How does this case collect the behavior of disposition fee qualitative

Source:The rule of law in jiangsu since March 2020, knowing that zhang and wang mou upstream crime units need bank accounts for dealing with cyber crime, to seek illegal interests, still registered a company, and bank account opened in the name of the company unit, by zhang upstream crime personnel to provide the company business license, unit brought to account information such as credit CARDS, U shield,Used for payment and settlement of cyber crimes;And agreed, Wang mou by a certain proportion of the company’s account flowing capital as a bonus.In August 2020, Wang provided an Alipay account and received zhang to transfer RMB 10,500 from COMPANY A.In December 2020, Wang was arrested.It has been found that the victim Xie mou and other people suffered from telecom network fraud, defrauded funds at least 150,000 yuan by a company account flow, a company account payment settlement funds totalling more than 1.38 million yuan;Wang received 10500 yuan from Xie was cheated funds.In processing of the case, for wang mou at the same time provide the company account to help on the implementation of information network of criminal behavior and receiving money qualitative behavior, how to produce two different opinions: the first kind of opinion, wang mou implementation of two natural behavior belong to help information network criminal activities at different stages of sin, should be evaluated for the sense of criminal law “the same crime”.Wang mou violates two charges at the same time, accord with the characteristics of imagination concurring crime, should choose a felony punishment.The second opinion believes that wang mou in the same criminal purpose under the control of the implementation of the two criminal acts of the “purpose and means” of the implicated relationship, constitute the criminal implicated in the judicial application of the general application from the principle of a felony punishment, not the implementation of several crimes combined punishment.The third opinion holds that there is neither coincidence nor implication between the two acts mentioned above, so there is no imaginary co-conspirator or implication.Wang mou ought to help information network crime activity crime and cover up, conceal the crime offended by several crimes and punishment.I agree with the third opinion.Reasons are as follows: in this case, wang mou in March 2020 to provide a company account to help implement information network crime, and in August the same year the money inside the account to receive, to hide, from the perspective of the nature of behavior, whether in time or in space, both behavior does not have overlapping part, not as “the same behavior”.Although the two acts carried out by Wang belong to different stages of the whole criminal process, objectively there is a certain correlation, but in terms of the establishment of the crime of helping information network crime, the behavior of receiving stolen money as a reward is not the usual means of crime, so it can not be considered that there is an implicating relationship between the two acts.Wang mou has implemented two acts encroached on different objects, should be implemented several crimes combined punishment.Wang’s behavior of collecting stolen money violates the order of recovering the proceeds of crime by judicial organs, and does not include this content in the criminal connotation of helping information network crime.Wang has two criminal acts can be sufficient at the same time different crime composition, if only to help the trust crime one crime, will inevitably lead to the evaluation of another crime object violation is insufficient, and the implementation of several crimes combined punishment is in line with the principle of adaptation.