专业团队

合同当事人一般要注意两方面的内容，一是合同违约，一是合同欺诈。然而，现实中不少合同当事人是分不清楚这两者的。其实合同违约与合同欺诈是有根本性的区别，具体他们的区别在哪里?

合同诈骗罪与合同纠纷是两种不同性质的现象，但二者的客观表现却有着相同或相似之处。

合同诈骗犯罪，是以非法占有为目的，在签订、履行合同过程中，以虚构事实或隐瞒真相的方法，骗取当事人财物，数额较大的行为。合同中的一方当事人没有履行或者没有完全履行合同，使对方受到损失，并且一方在签订合同时可能有某些欺骗性的因素，则前者是合同诈骗罪，而后者是合同纠纷，二者有着本质的不同。然而，在实践中，区别二者分界限往往是比较困难的，二者的根本不同点，在于行为人有没有履行合同的诚意，也就是说是否具有非法占有对方当事人财物的目的。如果没有这一非法占有的目的，只是因为在履行合同过程中，因遇天灾人祸或市场变化等不可抗力的客观因素，使当事人没有能力继续履行合同的，只能定性为合同纠纷。比如，在签订合同时有虚构事实或隐瞒事实的行既可能是合同诈骗犯罪的一种形式，也可能是合同纠纷中的民事纠纷。又如，合同签订后不履行合同的行为，既可能是行为人出于经营困难造成的，也可能是行为人见利起意，在履行中滋生非法占有的目的而拒绝履行自自己的合同义务，也就是说既可能是合同纠纷，也可能是合同诈骗罪。

合同纠纷，是指行为人有履行或基本履行合同的诚意，只是由于客观原因而未能完全履行合同。合同纠纷，以当事人的违法行为为前提，其侵害的是合同产生的债权。而合同诈骗罪，行为人实施诈骗行为，其侵犯的是财产所有权。两者区分的关键是行为人有无履行合同的诚意亦即是否具有非法占有对方当事人财物或骗子取对方当事人财物的目的。对行为人主观目的认定是非常困难的，例如虚设担保固然是合同诈骗的种手段，但不能据此认为凡是虚构担保的行为都是合同诈骗罪。行为人虽然虚设了担保，但目前是为了通过合同的履行来实现商业上利润的，则仍属于合同纠纷的范围。行为人签订合同后，事实上没有履行，但没有履行并不一定是合同诈骗，可能是行为人的经营困难造成的。

The parties to a contract generally need to pay attention to two aspects: breach of contract and contract fraud. However, in reality, many contract parties are unable to distinguish between these two. In fact, there is a fundamental difference between contract breach and contract fraud. What is the specific difference between them?

The crime of contract fraud and contract disputes are two phenomena of different natures, but their objective manifestations have similarities or differences.

Contract fraud is a crime committed with the purpose of illegal possession. During the process of signing and performing a contract, it involves fabricating facts or concealing the truth to defraud the parties of a large amount of property. If one party fails to perform or fully performs the contract, causing losses to the other party, and one party may have some deceptive factors when signing the contract, then the former is the crime of contract fraud, while the latter is a contract dispute, and the two are fundamentally different. However, in practice, it is often difficult to distinguish the boundaries between the two. The fundamental difference between the two lies in whether the actor has the sincerity to perform the contract, that is, whether they have the purpose of illegally occupying the property of the other party. If there is no purpose for illegal possession, but only because objective factors such as natural disasters, man-made disasters, or market changes during the performance of the contract make the parties unable to continue to perform the contract, it can only be classified as a contract dispute. For example, the act of fabricating or concealing facts when signing a contract may be a form of contract fraud or a civil dispute in contract disputes. For example, the act of not performing the contract after it is signed may be caused by the actor's business difficulties, or it may be due to the actor's intention to engage in illegal possession and refuse to fulfill their contractual obligations during performance, which can be either a contract dispute or a crime of contract fraud.

Contract dispute refers to a situation where the actor has the sincerity to perform or basically perform the contract, but fails to fully perform the contract due to objective reasons. Contract disputes, based on the illegal behavior of the parties, infringe upon the rights arising from the contract. The crime of contract fraud involves the perpetrator committing fraudulent acts, which infringe upon property ownership. The key to distinguishing between the two is whether the actor has the sincerity to perform the contract, that is, whether they have the purpose of illegally occupying the property of the other party or fraudulently taking the property of the other party. It is very difficult to determine the subjective purpose of the actor. For example, although creating false guarantees is a means of contract fraud, it cannot be considered as a crime of contract fraud based on this. Although the perpetrator has created a false guarantee, it is still within the scope of contract disputes if the current purpose is to achieve commercial profits through the performance of the contract. After signing the contract, the actor did not actually perform, but failure to perform does not necessarily mean contract fraud, it may be caused by the actor's business difficulties.