Jing An People's Procuratorate of Shanghai Municipality v. Zhu Jianyong
(Case concerning the Crime of Intentional Destruction of Property)@#
@#
@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Public Prosecution Organ: Jing An People's Procuratorate of Shanghai Municipality.@#
Defendant: Zhu Jianyong, male, 44 years old, resident of Shanghai Municipality, and arrested on July 24, 2002.@#
Jing An People's Procuratorate of Shanghai Municipality filed a public prosecution to Jing An People's Court of Shanghai Municipality against Zhu Jianyong (hereinafter referred to as Zhu) for the crime of intentional destruction of property.@#
The bill of indictment said that: In order to give vent to his personal spite, Zhu logged on the stock commissioned trading account of someone else and altered its passwords, and bought stocks at a high price and then sold them at a low price on the said account, and thus caused more than 190,000 yuan of losses to the said someone else. After the case occurred, Zhu compensated for all the losses. Zhu's acts violate Article 275 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China and constituted the crime of intentional destruction of property. After committing the crime, Zhu voluntarily surrendered himself to justice, and should be given a minor penalty. The prosecutor pleaded with the court to investigate for Zhu's criminal liabilities.@#
In order to prove the facts for the said accusation, the prosecutor submitted to the court the statements of the victim, the testimonies, the crime site map, the securities client information, the securities transaction report, and the summary report on losses, etc.@#
Zhu and his defender held no objection to the facts as accused, but his defender maintained that: (1) the stock prices changed very often, and in the stock speculation, there was no intentional pursuit of losses so as to reduce the value. Seen from the account, the said purchase and sales might cause losses, however, along with the change of stock prices, the aforesaid transactions might also bring about profits or might be considered as timely sales, otherwise, larger losses might be suffered. This feature of stocks decided that the social harms from buying or selling the stocks of others would not be obvious or certain, thus, Zhu's acts lacked social harms, and Zhu should not be given a criminal penalty. The purchase or sales of stocks of someone else by Zhu might really destroy the property and encroach on the property rights and interests of that person. However, the damages for infringement and compensations between Zhu and the infringed party should be adjusted by the civil law. (2) The crime of intentional destruction of property as prescribed in Article 275 of the Criminal Law refers to the act of intentionally destroying public or private property, and the amount involved is relatively large or there are other serious circumstances. The object infringed upon in this crime should have a solid shape, could be seen and touched, and the intangible property or property rights should not be the object of this crime. Stocks are the securities as issued by joint-stock limited companies and the vouchers of property rights, and could not become the criminal object of the crime of intentional destruction of property. (3) Stocks are not like common property, and their prices would be under constant fluctuation. There are not only the real-time price, the highest price on the current day, the lowest price on the current day, but also the average price, transaction price, and closing price, etc. for the stocks. If the stocks are taken as the criminal object of the crime of intentional destruction of property, the calculation of the amount of losses has not been prescribed in the current laws and judicial interpretations, and the conviction would become a tough issue. (4) Even if the acts of Zhu constituted a crime, but he committed this crime for the first time and voluntarily surrendered himself to justice, and compensated for all the economic losses to the victim, so the social harms were not serious, and Zhu should be given a mitigated punishment.@#
．．．．．．

上海市静安区人民检察院诉朱建勇故意毁坏财物案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
被告人为泄私愤，侵入他人股票交易账户并修改密码，在他人股票交易账户内，采用高进低出股票的手段，造成他人资金损失数额巨大的行为，构成刑法第二百七十五条规定的故意毁坏财物罪。@#
@#
公诉机关：上海市静安区人民检察院。@#
被告人：朱建勇，男，44岁，上海市人，2002年7月24日被逮捕。@#
上海市静安区人民检察院以被告人朱建勇犯故意毁坏财物罪，向上海市静安区人民法院提起公诉。@#
起诉书指控：被告人朱建勇为泄私愤，侵入他人的股票委托交易账户并篡改密码，在他人账户内高价买进股票然后低价卖出，造成他人账户内的资金损失19万余元。案发后，朱建勇赔偿了给他人造成的全部损失。朱建勇的行为触犯了《中华人民共和国刑法》第二百七十五条的规定，构成故意毁坏财物罪。朱建勇犯罪后有自首情节，依照刑法第六十七条的规定，应从轻处罚。请依法追究朱建勇的刑事责任。@#
为证明上述指控事实，公诉人向法庭提交了被害人陈述、证人证言、作案现场示意图、证券客户信息、证券交易成交报告单、损失情况汇总表等证据。@#
被告人朱建勇及其辩护人对起诉书指控的事实无异议。辩护人认为：（1）股票行情千变万化，在股票炒作中，不存在故意追求损失便会减少价值的情况。从账面看，当初的买进或者抛出可能是损失的，但随着以后行情变化，可能会赢利，或者会认为幸亏及时抛出，否则将遭受更大损失。这个特点，决定了买进或抛出他人的股票，社会危害性不明显、不确定。这种行为缺乏社会危害性这一显著特征，不能依犯罪处理。朱建勇买进或抛出他人的股票，确实有可能损害他人的财产，是对他人财产权益的侵犯。朱建勇与被侵权人之间的侵权损害赔偿关系，应当用民法来调整。（2）刑法第二百七十五条规定的故意毁坏财物罪，是指故意毁坏公私财物，数额较大或者情节严重的行为。此罪侵犯的对象，应当是具备一定固体形态，看得见、摸得着的物，无形财产或者财产权利不是本罪对象。股票是股份有限公司发行的有价证券，是财产权利凭证，不能成为故意毁坏财物罪的犯罪对象。（3）股票不同于一般财物，其价格呈不断波动状态，有即时行情、当日最高价、当日最低价、平均价、成交价、收盘价等。如果将股票作为故意毁坏财物罪的犯罪对象，那么犯罪数额如何计算，法律和司法解释没有规定，将是定罪的一个难题。（4）即使朱建勇的行为构成犯罪，因其是初犯，且有自首情节，并赔偿了被害人的全部经济损失，社会危害性不大，依法应给予减轻处罚。@#
上海市静安区人民法院经审理查明：@#
2002年4月29日至5月10日，被告人朱建勇利用事先获悉的账号和密码，侵入被害人陆正辉、赵佩花夫妇在证券营业部开设的股票交易账户，然后篡改了密码，并使用陆、赵夫妇的资金和股票，采取高进低出的方法进行股票交易。5月16日，朱建勇再次作案时被当场发现。按照股票成交平均价计算，用首次作案时该账户内的股票与资金余额，减去案发时留有的股票与资金余额，朱建勇共给陆、赵夫妇的账户造成资金损失19．7万余元。朱建勇被发现后，立即如实供认了全部事实，并赔偿了陆、赵夫妇的经济损失。@#
．．．．．．