%0 Journal Article
%T “套路贷”以诈骗罪定性的正当性探究<br> Research on the Legitimacy of “Routine Loan” Crime as Fraud Crime
%A 毕佳乐
%J Dispute Settlement
%P 106-112
%@ 2379-3104
%D 2024
%I Hans Publishing
%R 10.12677/DS.2024.101015
%X “套路贷”最为一种相对综合、复杂的违法手段，其中一些具体行为的定性存在较大争议。当下，对“套路贷”的研究包括对其行为性质的认定、民刑交叉下的法律问题等。本文从司法实践案例出发，探究“套路贷”面临的定性困境，尤其是其与诈骗罪之间的关系。本文认为虚假债权债务并不是必然通过诈骗方式设立，并根据此观点重新审视诈骗罪与“套路贷”犯罪下具体“套路”之间的关系，明确不得以“套路贷”概念取代刑法规定的犯罪构成。<br />
“Routine loan” is a relatively comprehensive and complex illegal means, and there are great disputes about the nature of some specific behaviors. At present, the research on “routine loan” includes the identification of its behavior nature, legal issues under the intersection of civil and criminal law, etc. This paper starts from judicial practice cases to explore the qualitative dilemma faced by “routine loan”, especially its relationship with the crime of fraud. This paper holds that false creditor’s rights and debts are not necessarily established by fraud, and according to this point of view, re-examine the relationship between the crime of fraud and the specific “routine” under the crime of “routine loan”, and make it clear that the concept of “routine loan” should not replace the criminal constitution stipulated in the criminal law.
%K 套路贷，诈骗罪，套路，虚假债权债务<br> Routine Loan
%K Crime of Fraud
%K Routine
%K False Creditor’s Rights and Debts
%U http://www.hanspub.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=78757