Criminal regulation of virtual currency

4.

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

5. Due to the lack of legal provisions, the handling of the theft of virtual property, which is different from the real theft, is very inconsistent in different places: some public security organs do not file a case, some impose a warning, fine or public security detention on the perpetrator in accordance with the relevant provisions of the regulations on the security protection of computer information systems and the administrative measures for the security protection of computer information network international networking; Some courts have convicted and sentenced the defendant for theft, while others think that this is not in line with the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime. Because the virtual property such as q-coin has not been regarded as a property right in law, they have sentenced the defendant to the crime of obstructing the freedom of communication. Different courts have ruled that in online games, many game masters can sell these game coins after earning a lot of game coins. This also includes some network hackers who steal the QQ number and then the QQ coin bound with the QQ number. These people often change the stolen Q currency into game currency, and then change the game currency into Q currency to launder money, and then sell it for cash
case 1 recently, the court of Jinjiang District of Cheng sentenced Yang Xiaolong, a "cyber thief", to eight months' imprisonment for theft. Yang Xiaolong has repeatedly stolen the virtual currency in seven online game recharge accounts of a company in Cheng, and used the virtual currency to buy game cards to sell money, making an illegal profit of more than 1300 yuan

case 2: in a previous case of QQ number theft decided by Shenzhen intermediate people's court, the prosecutor initiated a public prosecution in accordance with the crime of theft. However, the judge held that QQ number has not been regarded as a property right in China's law, so it did not support the determination of theft and sentenced the defendant to the crime of obstructing freedom of communication
in case 3, ring the two periods of September 29, 2004 and August to October, 2004, many players in the online game "Dahua Xiyou II" (Netease operation) found their equipment stolen one after another. On November 9, 2004, Netease reported the case to the Internet Supervision Department of Guangzhou Public Security Bureau, and the police arrested the suspect while concting offline transactions. On December 25, 2005, Tianhe District Court of Guangzhou city declared him guilty of theft and fined him 5000 yuan. The defendant refused and appealed. At the end of March 2006, the second instance of Guangzhou intermediate people's court decided to reject the appeal and maintain the original judgment
in case 4, from March to July 2005, the defendants Zeng and Yang sold the cracked QQ number to others. The two defendants sold more than 160 QQ numbers and got more than 70000 yuan of stolen money. On November 28, 2005, Shenzhen Nanshan procuratorate sued Zeng and Yang for theft to Shenzhen Nanshan District People's court. Nanshan District People's court held a trial on December 9, 2005, and made a judgment on January 13, 2006. The two defendants were sentenced to six months' detention for the crime of infringing freedom of communication
is virtual property protected by law
no matter Tencent q-coin or Sina u-coin, they are just data symbols used to represent certain goods or services provided by an Internet manufacturer. So far, no bank has been involved in the launch of this "network virtual currency". Because there is some competition between manufacturers, their "network virtual currency" system is often independent of each other. Therefore, "network virtual currency" can not circulate in real society like RMB. In addition, the "network virtual currency" is only a kind of delivery voucher, and almost all manufacturers that launch the "network virtual currency" do not provide the service of "network virtual currency" cashing back. The two-way or even multi-directional circulation is the basis of money being able to act as a general equivalent. The characteristic of "one-way circulation" determines that "network virtual currency" cannot act as a general equivalent. Unless we can freely and legally convert this "delivery voucher" into real cash or electronic currency. Therefore, it is only a virtual property, not a real property, and can not be the object of legal protection in China
online virtual property theft, which is characterized by stealing and selling online game accounts of major online game companies, Tencent QQ coins and game equipment, is expanding and upgrading. This not only seriously damages the legitimate rights and interests of users, but also poses a great threat to the normal operation of Internet enterprises. Therefore, the case of network virtual property theft can be classified as theft, the victim can report the situation to the public security department, but there must be two kinds of proof to file a case: one is that the victim must prove that he really owns the virtual property, the other is that there is evidence to prove that his virtual property is really stolen. If two kinds of proof are available, and the suspect is found, he can be convicted. Because, at present, the National People's Congress has not legislated on this, and this kind of case belongs to special theft, that is, this kind of crime can be punished as theft

