Chapter 735 Typical impersonation scam

Author: Snow Yinghong Plum

Chapter 735 Typical impersonation scam

"The court investigation is over and the court debate is now held. Before the debate, the court brings charges and the defense is aware that the debate should mainly focus on the determination of the crime, sentencing and other controversial issues.

The appellant Zhou Jiangmeng will speak first." The presiding judge said.

Zhou Jiangming's speech was similar to what he said before. He held the letter paper in his hand and repeated the previous words. He wanted to say a few more words, but for a moment he was speechless and didn't know what to say. Finally, with the intervention of the judge, he stammered and ended his speech.

"The defense lawyer of the appellant Zhou Jiangmeng spoke." said the presiding judge.

"Previous Judge, Judge: The defense lawyer believes that in this case, after the appellant Zhou Jiangming picked up Li Yuangong's passbook, he used the method of guessing the withdrawal password to illegally withdraw other people's bank deposits.

The appellant's above-mentioned behavior includes both the act of using others' names to deceive the trust of the bank, and the act of secretly allocating a withdrawal password and withdrawing other people's bank deposits without the knowledge of others. But in the final analysis, the appellant's behavior is a fraudulent act, which should be classified as fraud. The specific reasons are as follows:

1. Generally speaking, stealing other people's property and fictitiously concealing the truth and defrauding others' property are both acts that occur without the owner of the property and the custodian's knowledge, but the meanings of the two are different.

In the process of stealing other people's property, "uninformed" refers to the owner of the property and the custodian who has no awareness of the objective behavior of the perpetrator (or the perpetrator subjectively believes that it has not been discovered). From this, it can be seen that during the entire theft process, there is no problem of the owner of the property and the custodian participating and cooperation.

However, in the process of fictitious concealing facts and defrauding property, "unawareness" is manifested as the owner of the property. The custodian does not know the truth based on his wrong understanding, which is ignorant of the nature of the behavior. During the entire fraud process, the owner of the property and the custodian are directly involved.

2. In terms of obtaining property and transferring property, generally speaking, stealing property is an act of unilaterally accomplished by the perpetrator without consciously the owner of the property. Fraud is the act of the owner of the property. When the custodian falls into a wrong understanding, he regards the fictional facts as real facts and consciously disposes the property.

3. As a property-type crime, this case is essentially infringement of property ownership, and the acquisition of property is the key to the characterization of this case.

The appellant in this case cracked the password held by others by guessing the withdrawal password of others, which can be regarded as a kind of stealing act. However, guessing the password does not mean that he has obtained other people's deposits, but it is just a means to further obtain other people's deposits. Moreover, the password itself is worthless and therefore does not have independent legal significance.

In this case, before Zhou Jiangmeng obtained Li Yuangong's bank deposit through the above method, the deposit was completely under the control and domination of the bank. Zhou Jiangmeng's ability to successfully withdraw other people's deposits was achieved through bank delivery by the bank's trust, and the bank has a clear understanding of the delivery of deposits.

The trust of the bank is based on a wrong judgment, which is the result of Zhou Jiangmeng concealing the truth and impersonating others' names so that the bank does not understand the truth and mistakenly believes that it has the legal qualification to withdraw funds. Therefore, such behavior is a typical fraudulent act.

To sum up, the appellant Zhou Jiangmeng illegally withdraws deposits from others by guessing the password is a fraudulent act, and his behavior should be convicted and punished for fraud.

Given that the appellant was a first-time offender and occasionally offender, and all the stolen money was recovered after the incident, and after being arrested, he had a good attitude of pleading guilty, the defense lawyer suggested that he be sentenced to three years in prison. It was finished." Fang Yi expressed his defense opinion and looked at the presiding judge.

The first draft of the defense opinion was written by Yun Qiao. Fang Yi gave Yun Qiao a way of thinking and then tried to let her write the defense opinion. After getting Yun Qiao's first draft, Fang Yi made several revisions, and the final defense opinion was far from Yun Qiao's first draft.

Although the first draft of the defense opinion was modified by Fang Yi, Yun Qiao was very excited because his master asked her to start writing the defense opinion and finally got into the core part of the case. But she knew that she still needed to learn a lot. In Fang Yi's words, Yun Qiao's defense opinion was more like a small paper and there was too much nonsense.

"The prosecutor is now speaking." said the presiding judge.

"Previous Judge, Judge: The prosecutor believes that the appellant Zhou Jiang took out someone else's passbook and took it for himself, and his behavior was essentially an act of possession.

After that, the appellant used the guessed passbook password to maliciously withdraw more than 140,000 yuan many times. After illegally taking other people's property for himself, he burned other people's passbook and refused to return it. His behavior should constitute the crime of embezzlement.

We recommend that the defendant be sentenced to five years in prison, and it will be completed." Fang Yi was stunned by the words of the prosecutor.

OK? In the first instance, the procuratorate and the court both found Zhou Jiangmeng guilty of theft. In the second instance, the defense lawyer believed that it should constitute fraud, while the municipal procuratorate believed that the first instance court had wrongly identified the case and that the appellant should constitute embezzlement. Now the case has been changed from option AB to option ABC. I don’t know if the presiding judge will make another D, so that the three missing one is more perfect.

In the judge's seat, the presiding judge's brain was thinking quickly.

"The prosecutor can respond to the defense counsel's defense opinion." said the presiding judge.

"Okay, presiding judge. We have expressed our views as follows on the defense attorney's defense:

In this case, after the appellant Zhou Jiang suddenly picked up the passbook that Li Yuangong had dropped under the bench, he should have returned the passbook to Li Yuangong, but he did not return it in time, thus forming a custody relationship between the two.

The bank passbook under the bench should essentially be Li Yuangong's forgotten property. Appellant Zhou Jiangmeng took Li Yuangong's bank passbook and refused to return it. His behavior violated Article 270 of the Criminal Law and should constitute the crime of embezzlement. It was completed." The prosecutor responded.

"The defense lawyer can respond to the prosecutor's opinion." After a moment, the presiding judge said.

“Based on the prosecutor’s defense opinion and response, the defense lawyer expresses the following defense opinion:

The defense lawyer believes that the appellant Zhou Jiang Meng picked up the lost bank passbook of Li Yuangong and then withdraws the deposits, which is not an act of embezzlement and should not be convicted and punished for the crime of embezzlement. The reasons are as follows:

First, the prerequisite for the embezzlement is that the perpetrator illegally takes the property of others legally held for himself, and the object of his crime should be the property owned by others that has been legally held by the perpetrator.

In this case, although the evidence in the case cannot exclude the legal holding of the bank passbook of the appellant Zhou Jiangmeng, it cannot be concluded that Zhou Jiangmeng has already legally held the deposit under the passbook.

Because the victim Li Yuangong had a withdrawal password on the passbook, losing the passbook does not mean that he lost control of the money in the passbook. Zhou Jiang found the passbook and did not obtain legal right to hold the money under the passbook. Therefore, the money in the bank passbook was not the object of being occupied, and there was no object of being occupied in this case." When he said this, Fang Yi paused for no reason, his throat was too dry.
Chapter completed!