债权请求权对财产犯罪成立的影响

The Impact of Claim Obligatory Right on Property Crime

债权期限届满债务人无正当理由不履行债务时,债权人取走债务人财产的行为,属权利行使行为,无论德日刑法还是英美法系,一般都不认为构成财产犯罪。在债权实现过程中,只要其取得财产的数额在债权标的额之内且手段行为符合社会相当性,就排除财产犯罪成立。我国物权变动采交付主义,当债权期限届满债务人无正当理由拒不履行债务时,债权请求权足以对抗债务人对标的物的非法占有;在债权人取得标的物以外的债务人财产时,应从整体的财产损失角度衡量债务人财产是否受到损失,同时应从社会相当性的角度判断债权人行为是否具备刑事违法性,共同认定财产犯罪是否成立。

When the creditor＇s right is due and the debtor defaults of obligation, the act that creditor takes away possession of the debtor is not crime but a way of exercising its right. If the amount that taken by the creditor is in the hmit of object, and the means of the creditor accord with social worthiness, the act of the creditor does not constitute property crimes. In China, delivery doctrine is the rule of property changes, so when the creditor＇s right is due and the debtor defaults of obligation, the claim of obligatory right can stand up to illegal possession of debtor. When the creditor takes away property other than the object, we should decide whether it commits crime based on debtor＇s loss, as well as the social permitting theory.