there are mainly three views on the legal attribute of network virtual property in the theoretical and judicial circles, namely, the theory of property rights, the theory of intellectual property rights and the theory of creditor's rights. Although the network virtual property is different from the general property, but in my opinion, it is intangible property. Article 75 of China's general principles of civil law clearly stipulates that "citizens' personal property includes citizens' lawful income, houses, savings, daily necessities, cultural relics, books and materials, trees, livestock, means of proction and other lawful property that are permitted by law to be owned by citizens."“ "Other legal property" can be interpreted broadly, and network virtual property such as q-coin and virtual weapons can be classified as "other legal property" because of their basic properties. Citizen's property includes both tangible and intangible. Network virtual property should be one of intangible assets. Q-coin can be purchased directly from game developers, or obtained from the virtual currency market, so it has the property of general commodity. But whether it is creditor's rights or property rights, or intellectual property rights, this issue is the root of the current judicial and academic disputes. Virtual property is a kind of property with legal significance, which should be protected by law. As a kind of intangible property, virtual property has its own unique attributes and characteristics, which is different from the traditional tangible property and intangible property. The protection of virtual property should not be included in the category of real right or creditor's right mechanically, so it is necessary to protect it by separate legislation. The acquisition of virtual property needs to pay the corresponding time, energy and money, which has the characteristics of virtual space, tradability, value and time limit. In the network virtual space and time limit, it reflects the property value of virtual property, and shows the actual material interests in real life. It is precisely because of the transaction and value of the virtual property, as well as the paid nature of the acquisition, that the virtual property has the property nature. On the other hand, virtual property can also be possessed, used, benefited and disposed, and become the object of legal relationship. Therefore, virtual property should be protected by property law. Can theft of virtual property be punished as theft? At present, there are many kinds of currencies in the virtual market, such as Tencent Q currency, internet currency, Netease bubble currency, Sina u currency, Warcraft currency, Paradise currency, Shanda counting, etc. Take Q coin as an example, the number of users provided by Tencent is more than 200 million. Instry insiders estimate that the domestic Internet has a virtual money market scale of several billion yuan per year. Although the virtual currency market has a large scale, but the virtual currency stolen, "Filing" still has no legal basis? Virtual currency itself has no other transaction function, so it can be said that virtual currency is not a property right recognized by law. However, with the unlimited issuance of q-coin and the constant limited consumption of virtual procts, it will lead to the relative surplus of q-coin and the inflation of virtual world. At present, it is urgent to standardize the order of the virtual currency market, instead of blindly "Filing" protection, so that the public feel that the virtual currency is equivalent to RMB. When the network virtual property is stolen and cheated, we can also use the criminal law to punish criminals. At present, the court for the crime of network virtual property, some to be punished by theft, some to violate the freedom of communication to be punished. One of the reasons for different approaches is the lack of unified qualitative analysis of network virtual property. If we define the network virtual property as a kind of property, these problems can also be effectively solved. For example, some people steal virtual property or cheat for the purpose of illegal possession. If the amount of theft or fraud reaches the standard of "large amount", their behavior can be defined as theft or fraud. Of course, when the actor steals the network virtual property, his intrusion into the computer system and other means may also violate the crime of destroying the computer information system and other crimes. The combination of means and purpose constitutes an implicated crime, which can be dealt with again. What is q-coin Tencent q-coin is a virtual currency that can be paid uniformly on Tencent website. The face values of q-coin are 1 yuan, 2 yuan, 5 yuan, 10 yuan and 20 yuan respectively. For the q-coin obtained by users using the application method of dialing voice call, the expression form of 1 yuan face value q-coin is a 12 digit number string, and the expression form of 2 yuan, 5 yuan, 10 yuan and 20 yuan q-coin is a 14 digit number string starting with 2, 5, 1 and 8 respectively. The applied q-coin can purchase a series of related services on Tencent website, and input the corresponding q-coin amount according to the corresponding prompt when purchasing. At present, q-coin card can be used to apply for QQ bank number, purchase QQ beautiful number, QQ member service, QQ dating, QQ greeting card and other services. According to Tencent, a series of wonderful personalized value-added services will be launched later. Zhao Yiyong (judge of Zhengzhou high tech Instrial Development Zone, master of law): Disputes between players and thieves and between players and operators caused by the theft of virtual property. Once the virtual property is stolen, it is often difficult for users to find the thief, or it is difficult to provide evidence although they can find it. Therefore, once the virtual property is stolen, they often ask the operator for assistance and provide evidence, and most of them directly resort to the court on the ground that the operator does not fulfill its security obligations. From a technical point of view, game operators have the ability to help players save historical data and prevent data loss; From a legal point of view, game operators are also obliged to save historical data, prevent data loss and reproce game data e to charging players. Because the relationship between users and game operators is a service contract, according to the basic principles of China's "contract law", if the user's loss is caused by the game operators' failure to fulfill their ty of care, or major defects in program technology, then the game operators should bear the liability for breach of contract, including compensation for losses, restitution, and continued performance. If the game operator has no fault and the loss is caused by the infringement of a third party, it should directly claim to the infringer
legislation of virtual property protection suggests that in the absence of legislation on virtual property protection in China, network enterprises should apply the form of instry self-discipline to protect the interests of users. At the same time, we should speed up the formulation of relevant legislation or judicial interpretation. The specific measures include: (1) giving virtual property a legal status from the level of judicial interpretation 2 Add criminal legislation to protect computer data 3 Standardize the order of virtual property transactions, and ensure the security of virtual property transactions. It is suggested that the best way to deal with virtual property is through legal means

