文/陆裕胜
Man/Lu Yu-sang
江苏省宿迁市宿豫区人民检察院
People's Procurator's Office of the Cebu District, Cebu City, Jiangsu Province
文/李强
Man/Li Qiang
江苏省宿迁市宿豫区人民检察院
People's Procurator's Office of the Cebu District, Cebu City, Jiangsu Province
案情
The merits
王某与丁某在互联网上认识，2022年5月，丁某请王某帮忙处理虚拟货币事宜，将虚拟货币SPO（以下简称S币）的密钥通过微信转发给王某。后王某产生非法占有S币的想法，通过手机操作复制密钥到某交易平台，将20万S币兑换成19.8万通用虚拟货币泰达币，又利用其中的10.5万泰达币投资其他虚拟货币并赚取2.7万泰达币。丁某发现S币被兑换后电话询问王某，王某否认是其所为，丁某报警。
Wang and Ding knew each other on the Internet, and in May 2022, Ding asked Wang to help with the virtual currency by forwarding the key of the virtual currency SPO (hereinafter S-currency) to Wang. The Queen created the idea of illegally possessing S-currency, copying the key to a trading platform through mobile phone operations, converting 200,000 S-dollars into 198,000 United States dollars, and using 105,000 tadels to invest in other virtual currencies and earn 27,000 tads.
分歧意见
Dissenting opinion
该案在办理过程中形成三种不同意见。
Three different views emerged in the course of the proceedings.
第一种意见认为，王某构成非法获取计算机信息系统数据罪。鉴于虚拟货币是一种计算机信息系统数据，不被相关部门认可，且无法认定虚拟货币的价值，本案应认定为非法获取计算机信息系统数据罪。
According to the first view, Wang was guilty of illegal access to computer information system data. Given that virtual currency is a computer information system data that is not recognized by the relevant authorities and that the value of virtual money cannot be established, the case should be considered an offence of illegal access to computer information system data.
第二种意见认为，王某构成盗窃罪。泰达币客观上具有交换价值，可以据此认定S币的价值，王某排除了被害人对S币的占有，本案应认定为盗窃罪。
According to the second view, Wang is guilty of theft. The Thai currency has an objective value in exchange for the value of S, which is excluded from the victim’s possession, and in this case the offence of theft.
第三种意见认为，王某构成侵占罪。密钥代表了虚拟货币本身，丁某委托王某管理S币，事实上王某占有了S币，王某私自将S币兑换成泰达币之后拒不退还，侵害了丁某对S币的所有权，应认定为侵占罪。
According to the third view, one of the kings is guilty of misappropriation. The key represents the virtual currency itself, the one entrusted to the king by one of the kings to administer the S-currency, the fact that one of the kings owns the S-currency, and the one who refuses to return the S-currency to his own accord, thereby violating his ownership of the S-currency, is guilty of misappropriation.
评析意见
Assessment
第一种意见在实务中是多数且有力的意见，2010年最高法研究室《关于利用计算机窃取他人游戏币非法销售获利如何定性问题的研究意见》（下文称《意见》）也明确“利用计算机窃取他人游戏币非法销售获利行为，目前宜以非法获取计算机信息系统数据罪定罪处罚。”但如下所述，本案中难以认定存在窃取行为，故无法参照适用该意见。
The first opinion is a majority and strong in practice, and the 2010 study by the Office of Supreme Law Research on the characterization of the proceeds of the illicit sale of another person's playing currency by computer (hereinafter referred to as the Opinion) also makes it clear that “the use of a computer to steal the proceeds of the illicit sale of another person's playing currency is punishable for the offence of illegal access to computer information system data.” However, as noted below, it is difficult in the present case to establish the existence of theft, and it is not possible to refer to the application of this opinion.
