古玩交易中诈骗罪认定的难题与破解  

The Puzzle and Cracking for the Identification of the Fraud Crime in the Antique Trade

作　　者：武良军[1] 

机构地区：[1]海南大学法学院,海南海口570228

出　　处：《海南大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2015年第1期95-102,共8页Journal of Hainan University （Humanities & Social Sciences）

基　　金：教育部人文社科基金项目(09YJC820024)

摘　　要：古玩作为一种特殊的商品,其交易中诈骗罪的认定远较一般商品要复杂。一般来说,不宜肯定古玩出售者就所出售古玩之真伪的说明义务,交易中对古玩真伪事实情况的单纯不告知并不能该当于诈骗罪的欺骗行为。诈骗罪的成立需被害人基于认识错误而处分财产,只要被害人最终是基于认识错误而处分财产即可认为成立诈骗罪的既遂,至于过程中被害人是否曾经有所怀疑不应影响行为人的性质。此外,对于交易中主观上诈骗故意的认定,司法机关不能过分依赖口供,而应积极从主观故意外化的客观事实即行为人欺骗行为事实进行推定,且问题的关键在于对交易古玩之来源的查明和交易时行为人的虚假表述的查明。The identification of fraud crime is far more complicated in the trade of antique as a kind of special commodity than in the trade of general goods. In general, it is not advisable to confirm the obligation of the an- tique seller about demonstrating the authenticity of the sold antiques, and the pure non-disclosure of the authen- ticity of the antique in the trade cannot be treated as the deceptive behavior in the fraud crime. The establish- ment of the fraud crime shall depend on the disposition of property due to the cognition errors of the victim. As long as the victim disposes of property eventually due to the cognition errors, the accomplished crime of fraud can be established. As for whether the victim has ever doubted in the process, it will not affect the nature of the ac- tor. For the identification of the fraud with subjective intent, the judiciary should not rely too much on the con- fession, but make the presumption on the basis of the objective fact of externalization with subjective intent, namely the fact of the actor＇ s cheating behavior. And the key point is to find out the source of the traded antique and the deceptive statements of the actor in the trade.

关 键 词：古玩交易 诈骗罪 欺骗行为 怀疑 故意 

分 类 号：D914.35[政治法律—刑法学]