6. Human flesh search is a kind of network query mechanism that uses human participation to provide pure search engine information. In short, the so-called "human flesh search" is a network way to search other people's privacy information. Obviously, human flesh search inevitably involves personal privacy, and the disputes about human flesh search are also legal issues. What legal issues does human flesh search touch? How can legal science diagnose human flesh search? From the definition and operation practice of human flesh search, the main motive of this engine technology is to mine other people's privacy information, which is also the main function of human flesh search. Therefore, human flesh search will first touch personal privacy. The right of privacy is one of the specific personality rights enjoyed by natural persons (citizens), which takes personal natural information and behavior information as the right object. The right to privacy is protected by law and shall not be infringed upon by others. The main forms of infringement of privacy are prying, leaking, spreading and abusing. Once the right of privacy is infringed, it constitutes a tort and should bear the corresponding tort liability. The activity mechanism of human flesh search is as follows: once the human flesh object is found, the Internet people can search its privacy information as widely as they can, and then provide search convenience for users. It can be seen that the privacy of those who are "human flesh" may be infringed
What's abominable is that human flesh search not only discloses other people's privacy, but also fabricates facts, insults, slanders, exaggerates and denounces human flesh objects. Such behavior can easily touch other people's right to reputation. The right of reputation is also one of the specific personality rights enjoyed by natural persons (citizens). It takes the rection of social evaluation as the judgment standard of infringement, and the main means leading to the rection of social evaluation are insult and slander. In the process of human flesh search, many netizens, out of indignation, describe the object of human flesh search poorly and speak rudely, and a large number of abusive and insulting words pervade the Internet. This will cause the adverse consequences of reputation damage to the parties. Whether the right of privacy is violated or the right of reputation is damaged, it will inevitably cause the loss of personality to the protagonist of "human flesh gate"

the harm of human flesh search is not limited to the direct infringement mentioned above. What's more serious is that with the help of human flesh search information, intrusive behaviors are implemented in reality, such as making harassing phone calls, posting newspapers with indecent words on the door, etc. Obviously, the harm of human flesh search has spread from cyberspace to the real world. Such a series of infringement followed, and finally staged China's "first case of human flesh search", the victims eventually sued the perpetrators and related websites in court, and finally won[ 1]

it is not difficult to see that human flesh search can almost be equated with tort. Many people even call for severe punishment of human flesh searchers, and even advocate banning human flesh search. It is true that legal science can diagnose specific cases of human flesh search, and can give legal technology analysis and value evaluation, but the emergence and development of human flesh search and its practice seem to prove that human flesh search is not only a legal problem. In the period of social transformation, especially the information explosion in the Internet age, people's curiosity about new things and the psychological depression accumulated by the fast-paced life are easy to break out instantaneously. Human flesh searchers would rather bear the pressure of legal risk and public opinion condemnation, but also play the Internet carnival that hurts the parties, and experience the stimulation brought by human flesh search game

despite the rapid development of human flesh search in China in recent years, foreign human flesh search has been growing healthily and soundly. It not only has considerable commercial profits, but also consciously abides by the legal rules, making human flesh search develop rationally along the road of legalization and commercialization, Its users naturally regard human flesh search as a normal and necessary human interactive help service. In contrast, in China, when people hear about human flesh search, they don't seem to regard it as a good thing at all. In most people's eyes, human flesh search may be a bad online game or a boring online farce. The reason why human flesh search is so biased is that the search engine is almost at the edge of the law

