Stealing virtual currency

1.

According to the news on February 10, 2018, on September 4, 2017, seven ministries and commissions of the people's Republic of China issued the notice on preventing the financing risk of token issuance, which regulates the issuance of tokens. In the notice, the nature of all kinds of tokens and "virtual currency" is clearly defined: it is not issued by the monetary authority, and it has no monetary attributes such as legal compensation and mandatory, It does not have the same legal status as currency and cannot and should not be used as currency in the market. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that all kinds of "virtual currency" still have a certain property value and are part of the property of the holder. So, how to identify the nature of the theft of such tokens

In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of "virtual token" holders, the author intends to discuss such issues through a relevant news report and relevant cases

stealing bitcoin

recently, a news report said that Haidian police in Beijing cracked a case of destroying computer information system. The suspect Zhong used his administrator's authority to modify the company's computer applications and steal 100 bitcoins. Before he could sell the stolen money, Zhong was arrested by the police. At present, Zhong was detained for the crime of destroying computer information system

it can be seen from the report that the police detained the perpetrator for stealing bitcoin on suspicion of damaging the computer information system. The crime of destroying the computer information system stipulated in Article 286 of the criminal law of our country refers to the act of deleting, modifying, adding or interfering with the functions of the computer information system in violation of the provisions of the state, resulting in the abnormal operation of the computer information system and serious consequences, or deleting, modifying or interfering with the data and application programs stored, processed or transmitted in the computer information system Modifying or adding operations with serious consequences, or deliberately making or spreading destructive programs such as computer viruses, which affect the normal operation of the computer system with serious consequences

In the author's opinion, this crime is one of the crimes of impairing social management order in Chapter 6 of the criminal law, that is, the legal interest protected by this crime is actually the public order of our society, not the property interests of the digital currency holders, which in fact denies the property value of digital currency, It is only protected as a data or system function in a computer system. The author thinks that there is some irrationality in this way

first of all, in the notice on the prevention of bitcoin risk issued in 2013, it is mentioned that bitcoin is not a real currency because it is not issued by the monetary authority and does not have such monetary attributes as legal compensation and compulsion. Bitcoin has four main characteristics: no centralized issuers, limited amount, no geographical restrictions and anonymity. Because it belongs to a specific virtual commodity in nature The notice also clearly mentioned that bitcoin does not have the same legal status as currency and should not be used as currency in the market. However, as a virtual commodity, the property value behind bitcoin cannot be ignored

Secondly, Article 127 of the general provisions of the civil law, which came into effect on October 1 last year, stipulates that if the law has provisions on the protection of data and network virtual property, such provisions shall prevail. Although only the protection of the network virtual property has made the principle provisions, but it can not be denied that this shows our country's attitude towards the protection of the network virtual property. Although there is no special law for the protection of data and network virtual property in China, from the perspective of the general provisions of civil law, it is predicted that there will be relevant legislation in the future

finally, from the relevant cases, we can also see the recognition of the property attribute of virtual currency such as bitcoin in China's judicial practice. In April and may 2013, Liu premeditated to set up a bitcoin trading platform, so he recruited Jin and Huang (both sentenced) to jointly set up a "bitcoin" trading platform. During this period, Liu, Huang, Jin, Jin and the defendant he, in addition to other acts of directly stealing customers' funds, also frequently cashed RMB by selling customers' bitcoins, and transferred 120 bitcoins from the website. Finally, the court convicted and punished the defendant for fraud, and the bitcoin transferred by the defendant was also included in the property loss of the victim. Therefore, from the judicial cases, we can also get the recognition of the property attributes of virtual currency such as bitcoin

based on the above reasons, the author thinks that it may be unreasonable to regulate the theft of virtual currency only as the crime of damaging computer information system. We should face up to the hidden property value and consider the application of the crime of infringing property in China's criminal law. Only in this way can we effectively protect the legitimate rights and property of digital currency holders in China

2. It must be a crime, and the virtual currency is also protected by the law, which is written by the property law. Thank you
the most popular team of Dahan coin Ruide in the market

3. According to the special nature of network virtual property, it does not have the property attribute in the sense of criminal law. Based on the principle of legality, the theft of network virtual property can not be identified as theft, but according to the crime of illegally obtaining computer information system data, it can be punished as its crime.

