intervening withdrawal type, the actor using the QR code for withdrawal is fraud using the identity of others. The actual fraud is natural person behind the third-party payment platform, and it forms the triangle fraud. The theory of the “preset consent” can not only explain the sanction authority and behavior of the third-party payment platform, but also explain the erroneous understanding.

关 键 词：付款二维码 第三方支付平台 打破占有 预设同意理论 错误认识 

分 类 号：D924.35[政治法律—刑法学]