|
| 表见代理型侵财行为的刑事定性 |
| The criminal qualification of property infringement acts through apparent agency |
| 投稿时间：2024-08-24 修订日期：2024-11-11 |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 表见代理 诈骗罪 职务侵占罪 民刑并行 |
| English Keywords:Apparent agency Crime of fraud Crime of embezzlement by duty Parallel civil punishment |
| Fund Project: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 13 |
| 全文下载次数: 0 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 理论界、实务界对表见代理型侵财行为的刑事定性问题存在争议,或认为构成诈骗罪,或认为构成职务侵占罪。表见代理型侵财行为因不满足“利用职务上的便利,将本单位财物非法占为己有”的构成要件,而不宜认定为职务侵占罪。在表见代理行为是否有效尚难确定、善意相对人的合同债权不稳定的情形下,难以认为善意相对人实现了交易目的,其实质上遭受了损失。对于表见代理型侵财行为,应秉承“民刑并行”的理念,不能将表见代理作为阻却诈骗罪成立的事由。 |
| English Summary: |
| There are disputes in the theory and practice circles about the criminal characterization of apparent agent acts of financial abuse, or it is considered to constitute the crime of fraud or the crime of occupation. It is shown that the act of agent encroachment cannot be identified as the crime of embezzlement because it does not meet the constituent elements of "taking advantage of the convenience of the position to illegally occupy the property of the unit as its own". When it is difficult to determine whether the apparent agency act is effective and the bona fide counterpart"s contractual claims are unstable, it is difficult to think that the bona fide counterpart has achieved the purpose of the transaction and has suffered losses in essence. As for apparent agent acts of financial abuse, we should uphold the idea of "parallel civil punishment", and can not take the apparent agency as the reason to prevent the establishment of fraud crime. |
| 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
| 关闭 |
|
|
|