in fact, as a new thing, human flesh search should not be knocked down. We should dialectically analyze the advantages and disadvantages of human flesh search and comprehensively understand its impact on people and society. As a way to provide information, human flesh search undoubtedly provides convenience for Internet users in many aspects. With the development of society, it is a legitimate right for people to obtain and possess a certain amount of information, which is also an internal demand of people as a member of the social system. In the field of human rights and public interests, people not only have the right to know, but also have the right and obligation to exercise social supervision and public opinion supervision. When the infringement and even the criminal act or the events that affect the national interests and social interests occur, it is necessary to verify and condemn the parties. At this time, with the help of human flesh search, by absorbing the insiders to participate in the shortcut provided by information, the parties are often easy to be accurately "human flesh" out. The positive function of human flesh search is not only reflected in the supervision of the perpetrators of the search, such as looking for relatives and good people to find stakeholders in the action, human flesh search can also perform extraordinary, with the help of public power, effectively screen information resources, show the search results that people need. In addition, from the development practice of human flesh search, its function has not only been limited to the search of people, but also penetrated into the search field of other information, gathering netizens' enthusiasm and displaying its search skills

if we say that as a network search method or technology, human flesh search shows its value because of its positive functions, then people's use of human flesh search may make its own functions deviate from the track and slide into the negative field which is easy to cause condemnation and resentment. Judging from the cases of human flesh search that have happened in reality, the reason why human flesh search has encountered a lot of criticism is not that human flesh search itself has inherent infringement toxin, but that the operators of this game ignore the legitimate rights and interests of human flesh search objects, and consider the value of the event itself and the legitimacy of the rights and interests of search objects, It seems that netizens have shifted the balance of interests to the degree of condemnation of the event itself, and without thinking, they think that the value of condemning and exposing human flesh search objects is far more important than the protection of their legitimate rights and interests. At this time, the moral trial goes beyond the legal bottom line. When more and more people regard themselves as moral judges, the rights and obligations endowed by law are completely ignored. As a result, once encounter human flesh search events, often instantly gathered a large number of people, in full swing to expose the abominable face of human flesh search

at this moment, the search objects who have been collectively investigated and tried are undoubtedly suffering from privacy disclosure and rights erosion. The culprit of this result is not human flesh search, but all kinds of tort mentioned at the beginning of this article. In other words, it is not the human flesh search itself that leads to infringement, but the human flesh searcher's behavior angers the victim. To be fair, human flesh searchers are not born with infringement motivation. In many cases, human flesh searchers may not do it intentionally, but connive at the madness of human flesh searchers because of the lack of guidelines for their behavior. This is exactly the case in reality. The laws and regulations directly related to human flesh search are in a blank state. In case of infringement cases caused by human flesh search, we have to apply the general norms of tort liability. It can be said that human flesh search is drifting away from the edge of the law

is the "human flesh search", which is on the edge of the law, a ban or a legislative gap[ 2] According to the previous interpretation of the positive function of human flesh search, combined with the healthy operation practice of foreign human flesh search, starting from the development space and actual needs of human flesh search in China, rather than stifling this new thing by banning human flesh search, it is better to reasonably regulate the behavior of human flesh search through scientific legislation. This is almost a consensus[ 3] Moreover, from the perspective of the current legal norms, it is not lack of legal basis to identify the composition of tort. From the perspective of the general adjustment function of law, China's current law is not powerless in regulating the tort of human flesh search. The first case of human flesh search, which has made a judgment and has been partially implemented, also invokes the current tort legal norms. However, human flesh search as a type of network infringement, because of its own particularity, can not but urge legislators to pay special attention to its responsibility distribution

in this regard, an effective way should be to reasonably define the liability space of human flesh search infringement. In terms of the liability involved in human flesh search infringement, both the website and the specific behavior of human flesh search are likely to be responsible. However, the key to determine the subject of responsibility lies in the elements of responsibility. Therefore, it is very important to design the review system and imputation principle. According to the existing tort laws and regulations, the responsibility of the specific operators of human flesh search can be adjusted. There is no doubt that the organizers, privacy information providers and other forms of infringers who are in line with the composition of tort liability will be subject to tort liability. What kind of attitude should be adopted to determine the responsibility of the website? In view of the consideration of the overall development of the Internet and the positive function of human flesh search, it is more appropriate to impose the ty of ex post review on the websites involved in human flesh search. The so-called "post review" is mainly after the plaintiff considers that his rights and interests are infringed by the human flesh search behavior of the website and issues a relief request to him, or there is sufficient evidence to show that the website can take measures to stop it[ 4] It can be seen that the rule of review after the event contains the principle of fault imputation, that is, only when the website is at fault can it become the subject of liability and bear joint and several tort liability[ 5]

