挪用公款罪

Search documents
三堂会审 | 私设“小金库”并侵吞和挪用如何定性
Zhong Yang Ji Wei Guo Jia Jian Wei Wang Zhan· 2025-08-20 00:38
Core Viewpoint - The case involves the misuse of public funds by a former court official, highlighting issues of corruption and the establishment of an unauthorized "small treasury" for personal gain [3][9][10]. Summary by Relevant Sections Basic Case Facts - The individual in question, referred to as Xiang, misappropriated a total of 356.9 million yuan in execution guarantee funds and judicial relief funds from 2007 to 2012, using them for daily expenses of the court [3][9]. - Over the years, Xiang and accomplices embezzled over 354 million yuan and misappropriated 60 million yuan for personal investments, including stock trading and real estate [3][4]. Investigation and Legal Proceedings - The investigation began in September 2020, leading to Xiang's expulsion from the party and public office by August 2021 [4]. - The case was transferred to the C District People's Procuratorate for prosecution, resulting in a ten-year prison sentence for Xiang in March 2023, along with fines totaling 655,000 yuan [4][5]. Nature of the "Small Treasury" - The "small treasury" was established by Xiang and involved the unauthorized management of public funds, which were supposed to be deposited in a designated court account [7][9]. - The establishment of such a treasury is classified as a violation of financial discipline, particularly as it occurred before the 2016 regulatory changes [8][9]. Classification of Crimes - The actions of Xiang and his accomplices were classified as embezzlement rather than the misappropriation of state assets, as the funds were considered public property [10][12]. - The court determined that the funds in the "small treasury" were public assets, and the actions constituted a collective crime of embezzlement [11][12]. Misappropriation of Funds for Personal Use - Xiang directed the transfer of 350,000 yuan from the "small treasury" to his personal account for stock trading, which was classified as misappropriation of public funds [13][14]. - The court ruled that this act constituted a completed crime of misappropriation, despite the subsequent return of the funds [14]. Transition from Misappropriation to Embezzlement - In a specific instance, Xiang misappropriated 300,000 yuan in execution guarantee funds, which transitioned from misappropriation to embezzlement when he conspired to illegally retain the funds [15][18]. - The court found that Xiang's actions demonstrated a clear intent to illegally possess public funds, leading to a classification of his actions as embezzlement [17][18].
三堂会审丨通过下属单位将公款借给其他单位如何定性
Zhong Yang Ji Wei Guo Jia Jian Wei Wang Zhan· 2025-08-05 23:59
中央纪委国家监委网站 方弈霏 特邀嘉宾 张涛 重庆市纪委监委案件审理室副主任 朱闯 重庆市渝中区监委委员 黄延钦 重庆市渝中区人民检察院检察二部主任 赵文康 重庆市渝中区人民法院刑庭庭长 编者按 本案中,甲通过"集体研究"将C公司公款1500万元拨付给D公司后借给E公司使用,并要求E公司将某供配电工 程交由其特定关系人丙的亲属承揽,该行为应如何定性?甲接受丙转达丁的请托,利用职务便利帮助丁承接 项目,丙收受丁所送100万元后告知甲但未说明具体金额,甲是否应当对该100万元承担刑事责任?我们特邀 相关单位工作人员予以解析。 基本案情: 甲,1990年4月加入中国共产党,曾任A市B区房屋管理局(以下简称B区房管局)副局长、局长,B区区属国 有企业C公司党委书记、董事长等职。2020年5月退休。 挪用公款罪。2014年至2015年,甲接受商人乙的请托,利用其担任C公司党委书记、董事长等职务便利,个 人决定将C公司公款1500万元通过下属单位D公司借给与C公司有代建合作项目的E公司(私营企业,实际控 制人为乙)使用,并谋取了个人利益。 受贿罪。2004年至2023年,甲利用担任B区房管局副局长、局长,C公司党委书记、 ...
