合意型“套路贷”行为的类型区分与司法评价  

Classificationand Judicial Evaluationof Agreeable"Routine Loan"Behavior

作　　者：赵加贵 Zhao Jia-gui(People'sPoliceUniversityof China,Langfang,Hebei,065000 China)

机构地区：[1]上海公安学院,上海200137

出　　处：《西部公安论坛》2022年第3期28-37,68,共11页Journal of Western Public Security

基　　金：公安部公安理论及软科学研究计划项目“套路贷”案件预警模型研究(项目编号:2019LLYJSHSJ044);上海公安学院院级重点科研项目利用“话术”诈骗类案件犯罪认定研究(项目编号:21xkx11)阶段性研究成果。

摘　　要：对于被害人明知套路而选择配合的合意型套路贷行为,司法实践常认定为诈骗罪。但通过对此行为的深入分析,发现该行为其实包括合意“确权”和非法“索债”两个阶段,不能因为“确权”行为带有欺骗性而径直得出合意型套路贷行为均成立犯罪的结论。合意型套路贷行为是否成立犯罪,判断的关键不在于“确权”行为,而在于“索债”行为或者“确权”+“索债”复合行为。因此,在评判合意型套路贷行为性质时,应先依据“一般索债”“诉讼索债”“暴力索债”等类型特征进行考查,再结合“确权”行为的欺骗性与明知性进行“过程+结果”判断。事实上,实践中合意型套路贷行为在行为性质和类型上,可能存在民事欺诈,也可能构成诈骗罪,需要从类型化分析的视角予以审判。For the consensual routine loan behavior that the victim chooses to cooperate with knowing the routine,judicial practice often identifies it as the crime of fraud.However,through in-depth analysis of this behavior,it is found that this behavior actually includes two stages:consensual"confirming rights"and illegal"claiming debts".Because the"confirming rights"behavior is deceptive,we can not directly draw the conclusion that all consensual routine loan behaviors are criminal.Whether the consensual routine loan behavior is a crime or not,the key to judge is not the"right confirmation"behavior,but the"debt demanding"behavior or the"right confirmation"+"debt demanding"composite behavior.Therefore,when judging the nature of consensual routine loans,we should first examine the characteristics of"general claims","litigation claims","violent claims"and other types,and then judge"process+result"by combining the deceptive and knowing nature of"right determination".In fact,in practice,in terms of the nature and type of behavior,the consensual type of routine loan behavior may have civil fraud,or may constitute a crime of fraud,which needs to be tried from the perspective of typology analysis.

关 键 词：套路贷 诈骗罪 确权 索债 类型化 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]