欺诈收取购房者“转让费”行为的刑法定性研究

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系:

法学院

作者:

谢梦柔

导师:

贾健

导师单位:

法学院

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

欺诈;诈骗罪;职员权力

摘要:

诈骗罪在实践中是常见多发的一个罪名,其犯罪形式与手段也纷繁复杂,由于案件自身存在的复杂性和认识的差异,在实践中对本罪的认定仍存在不少疑难问题。我们从理论出发,诈骗罪与其他犯罪在四要件方面似乎泾渭分明,每个罪名均有其框架可循,但是在现实生活中、在司法实践中,对于案件的认定罪名的甄别,司法实践人员之间也可能存在较大的意见分歧,不同地区出现判决不一致甚至差别较大的现象。这势必会导致对诈骗罪认定的不严谨性,有违法律的公平正义。因此,明晰诈骗罪的认定和厘清诈骗罪与职务侵占、非国家工作人员受贿等罪的界限具有迫切性,对司法实践提供参考和依据。 本文共分成四个部分,共计两万一千余字。 第一部分,介绍案件基本情况,陈某在房地产公司担任销售主管职位,在房源确定,定价等方面享有一定自主权。陈某在销售过程中,向购房者虚构其欲购买的房屋已被“区领导”预购的事实,与购房者在购房合同之外达成协议约定“转让费”,共计获得人民币 28.5 万元,陈某个人分得人民币 10.6 万元。然后,对案件的侦查、起诉以及审判这一整个过程中各方法律工作者对案件的不同意见,主要针对性提出了陈某的行为是否构成犯罪,假如陈某的行为构成犯罪,具体触犯了何种罪名构成何种犯罪。最后,笔者根据上述不同法律工作者对案件的分歧意见总结出了本案的争议焦点。 第二部分,相关问题的法理分析,本部分从企业内员工权力来源理论谈起,认为职员权力来源有三:个人权利、岗位权力与情境权力,讨论了职员权力与权利之间的关系,职员权利运用与刑事犯罪之间的关系,分别论述了可能涉及到的犯罪,然后对欺诈收取“转让费”的行为进行了定性分析论述。 第三部分,在法理分析的基础上,对本案的争议焦点进行了回答。职员运用权利与平等主体进行商事活动,为公司谋取利益,这是基于其职员权利所应对公司承担的勤勉忠诚义务,一般视为交易策略;而行为人将此利益从公司处据为己有,可能触犯职务侵占罪;利用职员权利为他人谋取利益,他人将财物越过公司直接给予行为人的,则可能触犯非国家工作人员受贿罪;而拥有职员权利,主要是为行为人实施欺诈手段起到辅助作用,被害人基于错误认识处分财物,行为人取得财物,就构成了诈骗犯罪。然后结合1 案件的基本情况,对于陈某收取购房“转让费”,究竟是使购房者遭受了经济损失,还是使公司的财产减少而自己获得了本该属于公司的财物进行了讨论分析,进而得出陈某构成诈骗犯罪的结论。 第四部分,根据上述分析,得出本案的研究启示。对这类案件定性时应从哪几个方面去把握,以及如何预防这类案件的再次发生,提出几点建议,如在司法实践中司法人员在对这类案件定性时应考虑哪些要素;公共管理部门可以强制公示房屋买卖信息、加大对瞒售、欺骗消费者等行为的行政处罚力度;房地产公司宣传中明确强调不收取任何费用,设置举报奖励等措施。

学科:

