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].

本案中，对赵某行为如何定性有两种观点。第一种观点认为，赵某的行为构成受贿罪。赵某作为国家工 作人员，利用职务上的便利，收受李某20万元好处，并为李某借用甲街道公款提供帮助，构成受贿罪。 甲街道班子会议集体研究决定将公款给李某使用，系甲街道集体决策，体现的是单位意志，不属于赵 某"个人决定"，因此其行为不构成挪用公款罪。第二种观点认为，赵某的行为构成挪用公款罪、受贿 罪。虽然从形式上看甲街道将500万元公款借给李某经营使用系经"集体研究"，但从实质上看，这一过 程自始至终是由赵某"个人意志"主导，本质上是赵某个人决定，其行为构成挪用公款罪。同时，赵某利 用职务上的便利，非法收受李某所送20万元好处，并为李某借用公款提供帮助，该行为同时构成受贿 罪。因此，对赵某应当以挪用公款罪和受贿罪数罪并罚。笔者同意第二种观点。 根据刑法第三百八十四条规定，"国家工作人员利用职务上的便利，挪用公款归个人使用，进行非法活 动的，或者挪用公款数额较大、进行营利活动的，或者挪用公款数额较大、超过三个月未还的"是挪用 公款罪。《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于〈中华人民共和国刑法〉第三百八十四条第一款的解释》 （以下简称《解释》）明确， ...