刑法第196条之“冒用他人信用卡”的司法认定

信用卡诈骗罪中的“冒用他人信用卡”是指以非法占有为目的,冒充他人身份、利用信用卡在特约商户消费和银行营业柜台、自动取款机上取款、转帐的行为,被冒用的信用卡既可以是他人合法有效的卡,也可以是他人伪造、骗领或作废的卡。在司法实践中,一般将冒用捡拾的他人信用卡、冒用代他人保管的信用卡、通过网上银行和电话银行冒用他人的信用卡等六种行为方式认定为刑法第196条第1款第3项的“冒用他人信用卡”,以信用卡诈骗罪论处。     

对我国信用卡诈骗罪立法的反思与建议

信用卡诈骗罪是97年刑法规定的一个新罪名，它为司法机关打击“使用伪造的信用卡扣作废的信用卡”、“冒用他人信用卡”和“恶意透支”的行为提供了有力的法律支持，但是现行法律在该罪名的认定上仍然存在一些值得推敲的地方，笔者就此提出了自己的看法。     

使用他人遗忘在 ATM 机中信用卡的行为之定性探讨

文章认为使用他人遗忘在ATM机中信用卡的行为既不符合侵占罪的构成要件,也不具备盗窃罪中秘密窃取的特征,而是符合了信用卡诈骗罪中“冒用他人信用卡”的情形,因此对于该种行为应以信用卡诈骗罪论处。     

冒用他人信用卡在ATM上取款行为的性质探析

目前,学界对于冒用他人信用卡在ATM（自动取款机）上取款行为的性质认定主要存在两种观点,一种观点认为此行为属于盗窃性质,应当以盗窃罪定罪;另一种观点认为此行为属于诈骗性质,应当认定为信用卡诈骗罪。本文通过对银行客户服务终端和用户密码法律地位的分析,认为应当将ATM视为银行的电子代理人,冒用他人信用卡在ATM上取款的行为应当认定为信用卡诈骗罪。     

涉第三方支付平台信用卡冒用行为的司法定性

随着电商平台成为人们日常生活的组成部分,涉第三方支付平台侵财案件时有发生。此类案件主要有两种类型：一是行为人通过诈骗的方式获得他人的第三方支付平台账号密码,再以他人的身份登录该平台实施侵财行为;二是行为人虽未通过违法或犯罪的方式获取他人第三方支付平台账号密码,但仍以他人的名义登录该平台实施侵财行为。在实务界,在第三方支付平台冒用他人信用卡行为被认定为冒用型信用卡盗窃罪或诈骗罪。文章认为,随着第三方支付平台的发展,实务界逐步承认平台用户被骗的可能性;在第三方支付平台上冒用他人信用卡的行为并不因第三方支付平台的介入而影响信用卡诈骗罪的认定,只是由于行为人最终是否掌控财产而存在犯罪形态的差异。     

论第三方网络支付方式下侵财行为的刑法定性——以非法使用他人支付宝账户为例

第三方网络支付方式下侵财行为的刑法定性存在诸多争议,实践中主要有盗窃罪、诈骗罪、信用卡诈骗罪三种观点。明确第三方网络支付机构性质、所涉及法律关系、侵财行为类型是行为定性的前提,通过梳理相关争议理论学说,提出非法使用他人第三方网络支付账户的行为不符合"秘密窃取"的特征、第三方网络支付方式应当视为是刑法意义上信用卡支付的延伸,并在肯定"机器"可以被骗的基础上,结合相关司法解释的规定,对非法使用他人第三方支付账户的行为应当定性为信用卡诈骗罪。     

信用卡诈骗罪司法认定研究述评

2005年我国通过《刑法修正案(五)》后,信用卡诈骗罪又成为学界研究热点,对于信用卡诈骗罪和盗窃信用卡并使用行为的性质和司法认定存有较大争议。对信用卡诈骗罪的司法认定,持实质的解释论,考察刑法用语的真实含义,用实质的、正义的标准界定构成要件的内涵与外延。认为盗窃信用卡并在自动柜员机使用的行为,只构成一般盗窃罪,而不构成盗窃金融机构罪。     

