“套路贷”的法教义学检视:以财产犯罪的认定为中心

Inspecting the"Trap Loan"with the Legal Dogmatic Theory:Focusing on the Crime Against Property

“套路贷”以“虚假债权债务”为本质特征。在被害人明知有“套路”而继续借款的场合,还款金额已得到被害人同意,不宜视为真正的“套路贷”。虚假的债权债务不是刑法保护的财产,因此,骗签虚假贷款凭证的行为不具有直接的财产侵害性,不是诈骗罪的实行行为,但有可能构成诈骗罪的预备犯。在先以银行汇款的方式虚假借款,再骗回虚假给付财产的场合,除非借款是犯罪所得及其收益,否则不构成针对虚假给付财产的诈骗罪。为了巩固虚假债权而骗取担保物权的行为,对被害人的财产有直接的侵害性,可以构成诈骗罪。在处理“套路贷”的具体案件时,应注意以下衍生问题:在套路关联行为与不法索债行为发生竞合的场合,原则上以一罪论处;行为人支付的借款本金,应根据不法索债行为构成的具体犯罪判断是否从犯罪数额中扣除;“套路贷”的共同犯罪应从共同行为和共犯故意两个层面加以分析。

"Trap loan"are characterized by"false claims and debts". If the victim knows the payment amount but continue to borrow money,the act of setting the trap on loan cannot be judged as the real"trap loan"."False claim and debt"are not the property protected by criminal law,so"fakement on signing of false loan certificates"does not have direct property infringement and does not constitute a conviction for fraud. If the falsely paid property is not the proceeds of crime,"fooling back falsely paid property"is impossible to make the victim loss property,thus it cannot constitute the crime of fraud. And,"fraud of security rights"are directly invasive to the victim’s property and can constitute fraud. When dealing with specific cases of "trap loan",the following special issues should be noted: 1. In cases where the trap-related behavior and the illegal debt collection activities are in conflict,the principle is one crime;2. The loan principal paid by the actor cannot be included in the amount of fraud and theft. 3. The joint crime of"trap loan"should be analyzed from two levels: joint behavior and intention of accomplice.