4. In the current judicial environment, the network virtual property should not be included in the category of "property" in the crime of theft stipulated in Article 264 of the criminal law. The theft of network virtual property is not recognized as theft. If it constitutes other crimes, it shall be punished according to other crimes, such as the crime of illegally obtaining computer information system data
from the perspective of China's criminal law, "property" as a crime of theft is not only limited to physical property, but also intangible property, such as electricity, gas and so on. Both tangible and intangible objects have common characteristics, that is, the general public agree that they have value, and the value can be objectively measured
as for the meaning of online virtual property, the notice of the Ministry of culture and the Ministry of Commerce on strengthening the management of online game virtual currency, which was implemented on June 4, 2009, defines online game virtual currency: it is issued by online game operation enterprises, and game users use legal currency to purchase it directly or indirectly in a certain proportion, which exists outside the game program, It is a virtual exchange tool, which is stored in the server provided by online game operators in the form of electromagnetic recording and expressed in specific digital units. Online game virtual currency is used to exchange the online game services provided by the issuing enterprise within a specified scope and within a specified time. It is expressed in the form of prepaid recharge card, prepaid amount or points, but does not include the game props obtained in the game activities
from the above definition, we can see that the network virtual property has the following obvious characteristics: value specificity, a certain network virtual property can only exist in the game running on a specific server, can not be placed in other games, without a specific game, there is no value; The existence of its economic value depends on whether the players subjectively believe that it has use value and whether it can actually achieve transactions between different players in the same game; The value difference is different for different players, but it has no value for non players
from the perspective of China's criminal law, "property" as a crime of theft is not only limited to physical property, but also intangible property, such as electricity, gas and so on. But no matter they are tangible or intangible, they all have common characteristics, that is, the general public agree that they have value, and the value can be objectively measured. In contrast, the network virtual property is obviously different from the "property" in the criminal law of our country, which does not conform to the concept of public and private property in the general sense of public cognition. The legal attribute of network virtual property is actually computer information system data, a virtual exchange tool, which can not be the object of theft< In addition, according to the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime, only those who are prescribed as crimes by law can be treated as crimes, while those who are not prescribed as objects of crimes by law cannot be treated as objects of crimes. At present, China's criminal law and previous judicial interpretations on larceny have made clear provisions on "public and private property", but the network virtual property has not been interpreted as the object of larceny
from the definition and attributes of network virtual property, the essence of the legal attribute of network virtual property is electromagnetic records, that is, electronic data. The act of stealing network virtual property is fully in line with the constitution of the crime of illegally obtaining computer information system data stipulated in article 285 of the criminal law. The application of this crime is enough to objectively and comprehensively evaluate the nature of the act< It is difficult to identify the value of network virtual property
■ judicial observation
as for how to identify the value of network virtual property, there is no unified and universally recognized calculation standard in the theoretical and judicial circles
first of all, the current judicial interpretation does not stipulate how to determine the value of network virtual property, and there is no clear basis for its determination in judicial practice, so there will be disputes in determining its value anyway; Secondly, in the objective sense, network virtual property itself has no value, and its value can only be determined when players trade, which is difficult to be identified from an objective point of view; Thirdly, the value of network virtual property can only exist in a specific server and a specific player, which is separated from a specific server and lost the so-called value. There are different values for different players, so it is difficult to have a unified calculation standard; Finally, it is not objective to identify the value according to the repair cost or expected income paid by the server operator e to theft
therefore, defining the act of stealing network virtual property as theft will bring a series of problems to the determination of the amount. In the absence of a unified and objective calculation method of the amount and the determination of the crime of illegally obtaining computer information system data, it is not appropriate to interpret network virtual property as "property" in theft
from the perspective of overseas criminal legislation and justice, it is rare to treat the theft of network virtual property as theft. The theoretical circle and judicial practice of Italian criminal law do not recognize that the act of stealing virtual property constitutes the crime of theft stipulated in Italian criminal code. It follows the principle of style interpretation and forbids to expand the interpretation of "property", including information data. As for the infringement of network virtual property, the Italian criminal code has set up a section after the traditional crime. Although there are cases in the criminal judicial practice of Japan that determine the crime of using electronic computer to defraud virtual property, it stipulates the special crime of "using electronic computer to defraud" after the traditional crime of fraud. The general theory of Japanese criminal law also believes that the fictitious property does not belong to the crime object of theft stipulated in the Japanese criminal code
in 2003, the criminal code of Taiwan deleted the provision that electromagnetic records were set as movable property in 1997, and the provisions on stealing electromagnetic records are applicable to computer crimes such as obtaining computer information system data
in conclusion, according to the special nature of network virtual property, it does not have the property attribute in the sense of criminal law. Based on the principle of legality, the theft of network virtual property can not be regarded as theft, but can be punished as the crime of illegally obtaining computer information system data.

