Abstract:Empirical research shows that the criminal law protection of virtual property has prominent problems in practice, including the confusion of conviction and unfair sentencing. The same criminal behavior may be convicted as a crime against property or a computer crime. Theoretically, the controversy over the legal nature about virtual property falls into the misunderstanding of the binary opposition between property and data. At present, Chinese scholars have not reached a consensus on the concept and characteristics of virtual property. The prevailing view divides virtual property into three categories: “account virtual property”, “item virtual property” and “monetary virtual property”.However, this method of classification lacks substantive standards and ignores the differences in functions and characteristics between different types of virtual property. Therefore,the classification method of now is not beneficial to the identification of the legal nature disputes of virtual property.In fact, virtual property is a misleading concept. Neither “virtual” nor “property” can limit the scope of virtual property, which leads to the ambiguity of the meaning. The concept of virtual property not only fails to highlight its data nature but also ignores some data resources that have no property value.Therefore, it is necessary to redefine virtual property as digital assets, which means data resources with value and relative independence. This concept is more in line with the requirements of the times for the diversity of data resources types. In addition, digital assets have formed a mature secondary market, and criminal law should also recognize the value of digital assets. However, traditional criminal law theory believes that property should meet the requirement of tangibility. Because of intangibility, criminal law cannot regard digital assets as property, but the function of tangibility is to set the boundaries of strangers’ obligations. In the industrial age, tangibility was an efficient, intuitive, and easy-to-grasp criterion. In the digital age, there are other ways to replace the function of tangibility and delineate the boundaries of data resources. Criminal law is bound to break through the shackles of legal concepts in the industrial age,abandon the doctrine of “things must have a body”, and evaluate some digital assets as property.Due to the diversity of digital assets,the criminal law should set a substantive standard of classification to protect various digital assets differently. We should establish the dual judgment criteria,classify digital assets by rivalrousness and exclusivity. Rivalrousness refers to the limited supply of digital assets, on account of the limitations of algorithms or the capabilities of the Internet service providers. Exclusivity includes the state of excluding others’ possession in fact or the right to exclude others’ possession in norms.According to the dual judgment criteria of rivalrousness and exclusivity, digital assets can be divided into “property digital assets” “service digital assets” “intellectual property digital assets” and “public welfare digital assets”. Property digital assets are both rivalrousness and exclusive, and belong to the protection domain of the crime against property. Service digital assets are only competitive, not exclusive, and belong to the protection domain of computer crime. Intellectual property digital assets,which are exclusive and noncompetitive, are protected by intellectual property crimes and other crimes,such as the crime of infringing citizens’ personal information. Public welfare digital assets are neither competitive nor exclusive, and access to such data resources does not commit crimes. This classification method can provide an operable plan for the selection of charges, and effectively solve the problem of confusion of convictions in practice.

ISSUES OF DIFFERENTIATION OF RELATED STRUCTURES OF STEALINGS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THEIR QUALIFICATION

Theft of non-cash funds and digital currency: problems of constructing the elements of crimes

Problems of Criminal Law Regulation and Qualification of Acts Committed Using Electronic Means of Payment

Financial Assets in Digital Form and How They Influence Classification of Crime

Distribution of Fraud Using Electronic Payment Means (Article 159.3 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) from Related Crimes

Оffenses Against Property in the Conditions of Digital Transformation

Criminal law protection of public relations in field of digital financial assets and digital currency

CRYPTOCURRENCY: SOME ASPECTS OF CRIMINAL LAW PROTECTION

Digital Rights and Digital Currency in Russian Law: The Issues of Legal Nature and Relations

PREVENTION OF CRIMES COMMITTED IN THE DIGITAL URRENCY (CRYPTOCURRENCY) TURNOVER

Some problems of the application of norms establishing liability for fictitious registration and fictitious registration of foreign citizens and stateless persons

Issues of Demarcation of Material Elements Stipulated by Art. 322.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Part 2 Art. 19.27 of the Administrative Offense Code of the Russian Federation

Certain Aspects of Arrest of Property in Light of the Case Law of the Appeal Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court

Digital rights in the russian financial system: legal aspect

Legality and Validity of Property Seizure in the Investigation of a Criminal Case

Resolutions to the Dilemma of Criminal Law Protection of Virtual Property in the Perspective of Digital Assets

Problems of Defining the Object of Bribery and the Specifics of Its Detection in the Present-Day Realities

Illegal circulation of digital currencies: features of criminal investigation

Smuggling Volume as Qualifying Attribute of Constituent Elements of Crime Stipulated by Article 2001 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

FORMATION OF A SYSTEM OF OBJECTS OF CRIMINAL LAW PROTECTION IN THE THEORETICAL MODELING OF THE CRIMINAL LAW ON CRIMES IN THE FIELD OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

Forensic and economic examination of fraud in finance and credit