“两头骗”租车诈骗案件相关实务问题研究

发布时间：2018-03-01 09:04

本文关键词： 租车诈骗非法占有目的合同诈骗罪掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得　出处：《烟台大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：租车诈骗案件在司法实务中较为常见,其中的“两头骗”现象也较为多见,通过对相关裁判文书的检索发现,这类案件在不同法院之间、上下级法院之间、控辩审三方在认定上都存在着差异,不利于实现个案公正,甚至可能会影响整个司法公正的达成。从租车诈骗案件中存在“两头骗”的各种裁判文书中选出四则有代表性的案例作为分析对象,对四则案例的相似点和差异点进行梳理,从而明确研究的问题,并以此为出发点对这种“两头骗”案件进行研究。在该类案件中包含着两个行为,一是从租车公司骗租车辆;二是将租赁而来的车辆抵押借款,对这两个行为均需作出合理的界定。第一个行为,从租车公司骗租车辆行为涉及到非法占有目的的认定,行为人在订立或履行合同过程中违反诚信原则,无实际履约能力,最终致对方财产严重损失,通过租车合同非法占有车辆的行为构成合同诈骗罪。第二个行为,将租赁车辆抵押借款行为实际上可以转化为前后两个行为关系的认定问题,行为人基于前一犯罪行为,采取隐瞒真相的手段将车辆抵押取得现金,实则属于事后不可罚行为,此类案件的犯罪数额应为车辆的价值。在这种“两头骗”案件中,对于第三方协助变现的“帮助抵押行为”,有事前同谋、事后帮助联系抵押、伪造虚假证明的,应认定为合同诈骗罪的共犯;而明知系租赁车辆,仍介绍联系抵押的应认定为掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得罪。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：烟台大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】