电信网络诈骗犯罪中帮助取款行为的刑事认定
The Criminal Identification of Assisting Withdrawal in Telecom Network Fraud Crimes

电信网络诈骗类案件自2016年以来呈现出爆发式增长的严峻态势，司法机关对于此类案件的认定也存在较大争议，法院在裁判中出现同案异判的现象屡见不鲜。电信网络诈骗犯罪具有参与人数众多，共犯之间分工缜密，在客观方面更是复杂多变，帮助取款行为作为整个电信网络诈骗罪的最后一环，也是诈骗分子能取得非法财物的关键一步。犯罪分子为规避侦查，顺利取得财物，在取款环节上也会采用多种隐秘方式，这也为实务中对帮助取款行为的定性增加难度。通过对涉及帮助取款行为的裁判文书进行分析，主要争议点就在于对罪名的认定，是构成诈骗罪的共犯还是仅构成掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得、犯罪所得收益罪。最高法、最高检和公安部在2016年和2021年发布的《关于办理电信网络诈骗等刑事案件适用法律若干问题的意见》中对此作出回应，即关键在于帮助取款人是否“明知”和是否有“事前通谋”行为，但对于上述两个概念的进一步认定规则并未足够详细。因此，本文将从司法实践和理论学说对这两个概念的认定规则进行探讨。此外，电信网络诈骗犯罪中的帮助取款行为与传统诈骗犯罪中中途参与取财行为并不一样，因此无事前通谋的帮助取款行为并不能构成承继的共犯。
Since 2016, telecom network fraud cases have surged dramatically, presenting a severe challenge. The judicial authorities have faced significant disputes over the identification of such cases, with inconsistent verdicts often arising in similar cases. Telecom network fraud crimes involve numerous participants, with accomplices undertaking meticulously coordinated roles. The crime is also complex and highly variable in its objective aspects. The act of assisting with withdrawals represents the final link in the telecom network fraud chain and is a crucial step for fraudsters to obtain illicit assets. To evade investigation and successfully acquire stolen goods, criminals often use covert methods during the withdrawal phase, further complicating the classification of assisting withdrawal behavior in practice. Through the analysis of judicial opinions involving assisting withdrawal, the main point of contention lies in the criminal charge: whether the person constitutes an accomplice in the fraud or merely a participant in the crime of concealing or laundering the criminal proceeds. In response to this, the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Public Security issued opinions in 2016 and 2021 regarding the legal application in telecom network fraud cases, emphasizing that the key issue is whether the person assisting the withdrawal “knew” of the fraud and whether there was “pre-conspiracy”. However, the guidelines for further defining these two concepts remain insufficiently detailed. This paper will explore the judicial and theoretical interpretations of these two concepts. Additionally, the act of assisting withdrawals in telecom network fraud differs from the act of participating in the withdrawal halfway in traditional fraud cases, meaning that assistance without pre-conspiracy cannot be classified as an accessory to the primary fraud.