A credit card is a credit certificate issued by a bank or a non-bank financial institution (usually a professional credit card company) to an entity or individual with good credit status, which can be used to withdraw cash and make purchases and purchases at specially appointed merchants. In our country, since the launch of credit card business activities in the mid-1980s, criminal activities using credit cards to commit fraud have occurred from time to time. Since there are no provisions on the crime of credit card fraud in my country's 1979 Criminal Law, in judicial practice, credit card fraud that constitutes a crime is generally punished as a crime of fraud. However, although the crime of credit card fraud and the crime of ordinary property fraud both belong to the category of fraud crime, compared with the crime of ordinary fraud, the crime of credit card fraud is different in terms of criminal means, behavior, objects of infringement, and social harm. Has its own characteristics. Therefore, the scientific approach in legislation should be to separate the crime of credit card fraud from the crime of ordinary fraud and stipulate it as an independent crime. Based on this, the "Decision on Punishing Crimes that Disrupt Financial Order" adopted by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on June 30, 1995 added the crime of credit card fraud. Article 196 of the revised Criminal Code on March 14, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the New Criminal Law) Article retains this crime. Regarding this crime, my country's criminal law academic community has conducted relatively in-depth research, but there are considerable differences in understanding of several issues. This article intends to share my personal views on several controversial issues surrounding the understanding of the concept and constitutive characteristics of this crime, in order to educate colleagues.

1. Definition of the concept of the crime of credit card fraud

As for the expression of the concept of the crime of credit card fraud, there are theoretically different opinions and different opinions. To sum up, there are mainly the following views: (1) The crime of credit card fraud refers to the act of carrying out credit card fraud activities with a large amount under one of the statutory circumstances. [①] (2) The crime of credit card fraud refers to the act of using credit cards to conduct fraudulent activities for the purpose of illegal possession and to defraud a relatively large amount of property. [②] (3) The crime of credit card fraud refers to the act of using forged or invalid credit cards for the purpose of illegal possession, or fraudulently using other people’s credit cards, or using credit cards to maliciously overdraft, to defraud large amounts of public or private property. [③](4) The crime of credit card fraud refers to the act of violating credit card management regulations and defrauding others of large amounts of property by using forged or invalid credit cards, fraudulently using other people's credit cards, or malicious overdrafts for the purpose of illegal possession. [④]

The author believes that for the concept of credit card fraud, fully revealing its essential characteristics and complying with the provisions of criminal law are the basic requirements for accurately defining this concept. From this point of view, among the above four more representative expressions, except for the fourth expression which is more scientific, the other three expressions are all worthy of discussion. First of all, the first two expressions have the defect of circular definition. Using "carrying out credit card fraud activities" or "using credit cards to carry out fraudulent activities" to explain the "crime of credit card fraud" is obviously a tautology and violates the logical rules of the definition. The precise connotation of this crime cannot be understood at all. Secondly, the shortcoming of the first statement is that it does not clarify the subjective characteristics of the crime of credit card fraud. Article 196 of the New Criminal Law, except for "malicious overdraft" which clearly stipulates "for the purpose of illegal possession", does not limit the subjective characteristics of the other three behavioral modes of credit card fraud. Despite this, the common view in criminal law theory is that whether illegal possession is for the purpose of possession is the key to distinguishing the crime of credit card fraud from non-crimes. For example, borrowing someone else's credit card for shopping is also a fraudulent act of using a credit card. However, the borrower has no subjective purpose of illegally possessing the cardholder's property, so the act of using someone else's credit card cannot constitute a crime. From the requirement that the concept of expression should fully reveal the essential characteristics of things, the subjective characteristics of "illegal possession for the purpose" should be clearly reflected in the concept of credit card fraud crime. Thirdly, the first three expressions all miss the feature of "violation of credit card management regulations" which is the prerequisite for the establishment of the crime of credit card fraud. It should be noted that credit card fraud is a statutory crime. The so-called statutory crime refers to a crime based on the violation of specific laws and regulations. In the expression of the concept of the crime of credit card fraud, there is no mention of the characteristics that are the prerequisites for establishing the crime, which is obviously contrary to the statutory attributes of the crime. Finally, the fourth expression avoids the above-mentioned defects of the first three expressions, reveals the basic characteristics of the crime of credit card fraud more comprehensively, and is consistent with the provisions of the new criminal law on this crime, so it is desirable.

