“套路貸”的法教義學檢視：以財產犯罪的認定為中心

inspecting the ''Trap Loan'' with the Legal Dogmatic Theory: Focusing on the Crime Against Property

“套路貸”以“虛假債權債務”為本質特徵。在被害人明知有“套路”而繼續借款的場合，還款金額已得到被害人同意，不宜視為真正的“套路貸”。虛假的債權債務不是刑法保護的財產，因此，騙簽虛假貸款憑證的行為不具有直接的財產侵害性，不是詐騙罪的實行行為，但有可能構成詐騙罪的預備犯。在先以銀行匯款的方式虛假借款，再騙回虛假給付財產的場合，除非借款是犯罪所得及其收益，否則不構成針對虛假給付財產的詐騙罪。為了鞏固虛假債權而騙取擔保物權的行為，對被害人的財產有直接的侵害性，可以構成詐騙罪。在處理“套路貸”的具體案件時，應注意以下衍生問題：在套路關聯行為與不法索債行為發生競合的場合，原則上以一罪論處；行為人支付的借款本金，應根據不法索債行為構成的具體犯罪判斷是否從犯罪數額中扣除；“套路貸”的共同犯罪應從共同行為和共犯故意兩個層面加以分析。

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. H 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.