Analysis Of Crime Of Embezzlement By Wang And Others

With the development of economy,there are a series of new problems and new situations in the process of reform of state-owned enterprises.Although The Supreme People's Court and The Supreme People's Procuratorate promulgated opinions on the specific application of the law in handling cases of duty crime in state funded enterprises,but the understanding of relevant concepts such as " Organizations with responsibility for the management and supervision of state-owned assets" is still controversial.Thus,there are many problems still exist in its application,which has aroused heated discussion in academic world and judicial practice.This article try to study the three controversial points in the case of embezzlement by Wang and others: the question of whether each appellant has the status of a state personnel,the recognition of the crime in this case,and the specific recognition of the amount of embezzlement.Based on the theoretical analysis,this paper classifies the state-funded enterprises into wholly state-owned companies,wholly state-owned enterprises and state-owned capital holding companies,and discusses the specific contents of the identification of state functionaries in state-funded enterprises.This article analyzes the distinction between the crime of embezzlement and the crime of private division of state-owned assets from the essence of crime.This article analyzes whether the amount of official expenditure in corruption of offence can be deducted or not.Finally,combined with the case of this case and the above analysis,the following conclusions are drawn: First of all,Wang and Zeng 's post has not been approved by the Party committee,the joint party and government meetings of state-owned assets management agencies,state-owned companies,enterprises,institutions,higher levels or state-owned funded enterprises at the corresponding level.It also does not belong to some special circumstances,nor can it be seen that the Party committee's decisive and influential influence on its post.and its duty is not based on the will of the appointing subject through the act of delegation,and the work content does not reflect the will of the state to protect the state-owned property.Therefore,Wang and Zeng did not have the status of state personnel;secondly,because Liu,the accomplice of the crime,had the status of state personnel,Wang and others were accomplices with him.Based on the purpose of illegal possession,they are taken advantage of their each positions of charge and management of public property to obtain public property in the form of fictitious works,which conforms to the constitutive requirements of the crime of embezzlement and should be regarded as the crime of embezzlement;Third,not only the amount of official expenditure in corruption of offence should not be deducted from the total amount of embezzlement but also739200 yuan which is approved by the company should not be deducted.