|dc.description.abstract||This research concerns the Mobile payment, which is a new scheme of payment: execution of payment transactions where the consent of the payer to execute a payment transaction is given by means of any telecommunication, digital or IT device and the payment is made to the telecommunication, IT system or network operator, acting only as an intermediary between the payment service user and the supplier of the goods and services, or payment transactions executed by means of any telecommunication, digital or IT device, where the goods or services purchased are delivered to and are to be used through a telecommunication, digital or IT device, provided that the telecommunication, digital or IT operator does not act only as an intermediary between the payment service user and the supplier of the goods and services.
The research tries to verify the compatibility of the financial values communicated from such innovative system of payment (i.e. phone credit) with the general categories, especially with the notion of legal money (art. 1277 c.c.) in its known and currently diffused forms: coin, banking and electronic money.
Because of the fact that the "phone credit" is only a representative value of the price of the phone service used by the customer and provided by the telephone operator, according to the Author it is necessary to distinguish two kinds of phone credit: 1) pre-paid form (subscriber pre-funds its account with the provider of the electronic communications network or service): nulla quaestio, because in this case the monetary values represent the result of the connection established between the phone account and banking (or postal) account; in such case, it is almost certain the nature of the phone credit, which is banking or electronic money; 2) post-paid form (subscriber to the network or service): it is necessary to distinguish between two different kind of recharges.
In the first case (phone credit recharged by bank, post and Imel) it seems quite certain that phone credit is banking or electronic money; on the other hand, it is also certain that the these values, “once converted in phone credit”, are burdened by a tie of destination, that should not allow their generalized use (i.e. to buy every kind of goods).
In the case of a direct recharge (i.e. without bank, post or Imel), credit fund is not banking money because of the fact that a TELCO is not a bank. And it is neither electronic money, in spite of there being many points of similarity with such kind of money. In fact, art. 1 TUB co. 1, lett. h-ter) is an insurmountable obstacle, and it’s not possible to say that credit phone is legal money because of the nature of subjects involved in the recharge procedure: TELCO still are commercial companies, so they are not allowed to send forth electronic money.
In conclusion, the exact nature of the financial values communicated from Mobile Payment (i.e. phone credit) is uncertain, and more in the case of a direct charge. These values, neither electronic, neither banking, seems to place in a sort of so called "monetary limbo", having points of contact and divergence with all kind of currently diffused money.
According to the Author, these values are becoming a further monetary species, i.e. phone money, because of the fact that the range of goods and services that it is possible to buy by these value, is constantly increasing. [edited by Author]||it_IT