Abstract
In traditional Chinese law, two systematic legal frameworks were capable of transcending departmental boundaries and were frequently referenced across various legislative domains: the Five Punishments system and the property crime system based on the valuation of illicit gains. This paper examines the development of Yuan-dynasty legal institutions through the interplay of these two systems, with particular attention to how the Yuan inherited conceptual foundations from the Tang and Song legal traditions and gradually established its own framework for property-related offenses.
A defining feature of property crimes is their reliance on a robust penal structure and the establishment of standardized units for calculating the value of goods. These prerequisites are essential for the effective design and implementation of such laws, indicating that a certain level of legislative sophistication is required. Accordingly, this study first explores the origins of penal and property crime systems during the Jin-Yuan transition, prior to the abolition of the Taihe Code (Taihe Lü 泰和律) in the early part of the Zhiyuan 至元 era (1264-1294). It then traces how Kublai Khan 忽必烈 (r. 1260-1294), from the beginning to the end of the Zhiyuan period, determined the units for calculating illicit gains and progressively formulated the Yuan dynasty’s own system for dealing with property-related crimes. During the Dade 大德 era (1297-1307) under Emperor Chengzong 成宗 (r. 1294-1307), the Yuan established a new categorization, known as the Five Property Crimes—those involving the abuse of law, those not involving an abuse of law, robbery, theft, and embezzlement of public funds—building upon the foundations laid by Kublai.
Beyond the systematic categorization of property crimes, this paper also addresses the Yuan court’s frequent yet unsystematic use of the “acts that should not be committed” category in calculating illicit gains. It further explains why the Yuan failed to develop a “sitting for stolen property” offense akin to those found in Tang and Song legal codes. Finally, the paper evaluates the extent to which the “Six Property Crimes” in the Ming Code were influenced by Yuan legal frameworks and identifies the structural deficiencies inherent in their design.
Beyond the systematic categorization of property crimes, this paper also addresses the Yuan court’s frequent yet unsystematic use of the “acts that should not be committed” category in calculating illicit gains. It further explains why the Yuan failed to develop a “sitting for stolen property” offense akin to those found in Tang and Song legal codes. Finally, the paper evaluates the extent to which the “Six Property Crimes” (Liu zang 六贜) in the Ming Code (Ming Lü 明律) were influenced by Yuan legal frameworks and identifies the structural deficiencies inherent in their design.
Keywords
Six Property Crimes, property crimes, Yuan dianzhang (Statutes and precedents of the Yuan dynasty), Zhizheng tiaoge (Statutes of the Zhizheng period), Ming Code, Tang Code
Cite
Citations are generated automatically from bibliographic data as a convenience, and may not be complete or accurate.
