疑案精解 ｜ 涉区块链数字藏品案件罪与非罪辨析

2022年5月至8月期间，赵某伙同他人成立某空间技术公司，该公司取得EDI许可证（增值电信业务经营许可证）、ICP经营许可证（互联网信息服务业经营许可证）以及公安机关网络备案，开发一款名为“某空间”的手机APP，在APP上销售数字藏品，招募客服人员建立微信、QQ群等进行客户推广，客户在APP上注册后，通过微信、支付宝、银行卡转账等方式进行充值，充值之后账户上显示余额，通过余额在APP上选购数字藏品，每份数字藏品售价1-99元不等。赵某在销售数字藏品过程中，通过虚假的广告推广宣传，夸大数字藏品收藏价值，发布相关的回购公告、进行虚假空投（空投就是指将数字藏品免费赠送给客户）、开展抽奖活动并伪造抽奖人数，开通二级寄售市场（二级寄售市场系app内用于用户与用户之间交易平台），制造虚假繁荣交易假象，引诱被害人购买数字藏品，“骗取”被害人资金463万余元，后赵某将该二级寄售市场关闭，并将“某空间”技术公司连同公司APP等一同卖给另一家公司，关闭所有推广客户的微信群、QQ群，将钱款提出转账至个人账户，后因被害人报警案发，案发后，赵某并未将钱款退还被害人。

During the period from May to August 2022, a space technology company was established by a group of Zhao, together with others, to develop a mobile phone APP, known as “a space”, for the sale of digital collections, recruit clients for the creation of micro-letters, groups of Q, etc., to promote customers who, upon registration on the APP, collect the balance on the account after it has been revalued (a licence to operate a value-added telecommunications business), an ICP operating licence (a licence to operate an Internet information service) and a public security agency's network. In the course of selling the digital collection, Zhao developed a mobile phone APP, sold the value of digital collections on the APP, recruited clients for the creation of micro-letters, Q group, etc., and after registering it, collected the value of the digital collection through micro-mails, paid off to customers, forged the value of the prizes and forged the number of the prizes, opened the secondary mail market (a second-stage to sell the victim's market with the user's trading platform) and made a false announcement of the money from the P-based company, and sold the second-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-be-to-to-to-to-to-be-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-the-to-the-to-to-the-the-to-to-to-to-the-to-to-to-the-to-to-to-to-the-the-to-the-the-to-to-the-the-to-to-the-to-the-to-the-the-the-the-the-the-to-to-the-to-to-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-to-to-to-the-the-the-the-to-to-to-to-the-the-the-the-to-to-the-the-to-the-the-the-to

2023年6月18日，公安机关以赵某涉嫌诈骗罪向检察机关提请批准逮捕。

On 18 June 2023, the public security organs requested the Public Prosecutor's Office to approve the arrest on suspicion of fraud.

针对本文案例的定性，第一种意见认为赵某构成诈骗罪。赵某伙同他人，以非法占有为目的，开发“某空间”手机APP，进行虚假营销及广告宣传、承诺回购、开放二级交易市场、进行虚假空投、开展抽奖活动、伪造抽奖人数等方式，营造二级市场虚假繁荣假象，使被害人陷入错误认识购买数字藏品进而遭受财产损失。因此，赵某的行为构成诈骗罪，应当以诈骗罪追究其刑事责任。

In response to the characterization of the present case, the first comment is that Zhao was guilty of fraud. Zhao's group, together with others, developed a “space” mobile phone APP for the purpose of illegal possession, engaged in false marketing and advertising, promised to buy back, opened the secondary trading market, made false air strikes, carried out a peddling campaign, forged the number of prizes, and created a false boom in the secondary market, exposing the victim to a false perception of buying digital collections and, consequently, the loss of property. Zhao's actions therefore constituted a fraud offence for which he should be held criminally liable.

第二种意见认为赵某构成非法经营罪。赵某违反国家规定，未经许可非法经营数字藏品业务，扰乱市场秩序，情节严重，应该以非法经营罪追究其刑事责任。

According to the second view, Zhao is guilty of illegal business. Zhao, in violation of the regulations of the state, illegally runs a digital collection without permission and disturbs the order of the market, in serious circumstances, should be held criminally liable for illegal business.

第三种意见认为赵某不构成诈骗罪、非法经营罪。赵某虽然在销售数字藏品过程中使用虚假宣传、虚假营销等欺骗手段，但是赵某的上述行为无法直接推定其具有非法占有目的，不能排除其存在民事欺诈的合理怀疑。被害人是基于对数字藏品未来增值预期的考量而自愿购买数字藏品，并非基于错误认识处分财物进而遭受财产损失。数字藏品的销售并未有相关法律规定属于特许经营的范围。因此，在数字藏品法律规定不明确的情况下，将销售数字藏品的行为认定为非法经营罪于法无据。

According to the third opinion, Zhao is not guilty of fraud or illegal business. Although Zhao, in the course of selling digital collections, has used fraudulent means such as false propaganda and false marketing, Zhao cannot directly presume that he has an illegal purpose of possession and cannot exclude his legitimate suspicion of civil fraud. The victim voluntarily purchased digital collections based on considerations of the future value added of digital collections, and did not dispose of property on the basis of misperception. The sale of digital collections did not fall within the scope of franchise under the relevant legal provisions. Accordingly, the sale of digital collections is criminalized as an illegal operation in circumstances where the legal provisions for digital collections are unclear.

笔者赞成第三种意见。赵某的行为不构成诈骗罪、非法经营罪。从诈骗罪的犯罪构成要件角度分析，构成诈骗罪应同时具备以下四个要素：行为人具有非法占有目的、行为人实施了诈骗行为、被害人基于错误认识处分财物、行为人取得财物与被害人基于错误认识处分财物之间存在因果关系。本案中，赵某所实施的客观行为无法直接推定其具有非法占有目的，其实施的欺诈行为非刑法意义上的诈骗行为，而是一种民事欺诈行为，被害人并非是基于错误认识而处分的财物。赵某经营数字藏品的行为并未“违反国家规定”，也不属于《刑法》第225条第1款第4项规定的“其他严重扰乱市场秩序的非法经营行为”。具体分述如下：

In this case, the objective act committed by Zhao cannot be directly presumed to have been a fraud committed for the purpose of unlawful possession, but rather as a civil fraud. The crime of fraud should be analysed from the point of view of the constituent elements of the crime of fraud, together with the following four elements: the perpetrator's unlawful possession, the perpetrator's fraudulent conduct, the victim's misperception of the disposition of property, the perpetrator's acquisition of the property and the victim's misperception of the disposition of the property. In this case, the objective act committed by Zhao is not a direct presumption of his unlawful possession, the fraud committed by him is not a fraud within the meaning of criminal law, but rather a civil fraud. The victim did not dispose of the property on the basis of a false belief.

（一）行为人不具有非法占有的目的

（二）准确界定诈骗犯罪与民事欺诈的界限

（三）赵某的行为不构成非法经营罪