骗取贷款罪的规范构造与司法认定  

Normative Construction and Judicial Determination of the Crime of Cheating on Loan

作　　者：王新[1] Wang Xin

机构地区：[1]北京大学法学院

出　　处：《环球法律评论》2025年第2期87-103,共17页Global Law Review

基　　金：2023年度国家社会科学基金重大项目“防范系统性风险与健全金融稳定长效法律机制研究”(23&ZD158)的研究成果。

摘　　要：对于骗取贷款罪的规范构造和重大损失、其他特别严重情节等要件的司法认定问题,理论界与实务界存在重大的认识分歧,严重影响司法实践的统一性。规范构造是认定骗取贷款罪的基础性问题,从《刑法修正案(六)》设立该罪的立法目的、刑法解释和证明责任等方面看,骗取贷款罪有别于贷款诈骗罪,属于虚假陈述型,而非诈骗型,故不应套用诈骗犯罪结构中“陷入错误认识”的逻辑连接点,而应落脚在对因果关系的考察。对于“重大损失”的认定,需要兼顾刑民交叉问题的平衡,时间节点应确立在刑事立案时,但在计算损失数额时需要考虑贷款合同一般都附有担保(包括抵押、质押等)措施的特殊性。至于“其他特别严重情节”,在《刑法修正案(十一)》依然将其保留在第二档法定刑适用的情形下,需要立足于基本犯与加重犯的逻辑关系,以“重大损失”的基本犯成立为前提条件,不能“跳档”直接适用,并且借鉴其他司法解释关于“打折条款”的规定予以认定。Ever since Amendment VI to the Criminal Law introduced the crime of cheating on loan in 2006, there have been significant differences in understanding between the theoretical and practical communities regarding issues including the normative construction of the crime, significant loss, and other especially serious circumstances. Due to the absence of relevant judicial interpretations, guiding cases, and model cases, the crime has long lacked clear application standards in judicial practice, severely affecting the uniformity of judicial operations. Normative construction is a foundational issue in determining the crime of cheating on loan, and in criminal law scholarship, two opposing schools of thought stand in confrontation: the “fraud-type” and the “false representation-type”. In view of the difficulties faced by judicial authorities in proving that perpetrators had the intention of illegally possessing loans, Amendment VI to the Criminal Law established the crime of cheating on loan to fill the gap left by the crime of loan fraud. As a result, this crime is supplementary and gap-filling in nature. Meanwhile, as the two crimes differ significantly in the degree of deception and the burden of proof, the fraud-based structure of the crime of loan fraud cannot be mechanically applied to the crime of cheating on loan. Therefore, the crime of cheating on loan differs from the crime of loan fraud in that it belongs to the false representation-type rather than the fraud-type in terms of normative construction. From the common stance of restricting its application, this article proposes that the examination of causal relationships should be reasserted. As the quantitative standard and threshold condition for the crime of cheating on loan and the determination of the amount constituting “significant loss” and the relevant time point involve various criminal-civil overlapping issues, making it a major challenge in judicial practice, it is necessary to balance these criminal-civil overlapping issues, with the

关 键 词：骗取贷款罪 诈骗罪 虚假陈述 因果关系 直接经济损失 

分 类 号：D924.3[政治法律—刑法学]