再次，陈某等人以甲公司名义违规套取职工教育补贴后向公司员工发放的行为构成私分国有资产罪。刑 法第三百九十六条规定，"国家机关、国有公司、企业、事业单位、人民团体，违反国家规定，以单位 名义将国有资产集体私分给个人，数额较大的，对其直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员，处三年 以下有期徒刑或者拘役，并处或者单处罚金；数额巨大的，处三年以上七年以下有期徒刑，并处罚 金"。其一，最高人民检察院《关于人民检察院直接受理立案侦查案件立案标准的规定（试行）》规 定，"私分国有资产罪案中的'国有资产'，是指国家依法取得和认定的，或者国家以各种形式对企业投 资和投资收益、国家向行政事业单位拨款等形成的资产"，本案中甲公司属于国有公司，其违规套取的 职工教育补贴属于国家补贴，该资产性质属于国有资产，符合私分国有资产罪中的犯罪对象要件。其 二，陈某作为国有公司负责人，由其起意并决定实施套取职工教育补贴，再违规为公司员工发放，事后 本人也分得4万元，其作为决策者，对集体私分行为起关键性主导作用，是"直接负责的主管人员"。其 三，陈某等人以甲公司名义违规套取职工教育补贴并以津补贴名义向公司员工发放，显然违反国家规定 以及公司财务制度 ...

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].

Core Viewpoint - The case discusses the misappropriation of state-owned assets by a management team in a state-owned joint venture, highlighting the legal interpretations of their actions and the appropriate charges against them [1][2][6]. Group 1: Case Background - Chen, appointed by the A City Transportation Committee, served as the Party Secretary and Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Company B, which is a limited liability company with 50% state-owned and 50% private capital [1]. - Between 2012 and 2014, Chen and other executives illegally distributed a total of over 7.98 million yuan under the guise of "performance rewards" to management personnel, with Chen personally receiving over 940,000 yuan [1]. Group 2: Legal Interpretations - Three differing legal opinions exist regarding the classification of Chen's actions: 1. Some argue it constitutes joint embezzlement due to the illegal appropriation of state funds [2]. 2. Others believe it amounts to the illegal distribution of state-owned assets [2]. 3. The prevailing view is that it constitutes abuse of power by state-owned enterprise personnel, as it resulted in significant losses to state interests [2][6]. Group 3: Legal Framework - The actions do not meet the criteria for embezzlement as defined by Article 382 of the Criminal Law, which pertains to individual actions rather than collective decisions made by a unit [3]. - The behavior also does not qualify as the illegal distribution of state-owned assets under Article 396, as Company B is a joint venture and not a wholly state-owned entity [4][5]. - Chen's actions are classified as abuse of power under Article 168, as he violated his duties and caused significant losses to state interests [6][7].