被害人自我答責視角下的詐騙罪認定

被害人在交易過程中消極懈怠，受行為人''套路''影響，未能審慎地閱讀合同條款，不理性地盲目借貸造成損失，此類事實被當作認定行為人構成詐騙罪的判斷資料，已經造成詐騙罪處罰過寬的實踐爭議。詐騙罪的規範保護目的在於保證交易基礎信息的正常溝通，從而防止被害人因受他人蒙蔽導致財產不當減少，並非不加區分地保護被害人免受所有因自身認識錯誤造成的損害。有鑒於此，被害人自我答責原則應作為檢驗詐騙罪是否成立的指南。具體而言，被害人自我答責是欺騙行為的判斷準則，判斷行為人是否實施了欺騙行為，必須考慮被害人的信息收集義務與信息確認措施。以''一般性的被害人形象''作為基準，只要被害人做到了一般性形象的被害人所能完成的信息收集與確認，就應認定被害人無法認識到被騙風險，對該風險不具有可管轄性，不需要自我答責。反之，若被害人毫無作為，則需要對損失自我答責，據此可排除行為人欺騙行為的成立。

In transaction processes, cases where victims are passive and negligent, succumb to the perpetrator's“schemes,”fail to carefully read contract terms, or irrationally engage in blind lending resulting in losses have been utilized as evidence to convict perpetrators of fraud, leading to controversies over the overly broad application of the crime of fraud in practice. The normative protective purpose of fraud law lies in ensuring the normal exchange of fundamental transactional information to prevent unjustified property loss caused by deception, rather than indiscriminately protecting victims from all damages arising from their own cognitive errors. In view of this, the principle of victim self-responsibility should serve as a guide for determining whether the crime of fraud is established. Specifically, victim self-responsibility is a criterion for assessing fraudulent behavior; determining whether a perpetrator has committed fraud requires consideration of the victim's obligation to collect information and implement verification measures. Based on the standard of the“reasonable victim,”as long as a victim has fulfilled the level of information collection and verification expected of such a person, it can be concluded that the victim could not have perceived the risk of deception, possesses no control over that risk, and is not required to bear self-responsibility. Conversely, if the victim fails to act, they must be held self-responsible for their losses, which in turn can exclude the establishment of the perpetrator's fraudulent act.