数字支付背景下拒不退还错误汇款行为的刑法评价

Criminal Law Evaluation of Refusing to Return Wrong Remittance under the Background of Digital Payment

数字支付时代,收款人拒不退还他人错误转账汇款的侵占案件屡见不鲜,在这类案件中,错误汇款人通过刑事自诉途径维护权益时容易陷入困境。收款人收到错误汇款属于不当得利,民事不当得利是刑事侵占罪的发生基础,而非阻却事由,不当得利与刑事犯罪之间并不构成对立关系,二者间不存在无法逾越的“鸿沟”。因此,通过不当得利制度修复民事法律关系,不会影响到对恶意不当得利人刑事责任的评价。在错误汇款情形中,错误转移的银行债权属于侵占罪的行为对象,收款人与错误转移的债权之间成立构成侵占罪所要求的“代为保管”法律关系,收款人拒不退还时符合侵占罪的构成要件。在拒不退还错误汇款类型的侵占罪中,犯罪既遂的认定应以收款人明确表示拒不退还为标准。对于收款人拒不退还的认定时间,应以收款人第一次明确表示拒不退还为准。

It is more common for recipients to refuse to refund others'wrong transfers and remittances in the era of digital payment.In such cases,the wrongful remitter can easily get into trouble when defending his rights through criminal private prosecution.The wrongful remittance received by the beneficiary is considered unjust enrichment,and civil unjust enrichment is the basis for criminal embezzlement.There is no antagonism between the two.Repairing civil legal relations through the unjust enrichment system will not affect the evaluation of criminal liability.In the case of erroneous remittances,the wrongly transferred bank claims are the object of the crime of embezzlement,and a“custody for others”legal relationship is established between the payee and the wrongly transferred claims.When the payee refuses to return the wrong remittance,it will meet the constitutive requirements of the crime of embezzlement.In this type of embezzlement crime,the determination of the completion of the crime should be based on the payee's explicit refusal to return as the standard.The time for determining whether the payee refuses to return shall be based on the first time the payee clearly expresses the refusal to return.