Some weird criminal cases

Case 1

案情描述 2015年起，被告人袁某在Facebook上自称是中国军工人员，主动与叙利亚的恐怖分子加好友交流，声称自己可以出售AK47步枪5000支、子弹100万发、反导弹系统3套、导弹2000发。双方约定通过天津港将武器运送至土耳其港口交付。在取得对方信任后，袁某利用自己在路边捡来的身份证办理了一张银行卡，用于收取恐怖分子支付的武器费用。然而，对方尚未转账，袁某就被警方抓获。最终，深圳市宝安区人民法院以宣扬恐怖主义罪判处袁某拘役4个月。

分析

袁某本来是想骗恐怖分子的钱，这属于诈骗罪。但他用了别人的身份证办银行卡，导致了一个关键问题：如果恐怖分子真的把钱打过来，钱会进入那个陌生人的账户，而不是袁某自己的账户。袁某无法实际控制这笔钱，所以他的诈骗行为实际上无法成功。在法律上，这叫“对象不能犯”，也就是因为目标搞错了（钱进了别人账户），犯罪没能完成，属于犯罪未遂。

然而，袁某在Facebook上主动联系恐怖分子，并宣称可以出售大量武器，这些言论本身就已经触犯了法律。他通过互联网传播了与恐怖活动相关的信息，这构成了宣扬恐怖主义罪。这个罪是行为犯，也就是说，只要实施了宣扬行为，不管有没有人相信、有没有造成实际后果，都算犯罪既遂。法院正是根据这个罪名判了他拘役4个月。

所以，我老师说的“用别人的身份证导致失败”是指：他因为用了别人的身份证，诈骗没能成功，只留下一个较轻的宣扬恐怖主义罪；如果用他自己的，就可能构成重罪——诈骗罪。

Case Description Starting in 2015, the defendant, Mr. Yuan, claimed on Facebook to be a Chinese military industry worker and actively contacted Syrian terrorists, offering to sell 5,000 AK-47 rifles, 1 million rounds of ammunition, 3 anti-missile systems, and 2,000 missiles. They agreed to deliver the weapons via Tianjin Port to a port in Turkey. After gaining their trust, Yuan used a discarded ID card he found on the street to open a bank account, intending to receive the payment from the terrorists. However, before any money was transferred, Yuan was arrested by the police. The Shenzhen Bao'an District People's Court ultimately convicted him of the crime of advocating terrorism and sentenced him to four months in detention.

Analysis Yuan's original intention was to defraud the terrorists of money, which would constitute the crime of fraud. However, he used someone else's ID card to open the bank account, creating a critical issue: if the terrorists actually transferred the money, it would go into a stranger's account, not Yuan's own. Yuan would have no control over the funds, so his fraudulent scheme could not succeed. In legal terms, this is called "impossibility due to object error"—the crime could not be completed because the target (the money) ended up in the wrong hands. This is an attempted crime, not a completed one.

Nevertheless, Yuan's actions of actively contacting terrorists on Facebook and offering to sell large quantities of weapons already violated the law. By disseminating information related to terrorist activities online, he committed the crime of advocating terrorism. This is a conduct crime, meaning that the act itself, regardless of whether anyone believed him or any actual harm occurred, constitutes a completed offense. The court sentenced him to four months in detention precisely for this crime.

If Yuan had used his own ID card, the situation would have been drastically different. Once the terrorists transferred the money into his account, he would have gained actual control over the funds, and the fraud would have been completed. Moreover, the amount involved would have been enormous (potentially tens of millions of yuan), leading to a sentence of over ten years or even life imprisonment. Although using his own ID might have also led to rapid discovery, the fraud would have been consummated, resulting in a much heavier penalty.

Thus, my teacher's comment that "using someone else's ID led to his failure" means that because he used another person's ID, his fraud attempt failed, leaving only the lesser crime of advocating terrorism. Had he used his own ID, he would likely have been convicted of the serious crime of fraud.

不过抛开法律不谈，袁某的行为怎么不算是在打击恐怖犯罪呢？◔‿◔

Setting aside the legal aspects, how was Yuan's behavior not a form of combating terrorism?（just kiding）

author: Vivi tag: #content links: