Analysis On The Cases Of Bank Teller Withdrawing Depositor's Deposit

In the case of bank teller withdrawing depositor's deposit by arbitrage,there are differences in the nature,which are mainly based on different judgments on the following focus issues:whether the perpetrator belongs to the State functionary?Does it have the purpose of illegal possession?Is the deposit belonged to the property of the bank unit or the depositor's personal property?Did one take advantage of one's position?Does the means of action belong to embezzlement,theft or fraud?For the judgment of whether the actor constitutes a special subject,except that the tellers who perform the functions and powers of accounting supervisor in the state funded banks should be identified as state staff,other bank tellers generally do not belong to state staff.The purpose of illegal possession can be combined with four facts: motivation and background,plot of crime,means of action and disposal of deposits.The principle of subjective and objective consistency can be used to judge whether the perpetrator has the meaning of exclusion and possession.If these two elements are available,they are deemed to have the purpose of illegal possession.Deposits belong to depositors in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Law of China.The author agrees with the theory of bank possession.The act of withdrawing deposits by tellers can be assessed as infringing the ownership of deposits by depositors,and also as infringing the bank's possession of deposits.For the determination of whether or not to make use of the convenience of his position,if it is ascertained that the perpetrator has made use of the convenience of his position to handle,control or control the deposit,he thinks that he has made use of the convenience of his position.In addition,attention should be paid to the distinction between identification and utilization of work convenience.In judging the means of conduct,we should pay attention to the determination of "qualitative behavior in complex behavior" at the time point of "excluding the possession of the original owner".Then according to whether the perpetrator possessed the deposit or not,and whether he used fictitious facts to make other people fall into the wrong understanding and then deliver the deposit,one judged that the means of action belonged to embezzlement,theft or fraud.