Is it illegal for the creditor to collect money and drive away the debtor's car? It is illegal for the creditor to collect money and drive away the debtor's car. The relevant legal basis for lawyers to sort out is Article 270 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, which is the act of illegally taking possession of others' property, forgotten or buried objects that are kept on behalf of others, with a large amount, and refusing to return them. The subject of the crime of embezzlement is the general subject, and every natural person who has reached the age of 16 and is capable of criminal responsibility can constitute this crime. Subjectively, it must be intentional, that is, the property, forgotten property or buried property that belongs to others and is still illegally occupied by others. The object of crime is limited to three kinds of property: first, other people's property kept for others; Second, other people's forgotten property, which is not equal to lost property, and is also different from abandoned property; Third, others' buried objects. The crime of embezzlement has not been clearly defined in the history of Chinese criminal law. Even in the first paragraph of Article 270 of the Criminal Law of China, the term "embezzlement" has not been used. Therefore, before determining the concept of the crime of embezzlement, it is necessary to analyze the word "embezzlement", because "embezzlement" is the key word in the crime of embezzlement, which represents the main connotation of the crime of embezzlement. Whoever unlawfully takes possession of a thing forgotten or buried by another person and refuses to hand it over in a relatively large amount shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph. Therefore, it is illegal for the creditor to collect money and drive away the debtor's car. Relevant cases include: in May and July 2014, after the defendant Zhang introduced the case and acted as the guarantor, the victim Zhao borrowed 120000 yuan and 200000 yuan from Cui and Yuan respectively. However, Zhao has not repaid these two loans since then. After repeated unsuccessful debt collection, on July 3, 2015, the defendant Zhang and the creditor Yuan and others went to the hotel where Zhao lived. Zhang went upstairs, took away the car key that was put at Zhao's driver's place when people were unprepared, and handed it to Yuan's driver. Then, Yuan and his driver drove away an unlicensed black Mercedes Benz ML63 SUV parked under Zhao's office building. When Zhao found that the vehicle was driven away, he immediately called the police and contacted the defendant, Zhang, who admitted that he drove the vehicle away, but refused to return it. The car was driven to Henan Lingbao Residential Area by two people from Mr. Yuan. In November of the same year, Zhang was detained by the police on suspicion of theft. Two days later, Mr. Yuan applied to the People's Court of Lingbao City, Henan Province to preserve and detain the car. The car is appraised to be worth 780000 yuan. The first instance of Chengdu Shuangliu District People's Court held that although Zhang secretly stole the vehicle for the legitimate purpose of claiming debts, his means were illegal. Subjectively, he intended to occupy others' property by illegal means, which should be regarded as having the purpose of illegal possession. The value of the vehicle stolen by Zhang was significantly higher than the amount of debt, and he did not follow up on the realization of the creditor's rights in time after stealing the vehicle. Instead, Mr. Yuan transferred the vehicle to the court to apply for property preservation before litigation a few months after the public security organ filed the case for investigation. During this period, the public security police repeatedly contacted Zhang to request the return of the vehicle, and he explicitly refused to return it, Its possession of the vehicle involved is obviously illegal. Zhang's behavior has constituted theft. At the same time, the purpose of Zhang's theft of the victim Zhao's vehicle was to force him to repay the debt in time, and he informed Zhao of the fact that he had driven the vehicle after stealing the vehicle, and clearly stated that he would return the vehicle after paying off the debt. The legitimacy of the purpose of realizing the creditor's rights and the subsequent notification had the remedial function for the previous illegal means, The illegal possession is different from general theft, the social harmfulness of the behavior reflected is greatly reduced, and the vehicle involved in the case has been recovered and returned to Mr. Zhao, who also expressed in writing his understanding for the behavior of the defendant, Mr. Zhang. Therefore, although Zhang's act constitutes a theft crime, in view of the minor circumstances of the crime, no penalty is required. I don't know if you are satisfied with this explanation.