首先，无法认定该案中存在盗窃行为。非法获取计算机信息系统数据罪法条规定，非法获取的行为是侵入计算机信息系统或者与侵入行为类似的其他技术手段，根据同类解释规则，无法将受委托行为解释为侵入计算机信息系统，否则有类推解释的嫌疑，同时也不能将受委托而获取的行为理解为窃取行为，也就无法参照适用《意见》；其次，如何认定非法获取计算机信息系统数据罪定罪情节严重的问题。根据司法解释的规定，非法获取计算机信息系统数据罪情节严重的标准主要是信息数据数量、违法所得或者经济损失等，密钥的表现形式是一组字母数字排列，对应的信息数据分布在计算机网络的各个节点，其实是无法获取的。如果以违法所得或者经济损失作为入罪标准，则会陷入逻辑悖论，即在定罪时不承认虚拟货币是财物，而在认定情节严重时又承认虚拟货币具有经济价值；最后，如何处理本案中的虚拟货币及收益问题。刑法规定犯罪分子违法所得的一切财物，应当予以追缴或者责令退赔。王某投资产生的收益，如果不承认虚拟货币是财物，则无法对违法所得的收益进行追缴，也无法责令王某退赔。另外，《意见》未否定虚拟货币的财物属性，因此《意见》适用的范围只能是利用计算机窃取他人游戏币非法销售获利的行为，而不能扩大适用范围至其他犯罪行为，因为扩大适用范围，意味着不承认虚拟货币的财物属性，从逻辑上可以推导出利用虚拟货币行贿、受贿、洗钱等的行为不成立犯罪，这属于人为制造刑事处罚的漏洞，同时由于计算机犯罪的刑期普遍较短，以计算机犯罪处罚网络传销、诈骗犯罪并不能体现刑罚的一般预防效果。
The offence of illegal access to computer information systems data is defined by the Law on Illegal Access to Computer Information Systems, which provides that the illegal acquisition of data is an intrusion into computer information systems or other technical means similar to that of intrusion, that the commission of the act cannot be interpreted as an intrusion into computer information systems under the same rules of interpretation, that there is a suspicion that the commission of the act cannot be interpreted as an intrusion into computer information systems, that there is no analogy, and that the commission of the act is not understood as an act of theft; that, second, that the offence of illegal access to computer information systems data is recognized at the time of conviction, and that the aggravating circumstances recognize the economic value of the virtual currency; and, lastly, that the conduct of the virtual currency and the proceeds of the crime in the present case, which are in the form of a set of letters numerically arranged data, corresponding information data distributed at the various points of the computer network, is not available, and that the proceeds derived from the investment are not recognized as the standard of entry into the criminal network, that the use of the virtual money for the purpose of the criminal offence is not recognized, and that the use of the virtual money for the purpose of the criminal offence would not be used as an extension of the illicit product of the criminal enterprise, and that would be used, and that would not be used as an extension of the false.
因此笔者认为以第一种意见、第二种意见处理本案并不妥当的，第三种意见具有合理性。具体理由如下：
The author therefore considers that it would be inappropriate to deal with the case in the first and second opinions, and that the third opinion is reasonable. For the following reasons:
一、将虚拟货币认定为财物并不存在障碍
I. There are no obstacles to the recognition of virtual currency as property
（一）虚拟货币具有经济价值。对于刑法中“财产”概念的理解，先后产生了法律的财产说、经济的财产说、折中说。法律的财产说对于财物范围的界定过窄，经济的财产说对于财物范围的界定过宽，甚至人身权益也被认定为财物，因此折中说对财产概念进行折中处理，认为财产是法秩序所保护的、作为整体的具有经济价值的利益，将人身权益的对价以及违背公序良俗而产生的利益排除在财产范围之外，原则上只要造成了他人经济损失的，就可以认定存在财产损失。以此标准来看，将虚拟货币认定为财物并没有违背公序良俗，非法占有虚拟货币的行为可以造成他人的财产损失。
The concept of “property” in criminal law has an economic value. The concept of “property” in criminal law is understood in the form of legal property, economic property, and trade-offs. The property of the law says that the scope of the property is too narrowly defined, the economic property is too broadly defined, and even personal interests are recognized as property. Thus, the concept of property is treated in the sense that it is an interest of economic value protected by the legal order as a whole, excluding from the scope of the property the value of the person's interests and the interests resulting from the violation of good public order.