刑法学

提交日期

2026-04-10

引用参考

谢梦柔. 欺诈收取购房者“转让费”行为的刑法定性研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2019.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 欺诈收取购房者“转让费”行为的刑法定性研究
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20170042011598
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 谢梦柔
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2019
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 贾健
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 欺诈;诈骗罪;职员权力
  • dc.subject
  • fraud; the crime of fraud;staff power; staff right
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 诈骗罪在实践中是常见多发的一个罪名,其犯罪形式与手段也纷繁复杂,由于案件自身存在的复杂性和认识的差异,在实践中对本罪的认定仍存在不少疑难问题。我们从理论出发,诈骗罪与其他犯罪在四要件方面似乎泾渭分明,每个罪名均有其框架可循,但是在现实生活中、在司法实践中,对于案件的认定罪名的甄别,司法实践人员之间也可能存在较大的意见分歧,不同地区出现判决不一致甚至差别较大的现象。这势必会导致对诈骗罪认定的不严谨性,有违法律的公平正义。因此,明晰诈骗罪的认定和厘清诈骗罪与职务侵占、非国家工作人员受贿等罪的界限具有迫切性,对司法实践提供参考和依据。 本文共分成四个部分,共计两万一千余字。 第一部分,介绍案件基本情况,陈某在房地产公司担任销售主管职位,在房源确定,定价等方面享有一定自主权。陈某在销售过程中,向购房者虚构其欲购买的房屋已被“区领导”预购的事实,与购房者在购房合同之外达成协议约定“转让费”,共计获得人民币 28.5 万元,陈某个人分得人民币 10.6 万元。然后,对案件的侦查、起诉以及审判这一整个过程中各方法律工作者对案件的不同意见,主要针对性提出了陈某的行为是否构成犯罪,假如陈某的行为构成犯罪,具体触犯了何种罪名构成何种犯罪。最后,笔者根据上述不同法律工作者对案件的分歧意见总结出了本案的争议焦点。 第二部分,相关问题的法理分析,本部分从企业内员工权力来源理论谈起,认为职员权力来源有三:个人权利、岗位权力与情境权力,讨论了职员权力与权利之间的关系,职员权利运用与刑事犯罪之间的关系,分别论述了可能涉及到的犯罪,然后对欺诈收取“转让费”的行为进行了定性分析论述。 第三部分,在法理分析的基础上,对本案的争议焦点进行了回答。职员运用权利与平等主体进行商事活动,为公司谋取利益,这是基于其职员权利所应对公司承担的勤勉忠诚义务,一般视为交易策略;而行为人将此利益从公司处据为己有,可能触犯职务侵占罪;利用职员权利为他人谋取利益,他人将财物越过公司直接给予行为人的,则可能触犯非国家工作人员受贿罪;而拥有职员权利,主要是为行为人实施欺诈手段起到辅助作用,被害人基于错误认识处分财物,行为人取得财物,就构成了诈骗犯罪。然后结合1 案件的基本情况,对于陈某收取购房“转让费”,究竟是使购房者遭受了经济损失,还是使公司的财产减少而自己获得了本该属于公司的财物进行了讨论分析,进而得出陈某构成诈骗犯罪的结论。 第四部分,根据上述分析,得出本案的研究启示。对这类案件定性时应从哪几个方面去把握,以及如何预防这类案件的再次发生,提出几点建议,如在司法实践中司法人员在对这类案件定性时应考虑哪些要素;公共管理部门可以强制公示房屋买卖信息、加大对瞒售、欺骗消费者等行为的行政处罚力度;房地产公司宣传中明确强调不收取任何费用,设置举报奖励等措施。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Crime of fraud is a common crime in practice. With the development of the economy and the advancement of technology, the criminal methods and manifestations of fraud crimes are increasingly complicated. Due to the complexity of the case itself and the differences in human cognition, there are still many difficult problems in practice in the identification of this crime. From the theoretical point of view, the crime of fraud and other crimes seem to be distinct in terms of the four elements, each of which has its own framework to follow, but in real life, in judicial practice, the identification of the crime of the case, judicial practitioners may also have a greater divergence of views. But in judicial practice, the identification of such cases is extremely difficult. It often happens to be inconsistent or even much different judgments between various regions. This phenomenon will inevitably lead to the inadequacy of the determination of fraud, and it is against the fairness and justice of the law. Therefore, it is urgent to understand how to identify the crime of fraud and to clarify the boundaries between fraud and occupational embezzlement, as well as non-state staff accepting bribes, such that it enables to provide a better reference and basis for judicial practice. This paper is divided into four parts, including about 21,000 words in total. The first part introduces the basic situation of the case. Chen holds a sales supervisor position in the real estate company and enjoys certain autonomy in terms of housing confirmation and pricing. In the sales process, Chen makes a fiction to home buyer that the house he wants to purchase has been pre-purchased by the “district leader”, and Chen has reached an agreement with the home buyer on the “transfer fee” in addition to the purchase contract, which totales RMB 285,000. Chen personally gets RMB 106,000. Then, in the investigation, prosecution and trial of the case, the different opinions of the legal workers on the case in the whole process, mainly pointed out whether Chen's behavior constitutes a crime, if Chen's behavior constitutes a crime, what kind of crime constitutes a specific offence. Finally, the author summed up the controversial focus of this case according to the different legal workers ' divergent views on the case. The second part concentrates on the legal analysis of related issues. This part starts from the theory of employee source of power in the enterprise, and believes that there are three sources of employee power: individual rights, post power and situational power. Then, it further elaborates the relationship between employee power and employee right, the use of1 employee power and criminal offense, separately discusses the involved crimes, andqualitatively analyzes the behavior of fraudulently collecting “transfer fees”. Based on above legal analysis, the third part summarizes the focus of the dispute in thiscase. It is the duty of diligence and loyalty for employees to use their rights and equal subjectsto conduct business activities for company’s benefits. This behavior is generally regarded as atrading strategy. But if the employees take ownership of the company’s interest, they maycommit crimes of occupation. If employees use their staff rights to seek benefits for othersand the other people directly pass the property over the company to them, these employeesmay offence against non-state staff accepting bribes. In this case, the staff rights are mainlyused to assist the perpetrator to implement fraud. In another word, the perpetrators whoobtains the property disposed by the victims based on misunderstanding constitutes a fraudcrime.Combined with the basic situation of the case, this part analyzes the Chen’s behaviorthat he charges “transfer fee” and whether to make the buyer suffered economic losses, or toreduce the company's property and obtain their own property that should belong to thecompany held a discussion and analysis, and then came to the conclusion of this case. The fourth part based on the above analysis, we can obtain serveral research implicationsfrom this case, including what aspects should be grasped during the qualitative study of suchcases, as well as how to prevent their recurrence. Furthermore, we also propose somesuggestions to prevent such incidents from happening again. For example, in the judicialpractice, judicial personnel should consider which elements should be penalized in the correctcourse during the qualitative study of such cases; The public administration department mayforce the relevant personnel to disclose information on the sale and purchase of houses, andstrengthen the administrative penalties for selling and deceiving consumers; Real estatecompanies clearly emphasize that they do not charge any fees in the promotion, and set upmeasures such as reporting rewards.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2026-04-10
回到顶部