摘要： 司法实践将“套路贷”原则上认定为诈骗罪的做法存在疑问。“套路贷”以“虚高债务”为中心,分为“设套立债”和“非法索债”两个阶段;“套路贷”的不法评价重心,不在于“设套立债”,而在于“非法索债”,“设套立债”不构成对财产性利益的诈骗。“套路”不等于诈骗,不具有使借款人“自愿”处分财产的紧迫危险。应当根据“非法索债”的手段来确定出借人可能涉嫌的罪名。根据索债手段的不同,“非法索债”包括暴力胁迫、诉讼仲裁以及如约还款三种类型。出借人仅在以违约为由向借款人主张虚高债权,借款人也因此错误认为自己负有履行义务而偿还的,或者借助诉讼、仲裁、公证等手段而实现虚高债权的情况下,才可能成立诈骗罪。当出借人尚未“非法索债”,借款人就“如约还款”时,除“自愿还款”的情形下出借人原则上不构成犯罪外,“错误还款”和“无奈还款”属于构成要件结果的提前实现,出借人的行为可能成立侵占罪。

关键词: 套路, 套路贷, 利益诈骗罪, 设套立债, 非法索债

Abstract: There are doubts that “trick loan” is recognized as fraud in principle in judicial practice.“Trick loan” centers on “false high debt”, which can be divided into two stages:“trick debt creation” and “illegal claim for debt”.The foucus of “trick loan” should not be “trick debt creation” rather than “illegal claim for debt”.“Trick debt creation” does not commit the crime of interest fraud.“Trick” is not equal to fraud and does not have the urgent danger of “voluntary” disposition of property by the borrower.According to the different means of illegal claim for debt”, the charges which the lender may be suspected of are based on the means of “illegal claim for debt”.“Illegal claim for debt” includes three types: violent coercion, litigation and arbitration, and agreed repayment.Only if the lender claims inflated claims against the borrower on the grounds of default, the borrower therefore mistakenly believes that he has to perform its obligations and repays them, or the lender realizes the inflated claims with the help of litigation, arbitration, and notarization, constitutes the crime of fraud itself.When the borrower “repays as promised” before the implementation of “illegal claim for debt”, in addition to “voluntary repayment”, the “wrong repayment” and “helpless repayment” belong to the early realization of the results of constitutive results, which the lender only commits the crime of misappropriation.

Key words: Trick, Trick Loan, The Crime of Interest Fraud, Trick Debt Creation, Illegal Claim for Debt