浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)
 
   2025年5月24日 星期六   首页 |  期刊介绍 |  编委会 |  投稿指南 |  信息服务 |  期刊订阅 |  联系我们 |  预印本过刊 |  浙江省高校学报研究会栏目 |  留言板 |  English Version
浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)  2022, Vol. 52 Issue (12): 40-56    DOI: 10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2022.05.118
主题栏目:数字时代的法学理论与法治建设 最新目录| 下期目录| 过刊浏览| 高级检索 |
数字资产视野下虚拟财产刑法保护困境之破解
高艳东, 何子涵
浙江大学 光华法学院,浙江 杭州 310008
Resolutions to the Dilemma of Criminal Law Protection of Virtual Property in the Perspective of Digital Assets
Gao Yandong, He Zihan
Guanghua Law School, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310008, China

全文: PDF (828 KB)   RICH HTML
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 虚拟财产的刑法保护在实践中存在定罪混乱与量刑不公的突出问题,在理论上陷入了财物与数据的二元对立划分误区。我国学者并未就虚拟财产的内涵、特征达成共识,虚拟财产的主流划分方法也未为罪名选择提供实益。实际上,虚拟财产是一个具有误导性的概念,应当用数字资产的概念取代之,两者的本体都是电磁数据。在数字时代,刑法势必突破“物必有体”的工业时代法律观念束缚,将部分数字资产进行财产化评价。根据竞争性与排他性的双重判断标准,数字资产可以划分为财物类、服务类、知产类和公益类数字资产,进而分别适用侵财类犯罪罪名和计算机犯罪等罪名予以保护。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入我的书架
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
高艳东
何子涵
关键词 虚拟财产数字资产物必有体竞争性排他性刑法保护    
Abstract:Empirical research shows that the criminal law protection of virtual property has prominent problems in practice, including the confusion of conviction and unfair sentencing. The same criminal behavior may be convicted as a crime against property or a computer crime. Theoretically, the controversy over the legal nature about virtual property falls into the misunderstanding of the binary opposition between property and data. At present, Chinese scholars have not reached a consensus on the concept and characteristics of virtual property. The prevailing view divides virtual property into three categories: “account virtual property”, “item virtual property” and “monetary virtual property”. However, this method of classification lacks substantive standards and ignores the differences in functions and characteristics between different types of virtual property. Therefore,the classification method of now is not beneficial to the identification of the legal nature disputes of virtual property.In fact, virtual property is a misleading concept. Neither “virtual” nor “property” can limit the scope of virtual property, which leads to the ambiguity of the meaning. The concept of virtual property not only fails to highlight its data nature but also ignores some data resources that have no property value. Therefore, it is necessary to redefine virtual property as digital assets, which means data resources with value and relative independence. This concept is more in line with the requirements of the times for the diversity of data resources types. In addition, digital assets have formed a mature secondary market, and criminal law should also recognize the value of digital assets. However, traditional criminal law theory believes that property should meet the requirement of tangibility. Because of intangibility, criminal law cannot regard digital assets as property, but the function of tangibility is to set the boundaries of strangers’ obligations. In the industrial age, tangibility was an efficient, intuitive, and easy-to-grasp criterion. In the digital age, there are other ways to replace the function of tangibility and delineate the boundaries of data resources. Criminal law is bound to break through the shackles of legal concepts in the industrial age, abandon the doctrine of “things must have a body”, and evaluate some digital assets as property.Due to the diversity of digital assets,the criminal law should set a substantive standard of classification to protect various digital assets differently. We should establish the dual judgment criteria, classify digital assets by rivalrousness and exclusivity. Rivalrousness refers to the limited supply of digital assets, on account of the limitations of algorithms or the capabilities of the Internet service providers. Exclusivity includes the state of excluding others’ possession in fact or the right to exclude others' possession in norms.According to the dual judgment criteria of rivalrousness and exclusivity, digital assets can be divided into “property digital assets” “service digital assets” “intellectual property digital assets” and “public welfare digital assets”. Property digital assets are both rivalrousness and exclusive, and belong to the protection domain of the crime against property. Service digital assets are only competitive, not exclusive, and belong to the protection domain of computer crime. Intellectual property digital assets, which are exclusive and noncompetitive, are protected by intellectual property crimes and other crimes, such as the crime of infringing citizens’ personal information. Public welfare digital assets are neither competitive nor exclusive, and access to such data resources does not commit crimes. This classification method can provide an operable plan for the selection of charges, and effectively solve the problem of confusion of convictions in practice.
Key wordsvirtual property    digital assets    things must have a body    rivalrousness    exclusivity    criminal law protection   
收稿日期: 2022-05-11     
基金资助:国家社科基金一般项目(18BFX100);2019年度浙江省哲学社会科学规划“地方立法”专项课题(19DFLF03YB)
作者简介: 高艳东(https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2401-1447),男,浙江大学光华法学院副教授,浙江大学检察基础理论研究中心研究员,硕士生导师,法学博士,主要从事刑法学、互联网法学研究;;何子涵(https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6311-8346),男,浙江大学光华法学院博士研究生,主要从事刑法学、刑事诉讼法学研究;
引用本文:   
高艳东, 何子涵. 数字资产视野下虚拟财产刑法保护困境之破解[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2022, 52(12): 40-56. Gao Yandong, He Zihan. Resolutions to the Dilemma of Criminal Law Protection of Virtual Property in the Perspective of Digital Assets. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2022, 52(12): 40-56.
链接本文:  
https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/CN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2022.05.118     或     https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/CN/Y2022/V52/I12/40
发表一流的成果,传播一流的发现,提供一流的新知

浙ICP备14002560号-5
版权所有 © 2009 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)    浙ICP备05074421号
地址:杭州市天目山路148号 邮编:310028 电话:0571-88273210 88925616 E-mail:zdxb_w@zju.edu.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn