《中华人民共和国刑法修正案(九)》第35条第3款定性之研究——兼与“诈骗罪论者”商榷

A Study of Third Qualitative Research on the Thirty-fifth Article of the Criminal Law Amendment （nine） --Discussion with ＂the crime of fraud＂

《刑法修正案（九）》第35条第3款规定的“非法占有他人财产或者逃避合法债务”实质是“诉讼诈骗”的另一种表述。由最先《刑法修正案（九）（草案）》确立的“对诉讼诈骗行为依照诈骗罪从重处罚原则”变更为“依照处罚较重的规定定罪从重处罚”．折射出现行刑法对诉讼诈骗行为如何定性并不明确。虽然较为通说的立场将诉讼诈骗行为认定为诈骗罪．但是将诉讼诈骗置于民事诉讼背景之中并基于我国民事诉讼模式采取的当事人主义立场考察．可以明确法院或法官对诉讼诈骗行为做出判决是基于裁判技术的要求．并不必然产生认识错误。根据当事人申请，强制执行被害人财产的行为也不意味着法院或法官取得了处分他人财产的权限和地位，因此，认为诉讼诈骗行为构成诈骗罪的观点不具有妥当性。从规范论的角度而言．诉讼诈骗行为人利用法院或法官的特殊地位暗示不利的后果．使被害人产生恐惧心理而处分了自己的财物，所以．诉讼诈骗行为更加符合敲诈勒索罪的构成要件。

＂the criminal law amendment （nine）＂ third thirty-fifth provisions of the ＂illegal possession of another person＇s property or to evade legal obligations＂ is the essence of ＂ litigation fraud＂ another expression. By the first amendment to the criminal law （9） （Draft） ＂established＂ of fraud in lawsuit in accordance with the crime of fraud shall be given a heavier punishment principle ＂is changed to＂ is to be convicted and punished according to the provisions for a heavier punishment shall be given a heavier punishment＂, reflects the law of fraud in lawsuit how qualitative is not clear. It can be clear that the court or judge to judge the litigation fraud is based on the requirements of the technical requirements, and not necessarily to have the right to dispose of the property rights and status. Therefore, it is considered that the fraud litigation fraud is not appropriate. From the normative theory point of view, litigation fraud by the special status of the court or a judge that adverse consequences, the victim fear and punishment of their belongings, so litigation fraud behavior more in line with the constitutive elements of the crime of extortion.