村干部能否构成滥用职权罪？

Core Viewpoint - The case discusses the legal implications of a village official's abuse of power in the context of public property and compensation, highlighting differing opinions on whether the actions constitute a crime under the law [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Classification of Actions - There are three opinions regarding the classification of Chen's actions: 1. Chen and Pan are co-conspirators in embezzlement due to Chen's facilitation of Pan's fraudulent claims [2]. 2. Pan committed fraud independently, while Chen's actions, though improper, do not constitute complicity in fraud due to lack of intent to illegally possess public property [2]. 3. Chen, while assisting the government, can be considered a public official and his actions amount to abuse of power, leading to significant losses for the state [2][3]. Group 2: Definition of Public Officials - Village officials can be recognized as public officials when assisting government functions, as per legal interpretations that include those acting on behalf of state agencies [3][4]. - The case illustrates that Chen, as a village party secretary and committee director, was acting under government delegation, thus qualifying as a public official [4]. Group 3: Subjective Intent and Actions - Chen lacked the intent to illegally possess public property, as his actions were driven by personal relationships rather than a desire for personal gain [5][6]. - The absence of a conspiracy to embezzle public funds between Chen and Pan indicates that Chen's actions were not criminally conspiratorial [5][6]. Group 4: Objective Consequences of Actions - Chen's failure to properly audit compensation claims led to significant financial losses for the state, amounting to over 4 million yuan in fraudulent compensation [1][6]. - The abuse of power manifested through Chen's negligence in fulfilling his duties, resulting in substantial harm to public interests [6].