【摘要】 在刑法教义学框架中，关于违法发放贷款罪的认定，主要争议焦点为“国家规定”的范围、“发放贷款”的界定、故意的确定、单位犯罪与个人犯罪的界限等。争议根源在于对规范目的的不同理解。违法发放贷款罪的规范目的具有复合性，包括财产权益、贷款效益、公众信赖。针对司法实践中“国家规定”的认定泛化现象，有必要严格依据我国刑法第96条的规定，明确并重申刑法中“国家规定”的法定范围。基于违法发放贷款罪的多重规范目的设置，应当根据不同的追诉标准，确定不同的“发放贷款”行为方式范围。在故意的认定中，应当把“国家规定”作为故意的认识内容，并把“重大损失”作为客观处罚条件。同时，有必要区分单位实施的违法发放贷款罪与个人实施的违法发放贷款罪。只要金融机构的管理人员或员工在其职责范围内实施贷款发放行为，即使具体的发放贷款行为方式违反了国家规定，通常也应当成立单位犯罪。更多还原

【Abstract】 Within the framework of criminal law doctrine, the primary controversies surrounding the determination of the crime of illegal loan focus on the scope of “state regulations”, the definitions of loan and of intent, and the distinction between corporate and individual crimes. The root cause for these controversies is different interpretations of the normative purpose underlying the legislation. The normative purpose of the crime of illegal loan is multifaceted, encompassing property rights, loan efficiency, and public trust. It is essential to rectify overly broad interpretations of “state regulations” in judicial practices based on the statutory scope defined in Article96 of Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China. In light of the various normative purposes associated with this crime, the range of actions considered as loan should be delineated according to different prosecutorial standards. In defining the intent, “state regulations” should be integrated into the cognitive content of intent,with “heavy loss” serving as an objective condition for punishment. Furthermore, a clear distinction should be made between the crime of illegal loan committed by an entity and that by an individual. When the management personnel or the employee of a financial institution grants a loan within the scope of his duties, the action should be classified as a corporate crime even if it contravenes state regulations.更多还原