Case: On October 2019,65438 10, Zhang posted a fake customer service phone number in bike-sharing on the Internet. When Wang applied for a refund of the bicycle sharing deposit through the mobile app, he encountered a system exception. Subsequently, Wang called the customer service phone announced by Zhang for help. Zhang defrauded Wang to open an "intimate payment" for Zhang's Alipay on the grounds that it was necessary to bind Alipay's "intimate payment" for a quick refund of the deposit, and immediately transferred the amount of Wang's account to 28,000 yuan. "Intimate payment" is a minimalist payment service created by Alipay for intimate relationships such as relatives and close friends. Relatives and close friends do not need the cardholder's confirmation when spending within the preset limit, and K can be paid directly from the cardholder's account.

Disagreement: There are different opinions on how to characterize Zhang's behavior in this case: some people think that Zhang's behavior constitutes fraud; There are also views that Zhang's behavior belongs to "fraudulently using other people's credit cards" and should constitute the crime of credit card fraud. The author believes that Zhang's behavior constitutes theft, and the specific reasons are as follows:

Comments: First of all, Wang has no awareness of actively disposing of property, and Zhang does not constitute fraud. The crime of fraud requires the deceived person to have a sense of punishment for the property he has been cheated, and then voluntarily deliver the property. In this case, Wang did open "intimate payment" because of Zhang's temptation, but he didn't understand the function of "intimate payment". He did not know the result of authorizing Zhang to "pay within the preset limit without confirmation" after the opening, nor did he voluntarily hand over the property to Zhang based on being cheated. Therefore, Zhang does not constitute fraud.

Secondly, Zhang's behavior does not endanger the order of credit card management and does not constitute the crime of credit card fraud. Zhang obtained the authorization of Wang's "intimate payment" by deception, and had certain possession control over the property within the set amount in his account without the confirmation of the account holder Wang. But in fact, Zhang did not illegally obtain Wang's credit card information, nor could he independently use or control Wang's account property in the name of Wang. Wang always has the right to use his Alipay account property, so Zhang's behavior did not hinder the state's management order of credit cards, did not meet the behavioral elements of credit card fraud, and did not constitute credit card fraud.

Finally, Zhang's secret transfer of Wang's account property through "intimate payment" should be characterized as theft. In this case, Zhang tricked Wang into opening the "intimate payment" just to facilitate the next transfer of property. His means was to transfer the property in Wang's account to his own hands through "intimate payment" without Wang's knowledge, which met the constitutive requirements of theft. Moreover, Article 287 of the Criminal Law stipulates that those who use computers to commit financial fraud, theft, corruption, misappropriation of public funds, theft of state secrets or other crimes shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Law. According to the applicable standard of this article, Zhang's behavior should be convicted and punished for theft.