Authors' information:

Bingwan Xiong: Professor and Doctoral Supervisor, Faculty of Law, Renmin University of China

Yi Shen: Master in law, Faculty of Law, Renmin University of China

Ziyi Chen: Master in law, Faculty of Law, Renmin University of China

Abstract

A prevalent view in both scholarly discussions and judicial practice argues that due to the non-property right nature of virtual property, crimes involving virtual property may not fit well in traditional categories of crimes against property. Instead, these offenses primarily infringe upon public order and should be classified accordingly. However, recent studies in civil law suggest that the legal nature of virtual property rights is merely a matter of interpretation, with both property rights and creditor's rights theories providing viable legal and theoretical framework for their protection. Moreover, the people's courts generally define the rights and interests in virtual property as creditor's rights held by internet users. We argue that being based on continuous contract, even if virtual property is interpreted as creditor's rights, a large number of crimes related to it can be appropriately addressed under the realm of theft and other categories of crimes against property. Like tangible assets, virtual property serves vital socio-economic functions, including meeting basic needs and fostering personal development. Integrating virtual property-related crimes into property crimes helps to enhance the interpretive clarity and coherence of civil and criminal provisions. Judicial policy should differentiate between crimes using data to infringe upon others' virtual property rights and those that disturb public order in virtual environments. The former should be specifically classified under offenses such as theft, fraud, or professional embezzlement, thereby avoiding potential “catch-all crime” is sue associated with indiscriminate use of public order offenses.