冒用他人花呗套现行为的定性

冒用他人花呗套现行为的定性摘要随着互联网金融这一新兴行业的飞速发展，越来越多的消费信贷产品出现在大众的视野中。消费信贷的不断创新发展成为大众主要的消费方式，与此同时，将网络消费信贷产品作为犯罪工具的犯罪行为亦与日俱增。在众多的新型消费信贷产品中，支付宝平台的“蚂蚁花呗”是最先出现在大众面前，在信贷消费的产品中占比也是最大的。伴随着花呗的使用率不断地提高，借助花呗进行犯罪的行为也逐渐增加。冒用他人支付宝账号进行花呗套现的行为，就是以“蚂蚁花呗”为犯罪工具进行犯罪行为。由于法律并没有明确规定该冒用行为的法律性质，实务中出现了众多不同的判决，判断的法律依据不一样，形成的罪名也存在巨大差异：根据诈骗判定条款确定为诈骗罪：根据盗窃判定条款确定为盗窃罪。此外，还有结合多种判定条款进行合并形成罪名的。因此，本文通过三个同案不同判的案例展开阐述，对冒用他人支付宝账号进行花呗套现行为进行合理的刑法定性，希望能够对司法实务给予些许帮助。本文共分为四个部分：第一部分是对这三个典型案例进行简单介绍，从中归纳整理出三个争议焦点：第一，分析案件中真正的受害人：第二，探讨第三方支付平台被骗的可能性：第三，分析第三方支付平台的处分意识及行为。第四，研究“蚂蚁花呗”是否属于刑法意义上的“信用卡”。第二部分通过学理分析，剖析这三个问题：一是冒用他人支付宝花呗套现行为案件中真正的受害主体是支付宝的合法用户：二是第三方支付平台不能被骗：三是第三方支付平台不具有处分意识和处分行为：四是“蚂蚁花呗”不属于刑法意义上的“信用卡”。第三部分根据上述分析，不应当认定该冒用行为属于诈骗类犯罪，应当认定冒用他人花呗行为属于盗窃罪。第四部分基于分析争议焦点提出三条建议：一是出台相关司法解释：二是加快发布指导案例：三是明确真正的犯罪对象；四是完善对花呗套现行为的监管和处分。关键词：冒用他人花呗套现；盗窃罪：诈骗罪类犯罪The qualitative behavior of using others'Huabei account to cash outAbstractWith the rapid development of Internet finance,a new industry,more and moreconsumer credit products appear in the public's vision.The continuous innovation ofconsumer credit has become the main consumption way of the public,and at the sametime,the crime of using online consumer credit products as criminal tools is alsoincreasing.Among many new consumer credit products,"Ant Huabei"on Alipayplatform is the first to appear in front of the public,and accounts for the largestproportion of credit consumption products.With the continuous improvement of theutilization rate of Ant Huabei,the criminal behavior with Ant Huabei also graduallyincreased.The act of using others'Alipay account to cash out is to use "Ant Huabei"as a criminal tool to commit crimes.The legal basis of judgment is different,and thereare huge differences in the charges formed:according to the fraud judgment clause,itis determined as fraud;According to the theft judgment clause,it is determined astheft.In addition,there are many kinds of judgment clauses combined to form crimes.Therefore,this paper expounds three cases with different sentences in the same case,and makes a reasonable criminal law qualitative analysis on the behavior of usingothers'Ant Huabei accounts to cash out,in order to give some help to judicialpractice.This paper is divided into four parts:The first part is a brief introduction to these three typical cases,from which threecontroversial focuses are summarized:one is to analyze the real victims in the case;Second,the third-party payment platform can be cheated;Third,whether thethird-party payment platform has the consciousness and behavior of punishment;Thefourth is whether "Ant Huabei"belongs to "credit card"in the sense of criminal law.The second part analyzes these three problems through theoretical analysis:first,the real victim in the case of fraudulently using Alipay to cash out is the legitimateuser of Alipay;Second,third-party payment platforms cannot be cheated;Third,thethird-party payment platform does not have the consciousness and behavior ofThe qualitative behavior of using others'Huabei account to ca