債權行使與非法佔有目的的非法性認定

行使債權可以否定非法佔有目的的非法性。非法佔有目的的非法性，是財產犯罪的構成要件要素，而非一般違法性的提示要素，其評價的是財產犯罪行為所引起的財產轉移、變動過程。只有當行為人對被害人擁有合法債權時，以非法手段引起的財產轉移過程才被認為合乎民事實體財產秩序，進而否定非法性。實踐中認為行使虛假債權、非法債權的行為也能否定非法佔有目的，該觀點將導致刑法財產犯罪體系內部的價值判斷矛盾，進而產生處罰漏洞，應當予以糾偏。在《刑法》新增第293條之一催收非法債務罪的背景下，應將催收非法債務罪理解為財產犯罪的減輕構成。在此基礎上，區分虛假債權與非法債權的意義在於，催收前者仍應以搶劫、敲詐勒索罪等重罪進行處罰，只有催收後者才能成立催收非法債務罪。催收非法債務所獲得的收益來自于被害人合法財產所遭受的損失，根據《刑法》第64條的規定應當優先返還給被害人。

The illegality of purpose of illegal possession could be denied when the perpetrator has a legitimate claim against the victim. The illegality of purpose of illegal possession is a requisite element of crimes against property rather than a hint of general illegality of the crime. It is an evaluation of the transfer of property. When and only when the perpetrator has a legitimate claim against the victim, the transfer of property should be considered legal and a crime against property should be excluded. The practitioner's view that the illegal and fraudulent claims may also exclude the illegality of purpose of illegal possession might cause the contradictory of value judgement inside the criminal law system and criminal liability gap. This view needs to be corrected. The new crime of demanding the repayment of illegal debt according to Article 293A of the PRC Criminal Law should be considered as a crime against property, which faces a milder penalty. Under this premise, the distinction of illegal claims and fraudulent claims is significant. This is because demanding illegal claims establishes the crime of demanding repayment of illegal debt according to Article 293A of the PRC Criminal Law, while demanding fraudulent claims fulfills the robbery and blackmail. The illegal benefits are derived from the legal property of the victim and it should be returned to the victim according to Article 64 of the PRC Criminal Law.