2. The criminal object and criminal object of the crime of credit card fraud

(1) The criminal object

As for the criminal object of this crime, the following exist in the criminal law circles of our country Several different understandings: (1) The object of this crime is the ownership of public and private property. [⑤] (2) The object of this crime is the state’s management system for credit cards. [⑥] (3) The object of this crime is the country’s financial management system. [⑦] (4) The object of this crime is a complex object, including not only the state’s management system for credit cards, but also the ownership of public and private property. [⑧] (5) The object of this crime is a complex object, which simultaneously infringes upon the state’s management order of financial activities and public and private property ownership. [⑨] (6) The object of this crime is a complex object, namely public and private property ownership, bank financial management order (system) and merchant operation and management order (system). [⑩]

The author believes that among the above six views, except for the fourth view which is more desirable, the other views are obviously inappropriate.

First of all, the first and second views obviously do not reveal the full content of the social harm of credit card fraud, and are one-sided. On the one hand, the crime of credit card fraud directly infringes the national credit card management system. This is its essence as a type of financial crime and the main manifestation of the social harm of this type of crime. [11] On the other hand, using credit cards to commit fraud also infringes upon public and private property ownership. Credit card fraud crimes manifest themselves in different ways, and the nature of the public and private property ownership infringed and the rights holders are also different. If a perpetrator uses a forged credit card to withdraw cash or uses a credit card to make a malicious overdraft, it will mainly infringe upon the property ownership of the financial institution; if a forged credit card is used for shopping and settlement, and the person is defrauded due to the lax review of the special merchant, the direct economic losses will be borne by the special merchant. To bear the responsibility, it is the property ownership of the special merchant that is infringed at this time; if someone else's credit card is used fraudulently, it is the cardholder who suffers economic losses, that is, the property ownership is infringed. No matter which method is used to commit fraud, the ownership of public and private property protected by the state has been infringed. [12] In addition, according to the principle that the classification of similar objects of crime is an important basis for establishing a system of criminal law, if the first view can be established, this crime should not be set up in the chapter of crimes of undermining the socialist market economic order. , but should be classified as a crime of infringement of property, which shows that the first view is also obviously contrary to the spirit of criminal legislation. It should also be pointed out that the first view undoubtedly obliterates the differences in the object level of credit card fraud, which is a type of economic fraud crime, and ordinary fraud crimes.

Secondly, the third, fifth, and sixth views believe that the crime of credit card fraud violates the financial management order (system), is too broad, and does not fully reveal the essential characteristics of the crime. The country's financial management order (system) is very rich in content, including not only the credit card management system, but also the management system for currency, foreign exchange, securities, loans, insurance, letters of credit, etc. However, the direct objects of the crime of credit card fraud include only The credit card management system is one of the contents of the financial management system and does not affect the management of other aspects of the financial system. Therefore, other aspects of the financial management system cannot be regarded as the direct object content of this crime; at the same time, such a statement does not reflect the The essence of this crime cannot reflect the difference in direct objects between this crime and other types of financial crimes, so its unique function in distinguishing this crime from that crime no longer exists.

Thirdly, the sixth view is that the object of the crime of credit card fraud also includes the business management order (system) of the merchant, which is also untenable. Because the business management order (system) is not necessarily violated by this crime. For example, if you use someone else's credit card to withdraw cash, it is difficult to say that the merchant's interests will be affected in any way. Moreover, more importantly, the merchant operation and management order (system) can be completely included in the national credit card management system, and there is no need to conduct a separate evaluation.

Finally, the fourth viewpoint has an appropriate understanding of the object of the crime of credit card fraud and is in line with the actual situation of the object of this crime. However, it should be further clarified that the state's credit card management system is the main object of this crime, so as to show that the legislators have included this crime in the crime of undermining the socialist market economic order, and the purpose is to emphasize the protection of the credit card management system in this legislation. Thought.

(2) Target of crime

Theoretical understanding of the target of this crime is also quite inconsistent.

