骗取贷款罪实证问题研究——以1137份一审判决书为分析样本

A Study on the Empirical Problems of the Crime of Defrauding Loans——Using 1137 First Instance Judgments as Analysis Samples

《刑法修正案(十一)》第11条删除了骗取贷款罪基本犯中的“其他严重情节”规定,利于解决司法实践中骗取贷款罪认定扩大化、“唯数额论”的问题,但仍保留了升格法定刑幅度中“其他特别严重情节”的入罪标准,如何在依法保障促进民营经济发展的语境下对该条文合理解释以避免重蹈覆辙,需要基于骗取贷款罪作为贷款诈骗罪的立法补漏定位,对“欺骗手段”进行体系性解释,即“对银行或其他金融机构的信贷资金安全造成实质危险的欺骗行为”;“重大损失”应当为实际的、直接经济损失,而不能包括利息等;“其他特别严重情节”应当是在“重大损失”基础上的结果加重犯,应当在接近“特别重大损失”的程度上综合考量骗贷“数额”、次数、重大伪造材料以及是否用于赌博非法活动或者证券投资等投资经营活动等予以认定。

Article 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment(XI)removes the provision of“other serious circumstances”in the basic offense of the crime of defrauding loans,which is conducive to solving the problem of expanding the determination of the crime of defrauding loans in judicial practice and relying solely on the amount theory.However,it still retains the inclusion criteria of“other particularly serious circumstances”in the upgraded statutory punishment range,How to reasonably interpret this provision in the context of promoting the development of private economy in accordance with the law to avoid repeating the same mistakes,it is necessary to position the crime of loan fraud as a legislative loophole in the crime of loan fraud,and provide a systematic explanation of“fraudulent means”,that is,“fraudulent behavior that poses substantial danger to the safety of credit funds of banks or other financial institutions”;“Significant losses”should be actual and direct economic losses,and cannot include interest,etc;The“other particularly serious circumstances”should be the aggravated offense based on the“significant losses”,and should be determined by comprehensively considering the“amount”,frequency,major forged materials,and whether they are used for illegal gambling activities or securities investment and business activities to the extent of approaching the“particularly significant losses”.