（二）虚拟货币的财物属性未被法律否定。有种观点认为，虚拟货币是否具有财产属性除了考量经济价值之外，还需考虑是否被整体法秩序所认可，进而得出国家监管机构发出相关的通知、公告之后虚拟货币便不再具有财产属性。这种观点片面地理解了法秩序的统一性，法秩序的统一性不是用语的完全一致，而是各部门法之间以及法律内部不存在根本的矛盾。将虚拟货币视为财物不会因违背公序良俗而导致民法与刑法之间出现矛盾，也不会导致刑法内部财产犯罪与人身犯罪定性上的冲突。相关部门发布的通知、公告，未否认虚拟货币的财物属性，且从使用“投资”一词就说明相关部门承认虚拟货币是一种商品。司法解释也间接承认虚拟货币的财物属性，2022年最高法对非法集资司法解释进行修改，将虚拟货币交易与网络借贷、投资入股等同看待。
The view was expressed that, in addition to considering economic value, whether or not a virtual currency had property attributes needed to be recognized by the overall legal order, which led to the issuance of the relevant circulars by national regulatory bodies, and that the virtual currency no longer had property attributes. This view had a one-sided understanding of the unity of the legal order, which was not entirely consistent in terms of terminology, but did not entail a fundamental contradiction between sectoral laws and within the law. The treatment of virtual money as a good property did not lead to a conflict between civil and criminal law, and did not lead to a conflict between intra-criminal property crimes and the characterization of personal crimes. The circulars, bulletins issued by the relevant authorities, did not deny the property attributes of the virtual currency, and the use of the term “investment” suggested that the relevant authorities recognized virtual money as a commodity. Judicial interpretations also indirectly recognized the property attributes of the virtual currency, and the Supreme Law of 2022 amended the judicial interpretation of illicit enrichment, treating virtual currency transactions as one of the same kind as Internet lending, investment entry and equity.
（三）虚拟货币可以计算出价值。财产犯罪需要确定犯罪数额，虚拟货币价值的认定是无法回避且较为棘手的问题，但这只是技术操作问题，而并非重大的法律难题，完全可以解决，即使像毒品这样的违禁品，实务中依然能够将盗窃毒品的行为以盗窃罪定罪量刑。其实，在实务中对于信息数据的价值进行评估、鉴定存有先例，最高检指导案例检例第37号张四毛盗窃案中，对于域名的价值，指导案例认为可综合考虑网络域名的购入价、销赃价、域名升值潜力、市场热度等综合认定。相比于虚拟货币，域名价值的认定操作难度更大，没有能够进行价值挂钩的锚定物，而虚拟货币一般与美元直接或者间接挂钩，对虚拟货币价值认定的技术操作并不困难。
(iii) Virtual currency can be valued. Property offences require the determination of the amount of the crime, and the determination of virtual monetary value is an inescapable and difficult issue, but it is only a technical operational problem, not a major legal challenge, which can be solved, even for contraband such as drugs, where theft can still be criminalized in practice. Indeed, there are precedents for assessing the value of information data in practice, and there are precedents for identifying the value of information data. In the case of the 4-blank theft case No. 37 of the Supreme Review Guide, the case is guided by the view that a combination of the purchase price of domain names, the sale price, the potential for the appreciation of domain names, market heat etc. could be considered. The recognition of domain names is more difficult to operate and there is no anchor for value-fixing than a virtual currency, whereas virtual currency is generally linked directly or indirectly to the United States dollar and technical operations for the recognition of virtual currency value are not difficult.
