高速逃费案件在现实中屡见不鲜且形式多样，对于趁抬杆器尚未落下，紧跟前车过杆的逃费行为如何定性，在实务中存在定罪争议。近年来发生在海淀区的一起高速跟车逃费案件中，海淀区人民检察院以盗窃罪提起公诉，海淀法院认定被告人构成寻衅滋事罪，北京市第一中级人民法院在二审阶段又改判为抢夺罪。除本案外，类似案件在全国各地认定的罪名也不统一，足见争议之大。
定罪争议的背后是理论的分歧，传统刑法中的侵财犯罪一般是指侵犯物权的犯罪，其概念大都建立在物权语境中，犯罪对象也仅规定为财物。但是随着时代的发展，采用类似于盗窃、诈骗、抢夺、抢劫等方式侵犯债权的案件也逐渐涌现，高速跟车逃费案件就是此类案件的典型范本。从刑法规制的必要性上讲，债权当然具有刑法保护的必要。因此，学界引入了财产性利益的概念，将债权视作一种财产性利益，并通过扩大解释的方式，将债权融入到财物的概念之中，也就是从广义的角度理解财物。虽然有学者从罪刑法定、解释方法、刑法谦抑、刑法的从属性等角度对主流的观点予以批评，但批评的声音均有各自的问题和局限，不能构成对主流观点的有力否定。因此，应当承认将债权纳入刑法中的财物范畴予以保护的正当性与合理性。
然而，即使承认了债权是财产犯罪的对象，但哪些犯罪的对象只能是有体物，而哪些犯罪的对象也可以包括债权，理论界存在激烈争议，进而带来高速逃费案件定性上的难题。从争议的内容看，理论分歧存在于债权能否成为违背被害人意志的夺取罪的犯罪对象，而分歧的焦点又进一步聚焦在作为夺取罪中基础罪名的盗窃罪身上。本文认为债权可以成为盗窃罪的犯罪对象，但是其行为构造不同于有体物的占有转移，机械地将有体物替换为债权的债权转移说并不可取，这一观点忽视了民法和刑法在思维方式和立场上的不同。本文赞成债权支配状态转移说，即发生转移的是对债权实现或债务履行的支配力，而非债权本身。且本文进一步认为，在这种支配力发生转移的同时，利益也同样发生了转移，侵犯债权行为的对象表面上看是债权，但真正对象应是利益。这既是对权利和利益的关系考察后刑法应站稳的立场，也是债权和财产犯罪顺利融合的应然选择。
采用紧跟前车过杆的方式逃缴高速费的罪名认定问题，实际上是将逃费这一基础事实与跟车闯杆这一特定方式结合后，刑法如何评价的问题。将此案认定为寻衅滋事罪或诈骗罪的观点均存在各自问题，而在盗窃罪和抢夺罪的选择上，简单以秘密或公开区分盗窃罪和抢夺罪的观点缺乏对抢夺二字内涵的挖掘，应在秘密或公开的客观判断基础上，进一步判断取财方式是否平和。相较于开车直接撞杆逃费，跟车闯杆是一种公开且平和的逃费方式，应当认定为盗窃罪。

The case of evading toll on superhighway occurs often with diversified forms. How to identify the nature of toll-evading acts in which a car follows closely behind a car in front to run away before toll bar falls and also there are controversies in practice as to the conviction for such acts. In a case of such type which occurred in Haidian District in recent year, the People’s Procuratorate in Haidian District initiated a public prosecution under the crime of theft. The Court in Haidian District ruled that the acts of the defendant shall constitute the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles. Nevertheless, in the second instance, Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court commuted the crime to the crime of forcible seizure. Except for this case, similar cases nationwide are not being convicted of a same crime, which is fair to say that there is a large dispute for this kind of cases.
What is behind such dispute in conviction is a difference in theory. In the tradition sense of criminal law, a property offence, in general, refers to the crime of infringing upon real right. Its concept is established mostly in the context of real right and also the object of crime is merely specified as properties. However, along with the development of the times, the cases in which measures similar to theft, fraud, forcible seizure, robbery, etc. are taken to infringe upon creditor’s right gradually emerge as well. The case of evading toll on superhighway by following closely behind a car is a typical example of such cases. In terms of the necessity of regulation by criminal law, of course, necessity of protecting creditor’s right exists. Therefore, the academic circle has introduced the concept of “property interest”, which regards creditor’s right as a kind of property interest and integrates it into the concept of property by means of expanded interpretation, in another word, it is to understand property in a broad sense. Though we have scholars who criticize the mainstream view from those angles including “legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime”, means of interpretation, modestly restraining spirit of criminal law, subordination of criminal law, etc., problems and limits can be found in all those criticism, and none of them can constitute a strong negation of the mainstream view. Therefore, we should acknowledge the justice and rationality in including the creditor’s right into the category of property under criminal law in order to protect it. 
However, Even though we have acknowledged that the creditor’s right is an object of property crime, in theoretical circle, still there is a hot debate over what crime objects can only be “res corporales”, and what crime objects can also include creditor’s right, which further makes it a difficult issue in identifying the nature of the case of evading toll on superhighway. Judging from the controversial content, the theoretical difference lies in that whether the creditor’s right can become the crime objects of the crime of forcible seizure in which the will of the victim is violated, whereas the focus of the difference is further concentrated on crime of theft, a basic crime name under the crime of forcible seizure. This paper holds that the creditor’s right can become the object of the crime of theft, but since its “act composition” is different from the possession and transfer of “res corporales”, the subrogation theory which mechanically replaces the creditor’s right with “res corporales” is not a desirable one as it has ignored the difference between civil law and criminal law in terms of the mode of thinking and standpoint. This paper agrees with the theory of transferring the control over creditor’s right, which is to say, what has been transferred is the control power for the realization of the creditor’s right or the performance of the debt, rather than the creditor’s right itself. This paper further argues that while this control power is being transferred, likewise, the interest is also being transferred, seemingly, object of the act of infringing upon creditor’s right is the creditor’s right, but the real object should be the interest. This is not only the standpoint that the criminal law should firmly be stuck to after the relation between rights and interests is examined, but also a selection ought to be chosen to smoothly integrate creditor’s right into property crime.
The question of how to identify the crime name for the adoption of the means of following closely behind a car in front in order to evade toll, is in fact, a question of how to evaluate under the criminal law the basic fact of toll-evading after its combination with such a specific means like following closely behind a car to run away before toll bar falls. Respective problems can be found either it is identified as the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles or identified as the crime of fraud. When it comes to the choice between the crime of theft and the crime of forcible seizure, the viewpoint that simply differentiate between the crime of theft and the crime of forcible seizure based on if it is secretly or publicly lacks the exploration into the connotation of the word – forcible seizure, instead, on the basis that being secretly or publicly is determined objectively, the means to obtain property should be further determined if it is a mild one. Comparing with toll evasion by hitting the bar directly, following closely behind a car to run away before toll bar falls is a public and mild way to evade toll, hence it should be identified as the crime of theft.