贷款诈骗罪刑法定性研究

目的/意义贷款诈骗罪是金融诈骗犯罪中涉及标的较大、对金融秩序破坏最为严重的一种犯罪。在司法实践中，贷款诈骗罪的定性、贷款诈骗罪与其他涉及贷款犯罪的界定还不明确，侦查和审判实践中甚至提出以司法推定的方式来认定贷款诈骗罪的主观目的。此外，单位贷款诈骗行为的定性争议一直未能得到很好解决。为解决上述问题，本文进行了相关研究。方法/过程贷款诈骗罪与其他涉及贷款犯罪的核心区别是非法占有目的的有无，应当采取主客观相统一的方法对非法占有目的加以认定，而不是采取简单的司法推定方法来认定。通过考察法律规制的变动以及司法实践中的实际运用效果可知，无论是过去对单位贷款诈骗行为以合同诈骗罪定性，还是当下只追究自然人贷款诈骗罪刑事责任，对单位贷款诈骗行为的定性都存在问题, 有必要完善相关法律。结果/结论贷款诈骗罪的非法占有目的无论是产生于申请贷款阶段还是使用贷款阶段，都不应该影响对贷款诈骗罪的认定。应当通过客观证据和主观证据共同认定行为人是否有非法占有目的，杜绝单一的客观司法推定。应当扩大贷款诈骗罪的主体范围，将其延伸至单位。

Research on the Legality of Crime of Loan Fraud

Purpose/SignificanceThe crime of loan fraud is one of the most serious crimes involving large targets and damaging the financial order in the crime of financial fraud. In judicial practice, the definition of the crime of loan fraud, loan fraud and other crimes involving loans is not clear. In the investigation and trial practice, it is even suggested that the subjective purpose of the crime of loan fraud should be determined by judicial presumption. In addition, the qualitative dispute over unit loan fraud has not been well resolved. In order to solve the above problems, this paper carries out the related research.Method/processThe core difference between the crime of loan fraud and other crimes involving loans is whether the purpose of illegal possession exists or not. Instead of adopting a simple judicial presumption method, the purpose of illegal possession should be recognized by adopting the method of unifying the subject and the object. By examining the changes in legal regulations and the practical application effect in judicial practice, we can see that there are many problems in the definition of unit loan fraud, whether it is the past definition of unit loan fraud as contract fraud or the current investigation of criminal responsibility for natural person loan fraud, and it is necessary to perfect the relevant laws.Result/ConclusionWhether the purpose of illegal possession of loan fraud originates in loan application or in using the loan should not affect the identification of loan fraud. Objective and subjective evidences should be used to identify the purpose of illegal possession; a single objective judicial presumption should be put to an end. The subjective scope of loan fraud should be expanded to include units.