Generally speaking, there are two views: one view is that the object of this crime is, at the essential level, non-materialized bank credit; at the non-essential level, it is cash currency and commodity currency that exist in the form of social commodities. , goods and services and the credit card itself. [13] Another view is that the object of this crime is credit cards. [14]

The author believes that neither of the above two views correctly defines the object of this crime. First of all, the first view holds that the object of this crime includes dematerialized bank credit, which obviously confuses the content of the object of this crime with the object of this crime. In fact, this crime infringes upon the credit card management system, which is the content of the credit card management system. According to the understanding of the first point of view, the criminal object of credit card fraud that infringes on the bank's credit can only be the bank's unique financial business management order. [15] The problem is that the relationship between the crime object and the crime object is the relationship between essence and phenomenon. The crime object is the external manifestation of the crime object, and the crime object is the inner essence of the crime object. Here, bank credit itself is not an element of the phenomenon, but an integral part of social relations. Specifically, bank credit itself is an internal element of the bank's unique financial business management order, rather than bank credit expressing and reflecting the financial business management order. Secondly, both views believe that credit cards are the object of this crime, which is also untenable. Although the credit card itself has a material form, that is, a plastic card, which is used as a voucher for commodity transactions in the circulation field and embodies a certain monetary function. However, in order for this monetary function to be realized in reality, it must rely on the actual use of the credit card. . Therefore, simply possessing a credit card will never infringe upon the ownership of public or private property. Only when a credit card is used to commit criminal activities to defraud public or private property will the ownership of public or private property be infringed. In this case, the credit card is only the form of means used for fraud, rather than the specific object that is violated by the crime. Accordingly, when a credit card is used to commit a crime of fraud, what expresses and reflects the ownership of public and private property is not the credit card itself, but the public and private property obtained by using the credit card to commit fraud. Therefore, the criminal targets of credit card fraud should be public and private property.

3. Objective aspects of the crime of credit card fraud

(1) The objective behavior of this crime

1. Use counterfeit credit cards. Regarding the "use of counterfeit credit cards" stipulated in Article 196 of the New Criminal Law, some people theoretically interpret it as referring to the act of knowingly using a counterfeit credit card to defraud others of their property. [16] The author believes that this explanation has two flaws: First, it adds the subjective aspect of this crime when discussing the objective behavioral manifestations of this crime. "Knowingly" is obviously the subjective aspect of this crime, and including it in the objective aspect of this crime has the disadvantage of indistinguishable objective and subjective aspects. Second, there is the problem of circular explanation, which cannot clearly grasp the precise meaning of "using counterfeit credit cards".

To correctly explain "using a counterfeit credit card", the key is to clarify the meaning of "use" and "counterfeit credit card". Some people understand that "use" here refers to the act of exercising or utilizing a credit card according to one's own needs, including using credit cards to make purchases and receive paid services. [17] This is one-sided. In fact, any use of a counterfeit credit card as a real and valid credit card for normal functions should be classified as "use". Judging from the credit cards currently issued by various countries, credit cards have the following basic functions: transfer settlement function, savings function, exchange function, consumer credit function, and automatic deposit and withdrawal function. [18] The above understanding of usage only covers the transfer settlement function of credit cards. The “counterfeit credit card” here has been interpreted by some as referring to credit cards illegally manufactured using various methods, [19] which is too general. Because such an explanation probably cannot exclude "altered credit cards". The so-called "altered credit card" refers to a credit card that is illegally created by a natural person or entity that has no right to change the content recorded on the credit card, using methods such as alteration and embedding of a real and valid credit card to change the card number, validity period and other contents of the credit card. "Counterfeit credit cards" refer to fake credit cards made by natural persons or entities without the approval or authorization of the national financial management agency, imitating real and valid credit cards and using various illegal methods.

Specifically, there are two types of counterfeit credit cards: one is a credit card that is illegally manufactured by imitating the texture, pattern, section, pattern, and magnetic stripe password of a credit card; the other is a credit card that is made by counterfeiting a real card. , that is, processing a legally manufactured blank card that has not been issued by a bank or credit card institution for official use by the user, adding the user's account number and name, and entering certain password information on the magnetic strip to make it appear that it has been issued to the user. The user's credit card. [20] The new criminal law does not stipulate that the act of altering credit cards and using altered credit cards is a crime. According to the principle of statutory crime and punishment, these two types of behaviors cannot be interpreted as including counterfeiting, even if they are more serious in social harm. Credit cards and the use of counterfeit credit cards are treated as crimes.

2. Use an expired credit card. The "use" here has basically the same meaning as the "use" in "using a counterfeit credit card". The "invalidated credit card" here is generally considered to include three situations in criminal law theory: the credit card expires automatically after exceeding the effective period of use; the cardholder stops using the credit card within the period of validity and returns the credit card to the card issuer and handles the card cancellation procedure; The credit card will be invalidated if it is reported as lost. [21] However, some people believe that an altered card should also be regarded as a "voided credit card". The so-called "altered cards" refer to invalid credit cards whose card numbers have been altered. These credit cards themselves are included in the stop-payment list due to loss or cancellation, but a certain number on the card is flattened and then a new number is stamped on it. Used to evade blacklist retrieval. Therefore, an altered card is essentially a type of counterfeit credit card. The difference is that an altered card is a counterfeit card made by the original legal cardholder or an illegal credit card holder using simple equipment to change the card number. It is included in "using counterfeit credit cards" because it is often difficult to achieve the criminal purpose of simply using a canceled credit card to defraud property. To make the canceled credit card effective without being discovered, it often requires some alteration and processing. This kind of alteration can be regarded as an integral part of "using invalid credit cards", and counterfeit credit cards are mostly represented as "re-created genuine cards" specially made by criminals or criminal groups. [22] The author believes that "invalidated credit card" refers to a credit card that was originally real and valid but lost its validity due to some legal reasons. Compared with counterfeit credit cards, invalid credit cards have a process of transforming from valid to invalid, while the former is invalid from the beginning. Since the credit card mentioned in the above point of view before being altered has been included in the stop payment list due to loss or cancellation, it means that it has lost its effectiveness. The subsequent alteration and processing behavior on the invalid credit card is purely a matter of course. an act of forgery. Therefore, it is enough to treat the altered card as a counterfeit credit card, and there is no need to treat it as a voided credit card. In addition, some commentators have pointed out that the act of altering a credit card is an act of alteration, and its invalidity is not a legal reason. Using this kind of card to commit fraud does not necessarily rely on "time difference". [23] This view takes note of the differences between altered cards and invalidated credit cards, and is worthy of recognition. However, it is inappropriate to characterize the act of alteration as an act of alteration. As mentioned before, the alteration behavior is based on a real and valid credit card, while the alteration behavior here is based on a credit card that has lost its validity.

3. Use someone else's credit card fraudulently. This refers to the act of using a credit card to commit fraud by pretending to be a legitimate cardholder. There are different theoretical opinions on whether the "other people's credit card" here should be valid. One view is that it should be necessary to be effective. If it is someone else's expired credit card and the actor uses it in another person's name, the overall nature of the act is "using an expired credit card" and is no longer "pretending to use someone else's credit card". The act of fraudulently using other people's credit cards is usually done before the cardholder notices the loss of the credit card and reports it lost, or takes advantage of the time difference in stop payment management to conduct fraudulent activities by forging other people's ID cards and imitating the cardholder's signature. This also includes the perpetrator's use of Obtain other people's credit cards and ID cards by deceptive means to withdraw cash or make purchases. [24] Another view is that the credit card used fraudulently may also be a invalid credit card [25]. The author believes that although Article 196, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Criminal Law does not clarify the attributes of "other people's credit cards", from the meaning of the word "impersonation", it should be considered that "other people's credit cards" should have the characteristics of authenticity. Characteristics of effectiveness. Because, "impersonation" means that a non-cardholder uses a credit card in the name of the cardholder without authorization but that others have the right to use.

And "using someone else's invalid credit card" can be completely included in "using an invalid credit card". However, the former view mentioned above is also contradictory in its discussion. This view affirms that "other people's credit cards" must be valid, and at the same time believes that fraudulent use can still occur after others report the loss until the special merchant receives a payment stop order. The problem is, as mentioned before, after the cardholder reports the loss, the credit card loses its validity. At this time, even if the merchant does not receive a stop payment order, the problem of fraudulent use is unlikely to occur again.

In judicial practice, the act of fraudulently using another person’s credit card specifically includes the following situations: finding another person’s lost credit card and using it fraudulently; taking advantage of the opportunity to keep the credit card for others and fraudulently using it; defrauding other people’s credit card and then fraudulently using it. Use; accept a credit card that is not the cardholder's resale and use it fraudulently. However, for stealing other people's credit cards and using them fraudulently, some people think that this is also a case of "pretending to use other people's credit cards" [26], which is obviously not true. When a credit card is stolen and used, although there is an act of fraudulent use of the credit card, since the credit card represents a symbolic property right, the theft of the credit card does not mean that the perpetrator directly possesses the property, but only through use can the symbolic value be achieved. Property rights are transformed into actual property ownership. Therefore, the perpetrator's fraudulent use after theft is a process of converting the uncertain value contained in the credit card itself into specific property, which is a continuation of the crime of theft. In this case, the legal evaluation of the theft can include the legal evaluation of the fraudulent use, which can only be punished as the crime of theft. It is not appropriate to evaluate the fraudulent use as an act constituting the crime of credit card fraud. Based on this, Article 196, paragraph 3, of the new Criminal Law clearly stipulates that anyone who steals a credit card and uses it will be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of the crime of theft.

