| 周洁,陆忠鹏.表见代理型侵财行为的刑事定性[J].,2025,(4):93-98 |
| 表见代理型侵财行为的刑事定性 |
| Criminal Characterization of Property Infringement Acts by Apparent Agency |
| 投稿时间：2024-08-24 |
| 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 occupational embezzlement parallel civil and criminal proceedings ( |
| Fund Project: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 29 |
| 全文下载次数: 16 |
| 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: |
| The criminal characterization of apparent agency-based property infringement acts has long been controversial among scholars and practitioners:some argue it constitutes the crime of fraud, while others maintain it amounts to the crime of occupational embezzlement. Such acts should not be identified as the crime of occupational embezzlement, as they fail to meet the constitutive elements of “taking advantage of one's official position to illegally occupy the property of one's unit for personal gain”. When it is difficult to determine the validity of the apparent agency act and the bona fide counterpart's contractual creditor's rights remain unstable, it cannot be held that the bona fide counterpart has achieved its transaction purpose—essentially, it has suffered losses. Regarding apparent agency-based property infringement acts, we should uphold the principle of “parallel civil and criminal proceedings” and shall not regard apparent agency as a ground for precluding the establishment of the crime of fraud. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
| 关闭 |
|
|
|