本文關(guān)鍵詞： 租車詐騙 非法占有目的 合同詐騙罪 掩飾、隱瞞犯罪所得　出處：《煙臺大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：租車詐騙案件在司法實務(wù)中較為常見,其中的“兩頭騙”現(xiàn)象也較為多見,通過對相關(guān)裁判文書的檢索發(fā)現(xiàn),這類案件在不同法院之間、上下級法院之間、控辯審三方在認(rèn)定上都存在著差異,不利于實現(xiàn)個案公正,甚至可能會影響整個司法公正的達(dá)成。從租車詐騙案件中存在“兩頭騙”的各種裁判文書中選出四則有代表性的案例作為分析對象,對四則案例的相似點和差異點進(jìn)行梳理,從而明確研究的問題,并以此為出發(fā)點對這種“兩頭騙”案件進(jìn)行研究。在該類案件中包含著兩個行為,一是從租車公司騙租車輛;二是將租賃而來的車輛抵押借款,對這兩個行為均需作出合理的界定。第一個行為,從租車公司騙租車輛行為涉及到非法占有目的的認(rèn)定,行為人在訂立或履行合同過程中違反誠信原則,無實際履約能力,最終致對方財產(chǎn)嚴(yán)重?fù)p失,通過租車合同非法占有車輛的行為構(gòu)成合同詐騙罪。第二個行為,將租賃車輛抵押借款行為實際上可以轉(zhuǎn)化為前后兩個行為關(guān)系的認(rèn)定問題,行為人基于前一犯罪行為,采取隱瞞真相的手段將車輛抵押取得現(xiàn)金,實則屬于事后不可罰行為,此類案件的犯罪數(shù)額應(yīng)為車輛的價值。在這種“兩頭騙”案件中,對于第三方協(xié)助變現(xiàn)的“幫助抵押行為”,有事前同謀、事后幫助聯(lián)系抵押、偽造虛假證明的,應(yīng)認(rèn)定為合同詐騙罪的共犯;而明知系租賃車輛,仍介紹聯(lián)系抵押的應(yīng)認(rèn)定為掩飾、隱瞞犯罪所得罪。
[Abstract]:Car rental fraud cases are more common in judicial practice, in which the phenomenon of "double deceiving" is also more common. Through the retrieval of relevant judicial documents, it is found that such cases are between different courts and between the upper and lower courts. There are differences in the determination of the prosecution and defense trial, which is not conducive to the realization of the justice of the case. It may even affect the achievement of judicial justice as a whole. Four representative cases are selected from the various adjudication documents in which there are "double deceptions" in car rental fraud cases, and the similarities and differences of the four cases are sorted out. In this case, there are two acts involved, one is to defraud a car rental company to rent a vehicle, the other is to mortgage the leased vehicle. It is necessary to make a reasonable definition of these two acts. The first one is that the act of deceiving a car rental company involves the determination of the purpose of illegal possession, the perpetrator violates the principle of good faith in the process of concluding or performing the contract, and he has no actual ability to perform the contract. Eventually causing serious losses to the other party's property, the illegal possession of the vehicle through the rental car contract constitutes the crime of contract fraud. The second act, the act of mortgage borrowing of the leased vehicle can in fact be transformed into the confirmation of the relationship between the two acts. On the basis of the former criminal act, the perpetrator takes the means of concealing the truth to obtain cash from the vehicle mortgage, which is in fact an act of impunity after the fact. The amount of the crime in such a case shall be the value of the vehicle... in such a case of "double deceiving", If a third party assists in the realization of a "helping mortgage act", if there is a prior conspiracy to help contact the mortgage after the event, or forge false proof, it shall be considered an accomplice in the crime of contract fraud; and the person who knows that it is a leased vehicle shall be regarded as an accomplice in the crime of contract fraud. Still introduce the contact mortgage should be identified as cover up, conceal the crime offended.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：煙臺大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 石奎;陳鳳玲;;集資詐騙罪“非法占有目的”的司法認(rèn)定——基于樣本的抽樣統(tǒng)計分析[J];江西社會科學(xué);2016年04期

2 陳興良;;合同詐騙罪的特殊類型之“兩頭騙”:定性與處理[J];政治與法律;2016年04期

3 唐小冬;;民事合同欺詐與合同詐騙罪界分的表達(dá)路徑[J];理論與改革;2015年06期

4 徐岱;金泓序;;規(guī)范目的視角下合同詐騙罪定罪問題研究[J];社會科學(xué)戰(zhàn)線;2015年06期

5 苑民麗;;合同詐騙罪罪際關(guān)系研究——以反思許霆案的定罪量刑為視角[J];學(xué)術(shù)交流;2014年07期

6 廖梅;;試論大陸法系目的犯理論沿革——兼談目的犯理論的實踐作用[J];貴州社會科學(xué);2014年07期

7 周嘯天;;目的犯共犯教義學(xué)原理的再建構(gòu)[J];清華法學(xué);2014年03期

8 鞠佳佳;;合同詐騙罪與詐騙罪的雙層界分[J];中國刑事法雜志;2013年06期

9 于志剛;;關(guān)于數(shù)額犯未遂問題的反思[J];刑法論叢;2010年01期

10 廣東省廣州市越秀區(qū)人民檢察院課題組;林歡平;文勇;;合同詐騙罪的司法實務(wù)研究[J];法學(xué)雜志;2009年10期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 徐靜;合同詐騙罪司法認(rèn)定研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號：1551266