主题：【原创】我认为许霆案是不当得利 -- 冷眼

根据英文原文,这人在"盗取"200澳币之前,已经把自己所持有的银行账户关闭,取走了所有余额,并且,没有按照发卡时所约定的,把卡交还给银行,所以大法官据此判定,这是一次欺诈行为,所隐含的意思判断应该是,在该人关闭自己银行账户之后,那张银行卡就不再是一张合法的卡,使用这张卡所进行的任何行为,都应该是欺诈行为.(所以在最后,大法官说,It would be quite unreal to infer that the bank consented to the withdrawal by a card holder whose account had been closed. The conditions of use of the card supplied by the bank to its customers support the conclusion that no such inference can be drawn. It is unnecessary to consider what the position might have been if the account had remained current but had insufficient funds to its credit. )

并且,法官不认同被告律师的观点,是由于他们认为:"The machine could not give the bank's consent in fact and there is no principle of law that requires it to be treated as though it were a person with authority to decide and consent."所以不认可"盗取"200澳币这个行为得到了银行的许可.

但是,这并不代表法官们认为,银行合法用户正常使用银行提供的ATM机会引发犯罪,事实上,他们的裁定基于的,是被告并不是银行的合法用户,他们说:"The fact that the bank programmed the machine in a way that facilitated the commission of a fraud by a person holding a card did not mean that the bank consented to the withdrawal of money by a person who had no account with the bank."

最后,我还得说,这件案子有它的特殊性,因为澳大利亚之前有过类似的释法性案例,而且法官认定它们之间可以类推,所以作出了这个裁定,如其所说:"The decision in Reg. v. Hands (1887) 16 Cox CC 188 is consistent with the view that no inference of consent can be drawn although, as Mr Tilmouth submitted, there are points of distinction between that case and this."

换一个地方换一个法官,可能就有不同的看法.毕竟是1986年的案子了,要与时俱进不是~

所以结论呢,就是我觉得这个案子不能和许霆的案子简单类比.最简单的是一个法理学概念,一个完全合法的行为,会不会因为人的主观恶意导致犯罪?

根据我的学习,我认为,是不能的.这就是支持我反对许霆案刑法化的全部原因.