冒用他人医保卡行为的定性分析

社会医疗保险是一项关乎民生的重要社会保障措施,医保卡作为参保人享受社会医疗保险的重要手段和工具,其使用必须符合国家和地方有关规范性文件的规定。当前社会频频出现冒用他人医保卡的现象,对国家的社会医疗保险体系、社会医疗保险基金以及公民的个人财产都造成了一定的损害。对冒用他人医保卡的定性,有观点认为构成信用卡诈骗罪,也有观点认为应当认定为诈骗罪,根据医保卡的性质、医保卡内资金的性质以及不同情况下冒用他人医保卡的具体行为方式,以诈骗罪定性更具合理性。     

法定数字货币对盗窃罪认定的冲击及其解决

随着法定数字货币的推广，未来势必会出现数字人民币与纸币共存的态势。因数字货币所独有的技术特征，使得针对法定数字货币的侵财行为手段不同于单一的传统盗窃行为，而是包含侵入数字钱包、获取支付密码等复合行为。因此，传统盗窃行为的认定标准，已经不再适用盗窃法定数字货币行为的认定。针对法定数字货币的着手认定，应当在立足于危险结果说的基础上，针对具体案情加以综合判断。针对盗窃法定数字货币的手段行为，平和窃取说更符合司法实践的需求。针对盗窃法定数字货币的既遂认定，相比传统“控制说”,“失控说”立足于他人财物是否失去控制，无疑更加契合智能合约等技术的应用。针对数字货币硬钱包，不能将其等同于信用卡，也不能将“冒用”他人数字货币硬钱包的行为解释为信用卡诈骗罪。对于盗窃数字货币软钱包的罪数认定，应当根据不同的行为类型加以区分，不能一概依据《刑法》第二百八十七条排除计算机类犯罪的适用。     

用拾得的信用卡在ATM机上取款应定性为信用卡诈骗

用拾得的信用卡在ATM机上取款的行为时有发生,刑法理论与司法实践中对这种行为的定性均存在不同的理解。笔者拟借助刑法理论对其进行分析,认为用拾得的信用卡在ATM机上取款的行为不能成立侵占罪,也不构成盗窃罪,应当属于诈骗罪。同时,基于信用卡诈骗罪与诈骗罪的关系是特殊法条与一般法条的关系,应当认定为信用卡诈骗罪。     

浅析信用卡诈骗罪的两个问题

依照罪刑法定原则，单位不是信用卡诈骗罪的主体，因此对单位实施的信用卡诈骗活动，只能按照自然人实施的犯罪处理。对“使用”内涵的理解仅限于可以用信用卡进行交村结算的经济行为但不包括出售。既有“伪造”又有“使用”行为的定性，是实行数罪并罚，还是从一重罪处罚，应区别情况分别对待。     

论信用证诈骗罪

我国刑法对信用证诈骗罪作了专门规定。在司法实践中 ,信用证诈骗存在多种具体表现形式 ,如委托人与信用证收益人、信用证开证申请人相互串通等 ,其犯罪特征符合信用证诈骗罪构成要件。信用证诈骗产生的原因在于信用证的单据交易特点、独立性特点、跨国性特点等。由于犯罪活动的复杂性 ,信用证诈骗中有争议的法律问题不容忽视。     

信用卡诈骗罪的客观行为研究

信用卡诈骗是金融诈骗中的高发性犯罪。犯罪行为的专业性又决定其在认定中存在诸多司法难点,非法占有目的需要进行事实推定;信用卡诈骗的行为方式需要进行深度解读;经济纠纷行为与犯罪行为交织,此罪与彼罪的界限模糊,信用卡诈骗过程中往往存在数罪并发的情形。对这些疑难问题的理论研究,有助于科学地指导刑事司法活动。     

