Chen Xin

At around 8:00 pm on September 20, 2001, the defendant Zhang received a returning customer named Li from his mother's "Ocean Bookstore" and found that there was a current passbook in the book, which he was about to withdraw and hide on his body, without informing his mother and others. Immediately went to a certain Agricultural Bank to withdraw funds, and Zhang filled out the withdrawal voucher with a current account book named Li, falsely claiming RMB 5000. On that day, Li found out that he had accidentally returned the passbook sandwiched in the book to the bookstore, so that he could search for it the next day. Zhang's mother replied to Li that there was no such matter as she was unaware of the truth. On September 21st, the defendant Zhang learned that Li had reported the case and immediately mailed RMB 5000 under pseudonym to the local public security bureau. On September 25th, Zhang was seized by the public security organs and the money was returned to the owner.

There were three different opinions on how to characterize Zhang's behavior during the handling of the case at that time. The first opinion holds that Zhang's behavior does not constitute a crime and belongs to unjust enrichment, and should bear civil liability; The second opinion holds that Zhang's act of hiding something forgotten by others constitutes theft; The third type believes that Zhang falsely claiming money in the name of others should constitute the crime of fraud. I agree with the third opinion because:

Firstly, improper enrichment in civil law refers to obtaining improper benefits without legal or contractual basis and causing property damage to others. Subjectively speaking, the beneficiaries of improper interests are not at fault, and it is often the fault of the injured party that causes property damage. The beneficiary of improper benefits does not have the intention to illegally occupy the property of others before obtaining the improper benefits. Even if it is malicious, it only accepts the benefits knowing that there is no legal basis and does not engage in proactive illegal behavior when obtaining the improper benefits. And this is not the case in this case. The defendant, Zhang, is a person with a specific identity in a specific place and bears the responsibility of keeping the passbook that was forgotten in the book when someone returned it. However, he immediately hid the passbook after discovering it and immediately went to falsely claim the deposit. Subjectively, he had the intention of illegally occupying someone else's property, and objectively, he committed the act of defrauding someone else's money, which clearly does not conform to the legal characteristics of unjust enrichment.

Secondly, both theft and fraud subjectively have the intention to illegally occupy someone else's money, but the objective behavioral characteristics of the two crimes are significantly different. The objective requirement of the crime of theft is to secretly steal the property of others; The objective element of the crime of fraud is to fabricate facts, conceal the truth, and deceive the owner, holder, and custodian of property. In this case, due to negligence, Li accidentally returned the passbook together with the book to the bookstore where the defendant Zhang was located. Although Zhang hid it, the change in the ownership relationship of the passbook was not caused by Zhang's secret theft, but by the negligence of the passbook owner. Therefore, if there is no subsequent act of claiming cash under the guise, in this case alone, although it is illegal, it does not constitute a crime. Zhang's behavior constitutes a crime mainly because he went to the bank to fill out a withdrawal receipt in the name of the passbook owner, fabricated the fact that he was the property owner, and falsely claimed other people's money as his own. This behavior fully meets the objective requirements of the crime of fraud and constitutes the crime of fraud.

After the trial of this case, it was found that Zhang's behavior constituted a crime of fraud. Considering that Zhang could voluntarily withdraw from the defrauded money after the crime, he confessed and repented, and was given a lenient sentence of six months of detention and one year of probation.