4. Malicious overdraft. A credit card overdraft refers to a behavior in which the cardholder can still use the credit card for consumption under certain conditions within the scope of the law when the cardholder has insufficient funds or no funds in his credit card exclusive account. . Credit card overdrafts are divided into good-faith overdrafts and malicious overdrafts. The so-called malicious overdraft, according to the legislative interpretation of the new criminal law, refers to the behavior of a cardholder who overdrafts beyond the prescribed limit or within the prescribed period for the purpose of illegal possession, and fails to return the card after being called by the card-issuing bank. Regarding the specific manifestations of malicious overdrafts, in theory, there is no objection to two forms: legitimate cardholders using valid real cards to conduct malicious overdrafts, and legitimate cardholders collaborating with others to use real cards to maliciously overdraft in other places. However, there is controversy as to whether huge overdrafts used by legitimate cardholders in other places using invalid genuine cards can be regarded as "malicious overdrafts". The author believes that for legal cardholders to use invalid real cards to overdraft huge amounts in other places, because the credit card has been included in the stop-payment list by the card-issuing bank due to overuse and other reasons in this case, and has become a black card. At this time, the original legal card The large overdraft behavior of cardholders in other places is nothing more than taking advantage of the current weaknesses of relatively backward communication equipment and poor credit, and rushing to implement it before the stop payment list reaches the foreign special merchants. This is essentially the use of the original legitimate cardholder. Canceled credit card. Therefore, the view that this situation should be regarded as "using an invalid credit card" as stipulated in Article 196, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the New Criminal Law, and as "malicious overdraft" as stipulated in Item 4 of this paragraph obviously fails to pay attention to malicious intent. The credit card used for overdraft must be a real and valid credit card.

(2) "Large amount"

"Large amount" is an important part of the objective aspect of the crime of credit card fraud. Here we only discuss the nature of “larger amounts”.

As for the nature of "large amounts", criminal law theory generally believes that according to the provisions of Article 196 of the New Criminal Law, credit card fraud activities can only constitute a crime if the amount reaches a relatively large amount. Therefore, "large amount" is a necessary condition for constituting the crime of credit card fraud. If the amount is not large, it is a general illegal act and does not constitute a crime. [27] On the one hand, some scholars agree with the above-mentioned common views, but on the other hand, they believe that committing credit card fraud and being discovered before the money is defrauded is an attempted crime, [28] thus falling into a self-contradiction. among. The author believes that a correct understanding of the nature of "larger amounts" in the crime of credit card fraud depends crucially on the understanding of the significance of the amount in the crime of amount.

It should be considered that the "amount" in the amount crime does reflect the social harm of the amount crime most concentratedly, so it is not necessary to use the amount as the most important basis for determining the establishment of the amount crime. However, if it is used as the basis for determining whether the amount crime is established, It would be biased to completely ignore the circumstances other than the amount that reflect the degree of social harm of the behavior. Indeed, on the surface, the "larger amount" in the criminal law is stipulated as one of the necessary requirements for determining the establishment of a quantitative crime. However, considering the original intention of the legislation, the reason why legislators changed the "larger amount" The purpose of this condition is to provide a reminder for judicial officers to focus on the amount when determining amount crimes, thereby excluding a large number of behaviors that do not involve large amounts or do not result in any property. In addition to the crackdowns of the criminal law, in order to control the scope of crackdowns on large-scale offenders. Accordingly, whether a certain amount is reached is an important condition for constituting an amount crime, and circumstances other than the amount that reflect the social harm of the behavior are also one of the bases for determining whether the amount crime is established. Furthermore, the amount in the amount crime can be treated as a condition for the completion of the crime; when the execution of the amount crime has already begun, the minimum amount required by the criminal law to establish the completion of the crime is not reached due to reasons other than the will of the perpetrator. When requested, the attempted amount of the crime shall be established. Of course, in this case, considering the significant impact of the amount on the social harm of the crime, it can generally not be considered a crime based on this and considering all the circumstances of the case. However, if circumstances other than the amount of money possessed by the perpetrator indicate that the social harm of the behavior has reached a level that requires criminal liability, it should be treated as a crime. In addition, judging from the relevant judicial interpretation provisions of our country, [29] also contains the spirit of treating the amount in the amount crime as a condition for the completion of the crime.