高校“卡奴”现象的经济学分析

大学生信用卡在我国的发展不到十年,近几年出现的校园“卡奴”现象引起了社会各界的广泛关注。本文从信用卡到校园信用卡的发展历程出发,对比了美国和我国大学生信用卡的使用状况,分析了大学生“卡奴”形成的条件,进而从经济学的生命周期理论、永久收入理论、相对收入理论和行为金融学的过度自信等方面解分析了产生这一现象的深层次原因,并在此基础上提出学生、学校和银行共同努力防止这种现象出现的建议。     

对《刑法修正案(五)》中关于信用卡犯罪的理解

《刑法修正案(五)》主要针对妨害信用卡管理行为和信用卡诈骗行为作出补充规定,进一步细化了利用信用卡实施犯罪的行为方式,使得法律更具可操作性。《刑法修正案(五)》的出台为打击目前严重的信用卡犯罪提供了有力的法律依据,但立法解释也并非尽善尽美,并没有解决法律上存在的所有问题,应进一步完善。     

The learning credit card: A tool for managing personal development*

This is the report of a five month study, undertaken by Sundridge Park Training Technologies in association with Guildford Educational Services to assess the potential of smart card technology to support learning and the management of learning. The study had two strands—the state of the art of the technology and its potential for supporting, delivering and managing learning. In addition to a study of the literature and extensive discussions with people using smart cards, potential users of smart card and visionaries, the project team developed two illustrative systems using cards to store personal data relating to education and training. The term ‘smart card’ is often used loosely to describe three different types of card, each of which is similar in general shape and size to a traditional credit card. These are: memory cards, laser cards—and true smart cards incorporating a processor and memory. This study has been concerned with memory cards and smart cards. The focus for smart card applications has been predominantly financial: there are relatively few applications in education or training. A notable exception is the large scale project at the University of Bologna which uses smart cards to manage the progress and achievements of a large number of students in the Department of Electronics. The two illustrative systems provided valuable experience of using memory cards and smart cards in quasi‐real education and training applications. They highlighted the problems of limited memory capacities and confirmed the high level of user acceptance reported by other trials. We can expect considerable advances in the technology of both memory cards and smart cards over the next months and years. The memory capacities of both types of cards will increase many‐fold and the unit costs will fall as large quantities of cards are produced for financial applications. Education and training applications will benefit from this expanding market. The major surprise from the study was the level of interest in the work and the enthusiasm expressed by almost all of those who came to hear of it. The general level of awareness of smart card technology was found to be low. However, the requirement for a system which will enable individuals to manage and own their learning on an extended timescale was generally recognised. Some of the possible applications for smart cards and memory cards in education and training had emerged before the official start of the study and it is clear that the technology is potentially pervasive. The project team and those consulted identified a wide range of possible applications both in education and in training. These focussed on assessment, personal course planning and management, identification of relevant learning opportunities, and the ownership of learning. It was felt that, over the next few years, smart cards are very likely to be in common use as credit cards for financial applications. Therefore, their use for education and training should be planned now. The recommendations from the study are that: More detailed studies are needed to find out how smart cards and memory cards could be used by different organisations in a fully operational system; Standards should be established for smart card applications in education and training, similar to those governing financial applications; Applications should be developed after the standards have been established. To be convincing, these should take a case study approach with small pilot studies in a variety of contexts and must follow real needs rather than attempt to drive them; The case studies would then form the basis for a campaign to increase awareness of smart cards and their potential for education and training, together with a programme for building an infrastructure to support the proposed systems. The public sector should fund the task of developing standards and providing interfaces with existing educational systems and projects to demonstrate the feasibility of various applications. Since educational standards have a European dimension, the European Community may be a source of support for work in the area of standards. At the same time, private sector funding should be sought for skill development and career development systems in industry and in education. The Training Agency itself should consider the application of smart card technology to the control and management of the Youth Training Scheme (YTS).