of course, from the perspective of legal norms of human flesh search, legislation should not only be limited to tort liability, but also make reasonable norms on the scope of application, search content, rights and obligations of relevant parties, supervision and management of human flesh search. Incidentally, some members of the Standing Committee and deputies of the National People's Congress have suggested that the criminal law should be used to regulate human flesh search and the criminal responsibility of the perpetrators of human flesh search should be investigated. The author does not agree with this. In recent years, human flesh search has just started in China, which is still a new thing. To deal with this means of network search, we should not completely eliminate human flesh search by means of strict prohibition, and we should not let human flesh search expand infinitely. However, as a legislative act, the regulation and adjustment of human flesh search behavior should be carried out step by step. According to the specific operation practice of human flesh search behavior, the corresponding legislation should be introced timely, instead of taking a heavy attack from the beginning, regarding human flesh search as a criminal tool and demoting the human flesh search actor as a "criminal". China's criminal legislation declares the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime

7. According to Article 92 of the criminal law of our country, the property privately owned by citizens as mentioned in this Law refers to the following properties: (1) citizens' lawful income, savings, houses and other means of living 2 Means of proction owned by indivials and families according to law 3 Legal property of self-employed and private enterprises 4 Shares, stocks, bonds and other property owned by indivials according to law
from the point of view of the crime of illegally obtaining computer information system data, bitcoin, as a virtual property, does not belong to other property stipulated in Article 92 of the criminal law, and is not the "property" protected by theft. In my opinion, this conclusion does not pay attention to the value attribute of virtual property, and can not adapt to the development of information network era
first, although Article 92 of the criminal law stipulates the crime of property, it does not specify the existing forms and types of property, let alone the tangible and intangible of property. On the contrary, the provision of "other property" provides space for interpretation of bitcoin, an intangible property
Second, article 265 of the criminal law stipulates that anyone who, for the purpose of making profits, stealthily connects another person's communication lines, copies another person's telecommunication codes or signals, or knowingly uses the stealthily connected or copied telecommunication equipment or facilities shall be convicted and punished for the crime of theft. The Supreme People's court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate clearly take electric power, gas, tap water and other properties as the objects of theft in the interpretation on Several Issues concerning the application of law in handling criminal cases of theft. In this case, the object of protection of larceny is not limited to tangible objects, but can contain intangible objects, even property interests
thirdly, although virtual property is attached to cyberspace, it has certain conversion methods and transaction rules with real property. Therefore, the virtual form does not mean the virtual value. On the contrary, it represents the real property of the obligee. In addition, the protection of legal interest of theft is the ownership of property or the actual possession of property. Because the carrier of bitcoin is data, the obligee can control, possess and dispose of bitcoin according to certain operation mode
fourthly, bitcoin is interpreted as property, not by analogy. The difference between analogical interpretation and extended interpretation lies in whether it goes beyond the possible scope of literal meaning. With the increasing importance of data, virtual property has been widely known and put into the legal system as a new type of property. As a typical representative of virtual property, bitcoin is used as a token, which is far from the game virtual currency. Even if bitcoin is interpreted as property, it does not exceed the possibility of ordinary people's prediction of "property"
bitcoin, as a virtual property, meets the requirements of "property" in criminal law and has the property nature. Therefore, in the case of bitcoin theft, it is more reasonable to regulate it by theft.

8. If the online virtual game currency swindles 4000 yuan, it is suspected of fraud and shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years< According to the interpretation of the Supreme People's court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues concerning the specific application of law in handling criminal cases of fraud, which came into effect on April 8, 2011, those who defraud public or private property with a value of 3000 yuan to 10000 yuan or more, 30000 yuan to 100000 yuan or more, and 500000 yuan or more will be punished, It should be respectively identified as "large amount" and "huge amount" and "especially huge amount" stipulated in Article 266 of the criminal law< Article 266 of the criminal law stipulates that whoever swindles public or private property, if the amount is relatively large, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or public surveillance, and shall also, or shall only, be fined; If the amount is huge or if there are other serious circumstances, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than 10 years and shall also be fined; If the amount is especially huge or if there are other especially serious circumstances, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years or life imprisonment and shall also be fined or have his property confiscated. Where there are other provisions in this law, such provisions shall prevail.