IV. The criminal subject of the crime of credit card fraud

The subject of this crime is a general subject, that is, any natural person who is over 16 years old and has the ability to be criminally responsible can constitute it. According to Article 196 of the new Criminal Law, units cannot be the subject of this crime. However, there are still two diametrically opposed opinions on whether the unit should become the subject of this crime, "negative theory" and "affirmative theory". The "negative theory" believes that there is a limit on the amount of credit card use, and ordinary organizations do not need to take risks to defraud such a small amount of property. Corporate credit cards must be used by specifying the specific cardholder, so credit card fraud committed by the company is actually fraud committed by the specific cardholder. The "affirmative theory" holds that units can become the subject of this crime. In real life, there are a large number of situations where entities hold and use credit cards, which cannot rule out the possibility of entities committing credit card fraud. Moreover, not all amounts involved in credit card fraud are small, otherwise there would be no need for the criminal law to stipulate life imprisonment as the statutory maximum penalty for credit card fraud. Although the unit card is used by the designated specific cardholder, its use reflects the collective will of the unit rather than the individual will of the cardholder. For credit card fraud committed by unit cardholders in accordance with the will of the unit, of course the unit and the specific cardholder should be punished. [30] The author believes that the reasons for the "affirmation theory" are sufficient. The fact that the new criminal law does not stipulate that units can be the subject of credit card fraud is a major legislative omission and should be made up for through revision. However, before the criminal law is revised, how to deal with credit card fraud committed by units is a very real problem. In this regard, some people argue that the unit cannot be punished, but the directly responsible person in charge and other directly responsible personnel of the unit can only be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Law regarding crimes committed by natural persons. [31] It should be said that this view still has some basis. According to the provisions of Article 1 of the Supreme People's Court's "Interpretations on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Fraud Crime Cases", the directly responsible person in charge of the unit and other directly responsible personnel commit fraud in the name of the unit, and the proceeds from the fraud belong to the unit, which constitutes If a crime is committed, the above-mentioned persons shall be held criminally liable according to the crime of fraud. This explanation can be said to provide an example for how to deal with the unit that commits the act when the criminal law stipulates that the subject of a certain crime can only be a natural person. [32] The author believes that unit crimes are behaviors that are harmful to society and are clearly stipulated in the criminal law provisions of the unit as the subject of the crime. The sentencing of the directly responsible person in charge and other directly responsible personnel in the unit reflects the impact on the unit. It is a kind of sharing of criminal responsibility that should be borne by the whole group, but it does not mean that this type of person is also the subject of the unit's crime.

This shows that when a unit commits a certain act, in order to investigate the criminal liability of the person directly responsible, the premise must be that the act committed by the unit has constituted a crime. Therefore, when the unit's behavior does not constitute a crime, the pursuit of criminal responsibility on the directly responsible personnel will lead to the separation of the inevitable connection between crime and criminal responsibility, resulting in the unreasonable phenomenon of criminal liability in the absence of crime. , and obliterates the difference between the unit's behavior and the natural person's individual behavior, and forces the behavior originally controlled by the unit's will to be treated as the behavior controlled by the individual's will. When discussing theft in units, some scholars pointed out that when the criminal law does not stipulate that units can become the subject of the crime of theft, it is indeed a violation of the crime and punishment to hold the directly responsible person in charge and other directly responsible personnel in the unit criminally responsible for the crime of theft. The legal principle is suspected. [33] It should be said that the concerns expressed by the scholar here also apply to situations where the directly responsible person is held criminally responsible for credit card fraud when dealing with corporate credit card fraud. For this reason, starting from the requirements of implementing the principle of statutory crime and punishment, before the criminal law is revised accordingly, for the credit card fraud committed by the unit, the directly responsible person in charge and other directly responsible personnel should not be held criminally responsible for the crime of credit card fraud. .