转自：北京日报客户端 看似"拿"自己的东西，实则已触犯刑法。陈某利用"先享后付"的购物模式，精心设计并实施盗窃，触犯 刑法。近日，湖北省蕲春县检察院以涉嫌盗窃罪依法对陈某作出批捕决定，案件正在进一步办理中。 2025年11月初，陈某在网络租赁平台利用"先享后付"的以租代买方式订下一台手机。按照平台规则，他 只需先行支付100元押金，待手机到达快递点验货并支付租金即可完成交易。数日后，手机如期抵达快 递服务点。陈某前往验货，确认手机崭新无误后，却以"一时资金不便"为由，未当场支付租金，也未办 理签收，而是将手机暂时留在了快递点。当日深夜，他趁四下无人，翻窗潜入快递点，盗走自己白天验 看过的手机。得手后，陈某迅速将手机以3500元的价格转卖给一家二手手机店。其后，快递点发现上述 快递消失后向公安机关报案。 案件很快告破，公安机关以陈某涉嫌盗窃罪将该案移送蕲春县检察院审查批捕。 "我拿的是我自己名下的快递，怎么能算偷？"陈某辩解道。承办检察官方玉向其释法说理，"以租代 买"模式下，陈某支付100元押金仅为订立租赁合同的担保，在未付清全部约定租金前，手机的所有权仍 属于租赁平台或销售方，陈某仅享有依约支付租金后取得手 ...

300万元贷款从天而降 80后姚某曾在英国留学，经营着一家实际上无任何项目的贸易公司。2020年，一次朋友聚会上，在国企工作的小飞和姚某相识。在小飞眼里，姚某是妥妥 的"白富美"，这是因为姚某穿着奢华，自诩是金融投资人，丈夫是某知名集团的继承人。 2022年1月，一次聊天中，姚某向小飞透露自己丈夫的公司即将在国外上市，可以连带相关附属企业一并上市，因她名下公司过多，问小飞能不能代为充 当一家新成立公司的法定代表人，并许诺相应报酬。小飞心动了，将注册公司法定代表人所需的材料提供给姚某。同月，小飞成为一家公司挂名的法定代 表人。 2022年2月26日，为感谢小飞的帮助，姚某请他吃饭，同行的还有她的"朋友"谭某、李某（两人实际为贷款中介）。饭局上，姚某一边与小飞聊天，一边 以公司变更登记为由，让谭某、李某用小飞的手机操作，并要求小飞刷脸。出于对姚某的信任，小飞并未细看就照办了。 然而，几个月后，小飞收到了某金融机构催促他偿还300万元贷款的信息。这时，他才发现自己和挂名法定代表人的公司向某金融机构贷款300万元。 小飞意识到被骗了，多次联系姚某无果后，于2023年12月向当地派出所报警。 公安机关调查发现，姚某等人 ...

【#员工利用公司系统漏洞盗走2360万#】#2360万建材0元购买家潜逃被判无期# 近日，最高人民检察院 发布一起利用网络销售系统漏洞实施的特大盗窃案：某公司唯一具有销售系统"超级管理员"权限的员 工，利用系统漏洞，内外勾结，盗窃公司货款2360万余元。河南省禹州市某建材公司于2021年初引进了 一套销售系统，并把唯一的"超级管理员"权限授权给了公司员工张某。张某在测试系统时发现，如果将 系统中完成实际交易的订单作废，货款可返回购买方的预付金账户。张某将这一漏洞告知同事李某，并 经李某介绍，结识了有业务往来的销售公司老板王某、法定代表人连某。随后4人合谋，由张某远程登 录系统，秘密作废了该销售公司的采购订单，共删除8635条记录，致使已支付货款约2360万余元退回到 了王某的公司账户并被瓜分。2023年2月19日，张某所在公司发现购买数据被人为删除后，向公安机关 报案。张某于次日主动投案，但辩称其利用工作权限作案，应认定为职务侵占罪，而非盗窃罪。检察机 关认为，张某等4人以非法占有为目的，采用秘密手段窃取他人财物，数额特别巨大，应依法认定为盗 窃罪。许昌市中级人民法院以盗窃罪判处王某、张某、李某、连某4人无期 ...

本报讯（通讯员范子懿 王明慧）随着网游发展，账号交易司空见惯。然而，湖北建始的周某却在将账 号售出后，通过申诉渠道再次找回，以此获利。 作为网游爱好者，周某深知高等级的游戏账号具有较高市场价值。2024年7月30日，周某通过二手交易 平台将自己的一款游戏账号售出。钱款到账后，他又以找回QQ账号的方式申诉，将已售出的账号找 回。 同年9月，他先后3次将该账号卖给他人，又以同样的手法找回，累计获利近5000元。买家付款后发现被 骗，向平台申请退款。平台向周某多次追款未果后报警。 2025年4月，公安机关将该案移送建始县检察院审查起诉。经检察官释法说理，周某如实供述犯罪事 实，自愿认罪认罚，向被害人赔偿损失并取得谅解。 该院审查认为，周某以非法占有为目的，多次秘密窃取他人财物，数额较大，其行为构成盗窃罪，鉴于 周某犯罪情节轻微，具有自首、赔偿被害人损失并取得谅解等情节，且自愿认罪认罚，可依法从宽处 罚。 2025年11月24日，该院依法对周某作出不起诉处理，并向公安机关提出给予其行政处罚的检察意见。公 安机关采纳了检察意见，对周某给予相应行政处罚。 ...

