采取何种理论判断诈骗罪的财产损失，历来见仁见智。德日刑法理论在诈骗罪的判断路径、定罪范围及犯罪数额认定方面均存在差异。我国刑法理论的有力说对诈骗罪财产损失的讨论借鉴了德、日刑法学理论和实务的见解，但结合我国司法实务所做的反思不足。简单照搬域外诈骗罪财产损失理论势必造成实务和理论的脱节。诈骗罪的不法类型与盗窃罪不同，其是对整体财产的犯罪。从我国司法实践看，对诈骗罪财产损失的判断所采取的是整体财产说的立场，这一主张总体上具有合理性。本文对此进行了一定程度的修正，即对整体财产损失的判断原则上以客观的经济衡量为标准，仅在某些特殊情况下进行个人化判断。在此基础上，本文讨论了诈骗罪财产损失具体判断的四个类型性问题。首先，对于双方给付型欺诈财产损失的判断，在客观的经济衡量阶段，应具体到双方交易关系中考察。将行为人给付的有价值的犯罪成本予以扣除，在体系上顾及了法秩序统一性和涉案财物的处理，较为妥当。对财产损失进行个人化判断时，不应考虑与商品功效无关的个人化目的和社会目的。行为人提供的反对给付与基本目的相符的，就可以认为交易目的已经实现，被害人没有财产损失。在行为人给付的财物完全不符合交易目的时，需要“基于生活经验的转卖可能性说”判断有无转卖可能性。其次，单方给付与双方给付型欺诈不同，在单方给付型欺诈中，是否成立诈骗罪主要考虑的是社会目的是否落空，判断重点在于行为人是否具有获得捐赠或补贴等的正当性基础。再次，财产损失的判断还需要考虑不同交易领域。在古玩行业、涉宗教信仰的交易中，财产损失的判断需要考虑交易惯例以及参与者的特殊交易目的。最后，在担保贷款双重诈骗案件中，如果在银行放贷的时点，担保是真实足额的，应当认为担保足以消除其风险，担保物具有刑法上的财产价值，对银行的债权可以评价为“具有财产价值的期待地位”，被害人不存在财产损失。为此，需要区分不同的类型，判断担保是否具有足够的确定性。当第三人担保是提供抵押物，或者明确由担保公司或保险公司进行担保时，银行没有财产损失的危险，被告人对银行不构成贷款诈骗罪，仅对担保人构成合同诈骗罪。

What kind of theory to judge the property loss here has always been a difficult problem of different opinions in theory. There are differences in the judgment path of the crime of fraud, the scope of conviction and the determination of the amount of crime in the criminal law theory of Germany and Japan. The powerful theory of criminal law in our country the discussion on the property loss of the crime of fraud draws lessons from the theory and practice of criminal law in Germany and Japan, but the reflection combined with the judicial practice of our country is insufficient. Simply copying the theory of property loss in the crime of extraterritorial fraud is bound to cause the disconnection between practice and theory. The illegal type of the crime of fraud is different from the crime of larceny, it is the crime of the whole property. From the perspective of judicial practice in our country, the judgment of property loss in the crime of fraud is based on the theory of overall property, which is reasonable on the whole. This paper modifies it to a certain extent, that is, the judgment of the overall property loss is based on objective economic measurement in principle, and personal judgment is made only in some special cases.On this basis, this paper discusses four types of specific judgment of property loss in the crime of fraud. First of all, in the objective economic measurement stage, the judgment of the property loss of payment fraud of both parties should be specifically examined in the transaction relationship between the two parties. It is more appropriate to deduct the valuable crime cost paid by the actor, taking into account the unity of law and order and the handling of the property involved in the case. When judging the property loss, we should not consider the personal purpose and social purpose which have nothing to do with the efficacy of the commodity. If the objection payment provided by the actor is consistent with the basic purpose, it can be considered that the purpose of the transaction has been realized and the victim has no property loss. When the property paid by the actor is not in line with the purpose of the transaction, it is necessary to judge whether there is the possibility of resale based on the theory of resale possibility based on life experience.Secondly, unilateral payment is different from bilateral payment fraud. in unilateral payment fraud, the establishment of the crime of fraud mainly considers whether the social purpose has failed, and the key point of judgment is whether the actor has the legitimate basis for obtaining donations or subsidies.Thirdly, the judgment of property loss also needs to consider different transaction areas. In the antique industry and religious transactions, the judgment of property loss needs to consider the transaction practice and the special transaction purpose of the participants.Finally, in the case of double fraud of secured loans, if the guarantee is true and full at the time of bank lending, it should be considered that the guarantee is sufficient to eliminate its risks, and the collateral has the property value in criminal law. The creditor‘s rights of the bank can be evaluated as "expectant status with property value", and the victim does not have property loss. To this end, it is necessary to distinguish different types and judge whether the guarantee has sufficient certainty. When the third party guarantee is to provide collateral, or explicitly guaranteed by the guarantee company or insurance company, the bank has no danger of property loss, and the defendant does not constitute the crime of loan fraud to the bank, but only to the guarantor.