以案明纪释法丨准确认定挪用公款给“一人公司”使用的行为性质
Zhong Yang Ji Wei Guo Jia Jian Wei Wang Zhan· 2025-07-23 00:16
Core Viewpoint - The case revolves around the actions of Wang, a local party secretary, who is accused of misappropriating public funds by lending a significant amount to a company controlled by a private individual, which raises questions about the legality and ethical implications of such actions [2][5][15]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - Wang, as the party secretary, lent a total of 25 million yuan of public funds to a company owned by Li, with an agreement to pay interest at an annual rate of 8% [2]. - By the time of the investigation in 2020, 22 million yuan of the loan remained unpaid due to poor management of the borrowing company [2]. Decision-Making Process - The funds were managed by a committee that Wang led, but the decision to lend the money was not genuinely collective, as it was primarily driven by Wang's directives [3][12]. - The formalities of collective decision-making were bypassed, indicating a lack of true consensus among the leadership [11][12]. Legal Opinions - There are three differing opinions on how to classify Wang's actions: 1. Some argue that the actions do not constitute a crime as they were framed as a collective decision [5]. 2. Others suggest it constitutes abuse of power due to the violation of decision-making protocols [5]. 3. The prevailing opinion is that it constitutes misappropriation of public funds, as the funds were effectively lent to an entity that lacked independent legal status, equating to lending to an individual [5][9][15]. Legal Framework - The legal interpretation of misappropriation of public funds includes scenarios where public funds are used for personal benefit, which applies in this case due to the financial intermingling between the company and its sole shareholder [6][8][9]. - The distinction between lending to a company versus an individual is crucial, as the latter is more likely to be classified as misappropriation [7][9]. Implications of Personal Benefit - Wang's actions were not solely for the benefit of the public entity, as there were indications of personal gain, such as arranging employment for his son through the private company [15]. - The intertwining of personal and public interests complicates the legal standing of the case, as it suggests a dual motive behind the decision to lend the funds [14][15]. Conclusion on Legal Consequences - Given the significant amount involved and the nature of the actions, the case is likely to result in severe legal repercussions, including potential charges of both misappropriation of public funds and abuse of power [16].
以案明纪释法丨吸收客户资金不入帐罪与转化型贪污辨析
Zhong Yang Ji Wei Guo Jia Jian Wei Wang Zhan· 2025-05-28 00:50
Core Viewpoint - The case involves the misappropriation of customer funds by a bank official, leading to a debate on whether the actions constitute the crime of embezzlement, misappropriation of public funds, or the crime of accepting customer funds without proper accounting [1][3][4]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - Liu, a deputy branch manager of a state-owned commercial bank, and his wife, the actual controller of a private company, misappropriated over 10 million yuan from customers by falsely claiming high-interest deposit opportunities [2]. - Liu did not deposit the funds into the bank's official accounts but used them for his wife's company's operations, leading to a financial crisis and inability to repay the funds [2]. Divergent Opinions - Three opinions exist regarding Liu's actions: 1. Some argue he committed the crime of accepting customer funds without proper accounting due to the significant amount involved [3]. 2. Others believe he committed misappropriation of public funds since he intended to use the funds for business operations and misled customers into thinking their money was safely deposited [3]. 3. The third opinion asserts that Liu's actions constitute embezzlement, as he intended to illegally possess the funds after failing to repay them [4]. Analysis of Opinions - The analysis supports the view that Liu's actions should be classified as embezzlement, focusing on the nature of the funds, the intent to illegally possess them, and the transformation of intent from misappropriation to embezzlement [5][10][14]. - The funds involved are considered public funds, as they were not deposited into the bank's official accounts, despite customers believing they were [8][9]. Judgment of Intent - The determination of Liu's intent is crucial, as embezzlement requires a clear intention to illegally possess public funds, which is evident in Liu's actions of destroying deposit certificates and fleeing [10][12][13]. - Liu's behavior reflects a shift from initially misappropriating funds for business purposes to a clear intent to permanently deprive customers of their money [13][14]. Conclusion - Based on the principles of subjective and objective consistency, Liu's actions should be treated as embezzlement, as they represent a complete criminal act involving the misappropriation and subsequent illegal possession of public funds [14].
个人假借“集体研究”之名出借公款如何定性
Zhong Yang Ji Wei Guo Jia Jian Wei Wang Zhan· 2025-05-06 23:51
Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the misuse of public funds by officials, specifically focusing on a case where a street committee leader facilitated the borrowing of public funds for personal connections, highlighting the legal implications of such actions [1][2][3]. Group 1: Case Summary - Zhao, a party committee secretary, borrowed 5 million yuan from public funds for a friend, Li, who was in financial trouble, and received 200,000 yuan in cash as a thank-you [2]. - Zhao manipulated the decision-making process by ensuring that other committee members would not oppose the borrowing during a collective meeting, which ultimately led to the approval of the loan [2][5]. - The loan agreement stipulated a one-year term with an 8% annual interest rate, and the funds were transferred to Li's personal account [2]. Group 2: Legal Perspectives - There are two main legal interpretations regarding Zhao's actions: one views it as bribery, while the other sees it as both bribery and embezzlement of public funds [3][7]. - The second viewpoint argues that despite the appearance of collective decision-making, Zhao's actions were primarily driven by personal intent, constituting embezzlement of public funds [3][5]. - Zhao's actions meet the criteria for embezzlement as defined by law, as he knowingly misused public funds for personal benefit, disregarding the risks involved [4][6]. Group 3: Legal Framework - According to Article 384 of the Criminal Law, embezzlement occurs when public funds are misused for personal gain, especially when the amount is significant or not repaid within three months [4]. - The interpretation of the law clarifies that actions taken under the guise of collective decision-making can still be classified as embezzlement if they serve personal interests [4][5]. - Zhao's case exemplifies the legal principle that even if a decision appears collective, if it is driven by individual intent for personal gain, it constitutes embezzlement [5][6].