近來，財產危險的概念在台灣的文獻中終於有了一個相對詳細的說明。但或許由於它的內容相對複雜，以致於若干問題迄今仍有澄清的必要。這其中有部分的問題涉及到的其實已經不僅僅是對於財產危險的理解或定義，而是詐欺罪基本結構的問題。例如：結算的時點與確認損害的時點之間的關連性為何？損害的調查是否必須結算？如果是，則應如何設定結算的結構？財產危險是否會壓縮到中止未遂適用空間？等問題。事實上，財產危險在規範的評價上就是一種損害，當我們能夠正確認知到詐欺罪不能逸脫實害犯的範圍時，我們就可以充分瞭解，不管是抽象危險或者具體危險都不能夠與財產危險相提並論。此外，在許多情形下，損害的有無其實都是事前的預測；此時對於風險與獲利等量齊觀的破產會計法則可以作為衡量損害的有效工具。

Recently, the term “property risk” in Taiwanese literature has finally been described in relative details. Nevertheless, several questions have remained to be clarified due to the complexity of the concept, and among them some have been involved in the basic structure of the fraud, rather than simply the understanding and definition of property risk. For example, the correlation between the time of the determination and settlement of damage; the necessity for a settlement during the determination of damage, and the structure of the settlement to be established if positive; and the possibility of affecting the application of abandonment attempt in property risk. In fact, property risk itself is regarded as a kind of damage in the sense of normative evaluation. If the fact that fraud does not go beyond the limit of injury offense could be clearly understood, then it could be fully comprehended that neither the abstract strict liability offense nor the concrete strict liability offence might be equated with the property risk. In addition, the assessment of damage is, in many cases, actually a forecast. For this purpose, the bankruptcy accounting principle, in which risk and profit are considered equivalent, could be adopted as an effective tool to measure the damage.