二、私自兑换虚拟货币侵害了被害人的所有权应认定为侵占罪
The private exchange of a virtual currency that infringes upon the ownership of the victim shall be considered an offence of appropriation.
（一）密钥代表了虚拟货币本身，获知密钥即代表建立了可以对虚拟货币进行管理的状态。虚拟货币的密钥与微信、支付宝等电子支付的密码不同，电子支付密码不代表财物本身，告知他人电子支付密码并不代表他人可以转移电子支付平台内的钱款，但是虚拟货币不同，虚拟货币的核心是区块链技术，通过去中心化的方式，将交易数据存储在多个计算机节点上，所以密钥其实就是虚拟货币本身的表现形式。本案中，丁某通过微信将虚拟货币密钥告知王某，并授权王某管理虚拟货币，即表明王某建立了对虚拟货币的占有。
(i) The key represents the virtual currency itself, and it is known that the key is a state in which the virtual currency can be managed. Unlike the password for electronic payments, such as micro-letters and payment treasures, the electronic payment code does not represent the property itself, and the notification of electronic payment passwords does not mean that other people can transfer money from an electronic payment platform, but the virtual currency is at the core of the virtual currency is a block-chain technology, so that the transaction data is stored at multiple computer nodes through decentralization, so the key is actually a manifestation of the virtual currency itself. In this case, Ding-Bing, by means of a micromail, communicates the virtual currency key to Wang and authorizes Wang-Bing to manage the virtual currency, which indicates that the King-Bing has established possession of the virtual currency.
（二）行为人将虚拟货币兑换后拒不退还，侵害的是自己占有的他人财物。刑事司法实践中一般认为盗窃罪的对象是他人占有的财物，而侵占罪的对象是行为人自己占有的他人财物或者是他人丧失占有的财物，例如刑事审判参考第160号罗忠兰盗窃案认为，侵占罪的行为人在侵占他人财物之前，必须实际持有或者控制他人财物，而盗窃罪的行为人在实施盗窃他人财物时，并不具备实际持有或者控制他人财物的前提条件。所以上述案例中，王某已经建立了对虚拟货币的管理状态，侵害的是自己占有的他人财物，符合侵占罪的构成要件。
(ii) The perpetrator, after converting the virtual currency, refuses to return the property belonging to another person. In criminal law practice, it is generally assumed that the crime of theft is directed at property in the possession of another person, while the offence of appropriation is directed at property in the possession of the perpetrator or property in the possession of another person. For example, in the context of the criminal trial, reference is made to Rozhengland larceny No. 160, the perpetrator of the offence of appropriation must actually hold or control the property of another person before he takes possession of the property of another person, while the perpetrator of the offence of theft does not have the necessary conditions for the actual possession or control of the property of another person.
（三）委托他人管理虚拟货币的行为，不宜评价为不法原因给付。不法原因给付是指基于违反强制性法规或公序良俗而为的给付，一般认为因不法原因而给付财物的，无返还请求权。笔者认为，丁某只是简单的委托管理行为，不涉及金融领域的违法犯罪，不存在违反法律、行政法规强制性规定的情况，也未达到违背公序良俗的程度，丁某具有返还请求权，王某拒不返还的行为，应以侵占罪定罪处罚。
(iii) An act of entrusting the administration of a virtual currency to another person is not appropriate for the evaluation of payment for unlawful reasons. An unlawful act is a payment based on a violation of a peremptory statute or public order. A person who is generally considered to have paid goods for unlawful reasons does not have the right to request its return. In my opinion, a simple act of commission does not involve an offence in the financial sphere, there is no violation of the mandatory provisions of the law or administrative regulations, nor does it amount to a breach of public order. A person who has the right to return a request and who refuses to do so is liable to a penalty for the offence of misappropriation.
注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群
打开微信扫一扫
添加客服
进入交流群
发表评论