5. If you know that the money is stolen before your friend pays it back, it will be returned naturally.

6. On September 4, 2017, seven ministries and commissions of the state issued the notice on preventing the financing risk of token issuance, which regulates the activities of token issuance. In the notice, the nature of all kinds of tokens and "virtual currency" is clearly defined: it is not issued by the monetary authority, has no monetary attributes such as legal compensation and compulsion, and does not have the same legal status as currency, It cannot and should not be used as currency in the market< However, it is undeniable that all kinds of "virtual currency" still have a certain property value and are part of the property of the holder. So, how to identify the nature of the theft of such tokens
the police detained the perpetrator for stealing bitcoin on suspicion of damaging the computer information system
the crime of destroying the computer information system stipulated in Article 286 of the criminal law of the people's Republic of China refers to the act of deleting, modifying, adding or interfering with the functions of the computer information system in violation of the state regulations, resulting in the abnormal operation of the computer information system and serious consequences, or the act of deleting, modifying, adding or interfering with the data and application programs stored, processed or transmitted in the computer information system Modifying or adding operations with serious consequences, or deliberately making or spreading destructive programs such as computer viruses, which affect the normal operation of the computer system with serious consequences
this crime is one of the crimes of impairing social management order in Chapter 6 of the criminal law, that is, the legal interests protected by this crime are actually the public order of our society, not the property interests of the digital currency holders. In fact, it denies the property value of digital currency, but only protects it as a data or system function in a computer system. The author thinks that there is some irrationality in this way
first of all, in the notice on preventing bitcoin risks issued in 2013, it is mentioned that bitcoin is not a real currency because it is not issued by the monetary authority and has no monetary attributes such as legal compensation and compulsion
bitcoin has four main characteristics: no centralized issuers, limited amount, no geographical restrictions and anonymity. Because it belongs to a specific virtual commodity in nature The notice also clearly mentioned that bitcoin does not have the same legal status as currency and should not be used as currency in the market. However, as a virtual commodity, the property value behind bitcoin cannot be ignored
secondly, Article 127 of the general provisions of the civil law, which came into effect on October 1 last year, stipulates that if the law has provisions on the protection of data and network virtual property, such provisions shall prevail
although only the protection of network virtual property has been made in principle, it can not be denied that it shows our attitude towards the protection of network virtual property. Although there is no special law for the protection of data and network virtual property in China, from the perspective of the general provisions of civil law, it is predicted that there will be relevant legislation in the future
finally, from the relevant cases, we can also see the recognition of the property attributes of virtual currencies such as bitcoin in China's judicial practice.

8. It is not a crime of theft to steal game currency without taking it, which depends on two aspects: 1. Whether the amount of theft is large (more than 3000 yuan); 2; 2. Is not the theft of game money directly under their control. If the answer is yes, it is suspected of theft.

9.

The theft of virtual currency belongs to the act of theft, and a large amount of it constitutes the crime of theft

the general principles of civil law has listed virtual wealth as "valuable wealth", which is protected by law. Therefore, stealing wealth protected by law is theft

"general principles of civil law" stipulates that Article 127 where there are provisions on the protection of data and network virtual property in law, such provisions shall prevail