案发后，被告人杨某某主动向公安机关退赃人民币120元。另查明，案发后，上述被盗现金已发还被害 单位。 广州市南沙区人民法院一审判决：被告人杨某某犯盗窃罪，判处拘役四个月，并处罚金人民币二千元。 该判决已生效。 法院提醒，功德箱里的钱并非无主之物，以非法占有为目的私自将这些善款财物转移、窃取，属于盗窃 行为，将被追究法律责任。 （原标题：男子凌晨拿走景区功德箱善款5000多元，被判刑！） 据广州日报报道，佛寺庙宇中功德箱里的钱是香客捐赠的善款，不曾想却有人打起了这些善款的主意， 最终落入法网。近日，涉案被告人因犯盗窃罪被法院追究刑事责任。 2024年2月某日凌晨，被告人杨某某来到广州某景区，盗窃景区内一处民间信仰场所功德箱内善款现金 人民币5681.4元，得手后将其中的120元用于个人消费。不久后，被告人杨某某被公安机关抓获归案， 公安机关从被告人杨某某处缴获涉案盗窃的现金人民币5561.4元。 ...

Incident Overview - A guest at an esports-themed homestay in Dalian Development Zone stole all gaming equipment after failing to pay rent for several days, with the total value of the equipment amounting to 27,000 yuan [6][9]. Guest Behavior - The guest initially checked in on July 24, claiming to stay for a week but later requested to extend the stay for a month, promising to pay rent every few days [2]. - The guest began delaying payments from August 14, citing various excuses such as a "frozen bank card" [2]. Suspicious Actions - The guest refused housekeeping services on August 17, claiming his girlfriend was resting in the room, while still sending videos to the host to show he was present [3]. - On August 30, the host discovered that the hallway surveillance camera had been tampered with, raising suspicions [4]. Theft Discovery - Upon entering the guest's room on August 31, the host found all gaming equipment missing, with only an empty box for a 28-inch suitcase left behind [4][6]. Guest's Justification - When contacted, the guest claimed he intended to "borrow" the equipment to "test run" an esports homestay he wanted to open in his hometown, stating he took everything to avoid refusal [7][8]. Legal Actions - The host reported the incident to the police, and the guest showed no fear of legal consequences, suggesting that a legal process would be acceptable [9]. - A lawyer indicated that the guest's actions constituted theft, as the total value of the stolen items met the threshold for criminal prosecution [10].

Core Viewpoint - The case involving over a hundred truck drivers accused of theft of fertilizer from a single company highlights the complexities of ownership and loss in the transportation industry, raising questions about the legality of their actions and the definition of theft in this context [1][4][12]. Summary by Sections Case Background - The case involves 137 truck drivers accused of stealing fertilizer from Jin Kai Company, with evidence including direct transactions and confessions from some drivers [5][6]. - The drivers allegedly sold excess fertilizer, which was often considered "gifts" due to weight discrepancies during weighing processes [4][7]. Legal and Industry Context - The legal definition of theft requires a victim, leading to disputes over the ownership of the sold fertilizer [12][13]. - The transportation industry often operates under informal rules, where drivers may sell excess goods, a practice that is widespread but rarely prosecuted [8][11]. Evidence and Charges - Evidence includes transaction records and confessions, but many drivers deny any wrongdoing, claiming their actions were common practice [5][8]. - The police initially identified theft amounts ranging from thousands to tens of thousands, later revised to a few thousand or less due to the nature of the transactions [8][9]. Industry Practices - The practice of selling excess goods is described as a "hidden rule" within the trucking industry, with many drivers acknowledging its prevalence [9][11]. - Drivers often face penalties for short deliveries, leading to a culture where selling excess goods becomes a coping mechanism for financial losses [11][15]. Legal Opinions - Legal scholars are divided on whether the drivers' actions constitute theft, with some arguing that the excess goods were effectively the property of the buyers, while others maintain that the drivers illegally appropriated company property [12][15]. - The case has drawn attention to the need for clearer definitions of ownership and loss in the context of transportation contracts [13][16].

Core Viewpoint - The case involving over a hundred truck drivers accused of stealing fertilizer from a single company has been ongoing for three years, with legal ambiguities surrounding the ownership of the sold goods and the definition of theft in this context [1][2][16]. Group 1: Case Background - The case began in May 2022 when several truck drivers were caught selling bags of fertilizer from their loads, leading to the arrest of over 130 drivers [4][3]. - Evidence against the drivers includes direct admissions of selling stolen goods, transaction records, and the capture of individuals selling the stolen fertilizer [1][4]. - The police initially identified a significant amount of theft, but the estimated value of the stolen goods has since decreased from tens of thousands to amounts below 30,000 yuan [1][9]. Group 2: Industry Practices - In the freight industry, it is common for sellers to provide extra goods to ensure buyers receive sufficient quantities, which the drivers have exploited by selling these "bonus" items [5][6]. - The practice of manipulating weight measurements using techniques to create discrepancies is widespread among truck drivers, with some drivers openly discussing these methods in industry groups [9][10]. - The drivers involved in the case argue that their actions are a common industry practice and do not constitute theft, as no party has suffered a loss [6][12]. Group 3: Legal Ambiguities - A central legal question is the ownership of the fertilizer sold by the drivers, with conflicting opinions on whether the goods belonged to the company or the buyers at the time of sale [16][17]. - Legal experts are divided on whether the drivers' actions constitute theft, with some arguing that the excess goods should be considered a loss accepted by the company, while others maintain that the company retains ownership [18][17]. - The ongoing legal proceedings have resulted in some drivers being convicted, while many others remain in limbo as the case continues to unfold [14][16].