诈骗罪中财产损失的认定

Determining Property Loss in Fraud Cases

摘要: 财产损失的判断标准是区分诈骗罪罪与非罪的关键依据，采用何种判断逻辑，会直接影响对欺诈行为的刑事定性。目前国内刑法学界尚未就诈骗罪的财产侵害客体达成共识，争论焦点在于本罪保护的是被害人单项财产利益还是其全部整体财产，由此发展出整体财产说与个别财产说两套理论。两种学说在财产损失的判断思路、最终认定结论上差异显著，也造成实务审判中裁判标准模糊、处理尺度难以统一的问题。放眼域外理论，德国学界普遍支持整体财产说，日本学界则以个别财产说作为通行观点。结合我国现有刑法条文与司法裁判现状，本文倾向于借鉴修正的整体财产说作为本土裁判参考标准：交易双方互有财物给付时，重点对比被害人付出财物与对方提供对价之间的实际经济价值差；仅被害人单方交付财物的情形，需要同时结合财产价值损耗、被害人交易目的是否实现两项内容综合评判。这一判断思路既能清晰界定诈骗罪的不法属性，合理划分刑事诈骗和民事欺诈的边界，也能够贯彻刑法谦抑性的基本要求。

Abstract: The criteria for determining property loss serve as the key basis for distinguishing between the crime of fraud and non-criminal conduct; the logic employed in this determination directly influences the criminal classification of fraudulent acts. Currently, the domestic criminal law community has not reached a consensus on the object of property infringement in the crime of fraud. The focal point of the debate lies in whether this crime protects a single property interest of the victim or the victim’s entire property as a whole, giving rise to two theoretical schools of thought: the “whole property theory” and the “individual property theory.” These two theories differ significantly in their approaches to assessing property loss and their final conclusions, leading to ambiguous adjudication standards and difficulties in maintaining consistency in judicial practice. Looking at foreign legal theories, German scholars generally support the “total property” theory, while Japanese scholars predominantly adhere to the “individual property” theory. Taking into account China’s current criminal law provisions and the status of judicial rulings, this paper tends to draw upon a modified version of the “total property” theory as a reference standard for domestic adjudication: when both parties in a transaction exchange property, the focus should be on comparing the actual economic value difference between the property provided by the victim and the consideration offered by the other party; in cases where only the victim unilaterally delivers property, a comprehensive assessment must be made by considering both the loss in property value and whether the victim’s transactional purpose was achieved. This approach not only clearly defines the unlawful nature of the crime of fraud and reasonably delineates the boundary between criminal fraud and civil fraud, but also upholds the fundamental principle of criminal law restraint.