【#员工利用公司系统漏洞盗走2360万#】#2360万建材0元购买家潜逃被判无期# 近日，最高人民检察院 发布一起利用网络销售系统漏洞实施的特大盗窃案：某公司唯一具有销售系统"超级管理员"权限的员 工，利用系统漏洞，内外勾结，盗窃公司货款2360万余元。河南省禹州市某建材公司于2021年初引进了 一套销售系统，并把唯一的"超级管理员"权限授权给了公司员工张某。张某在测试系统时发现，如果将 系统中完成实际交易的订单作废，货款可返回购买方的预付金账户。张某将这一漏洞告知同事李某，并 经李某介绍，结识了有业务往来的销售公司老板王某、法定代表人连某。随后4人合谋，由张某远程登 录系统，秘密作废了该销售公司的采购订单，共删除8635条记录，致使已支付货款约2360万余元退回到 了王某的公司账户并被瓜分。2023年2月19日，张某所在公司发现购买数据被人为删除后，向公安机关 报案。张某于次日主动投案，但辩称其利用工作权限作案，应认定为职务侵占罪，而非盗窃罪。检察机 关认为，张某等4人以非法占有为目的，采用秘密手段窃取他人财物，数额特别巨大，应依法认定为盗 窃罪。许昌市中级人民法院以盗窃罪判处王某、张某、李某、连某4人无期 ...

"今天终于等到了。"在服刑7年、出狱5年多后，曾经的福建漳州女商人林惠荣终于拿到了无罪判决。 今天（12月23日）上午，福建省漳州市芗城区人民法院对"女商人林惠荣职务侵占案"再审宣判。判决书显示，芗城区法 院认为，原一、二审判决认定林惠荣犯职务侵占罪的事实不清、证据不足，原公诉机关指控不能成立，故作出如上改 判。 今年52岁的林惠荣系金福荣贸易（福建）有限公司法定代表人。公诉机关此前指控，2012年林惠荣与池某在经营中产生 矛盾，致使公司无法正常经营。林惠荣未经池某等人同意，伪造股权转让协议等文件，将池某等四人股权变更至林明武 名下。2013年5月20日，林惠荣接到电话通知后到公安机关接受调查。 2016年5月30日，漳浦县法院一审判决林惠荣犯职务侵占罪，判处有期徒刑七年，林惠荣提出上诉。2016年11月14日， 漳州中院二审驳回上诉，维持原判。判决生效后，林惠荣始终没有认罪。2020年，她刑满释放后继续申诉。 股权纠纷牵出刑案： 女商人被控职务侵占获刑七年 但这一事件埋下了隐患——2013年5月，林惠荣被刑事拘留，漳浦县人民检察院指控其利用法定代表人职务便利，伙同 林明武伪造股权转让协议等文件，于2013年 ...

"今天终于等到了。"在服刑7年、出狱5年多后，曾经的福建漳州女商人林惠荣终于拿到了无罪判决。 今天（12月23日）上午，福建省漳州市芗城区人民法院对"女商人林惠荣职务侵占案"再审宣判。判决书显示，芗城区法院认为，原一、二审判决认定林惠 荣犯职务侵占罪的事实不清、证据不足，原公诉机关指控不能成立，故作出如上改判。 今年52岁的林惠荣系金福荣贸易（福建）有限公司法定代表人。公诉机关此前指控，2012年林惠荣与池某在经营中产生矛盾，致使公司无法正常经营。林 惠荣未经池某等人同意，伪造股权转让协议等文件，将池某等四人股权变更至林明武名下。2013年5月20日，林惠荣接到电话通知后到公安机关接受调 查。 2016年5月30日，漳浦县法院一审判决林惠荣犯职务侵占罪，判处有期徒刑七年，林惠荣提出上诉。2016年11月14日，漳州中院二审驳回上诉，维持原 判。判决生效后，林惠荣始终没有认罪。2020年，她刑满释放后继续申诉。 ▲芗城区法院门口，林惠荣手持无罪判决书。图片来源：王殿学 股权纠纷牵出刑案： 每经编辑｜程鹏 女商人被控职务侵占获刑七年 林惠荣案事发于十多年前。据一审判决书显示，2010年，她与丈夫林明武出资40万元 ...

Core Points - Hunan Meihouwang Film Co., Ltd. has reported to the Beijing Economic Crime Investigation Unit that Zhang Jizhong is suspected of embezzlement, with the amount involved being substantial [1] - Zhang Jizhong claims that the allegations are false and stem from harassment by his ex-wife, who has previously attempted to file similar claims that were rejected by the court [2] - The case involves financial transactions that occurred during Zhang Jizhong's tenure as general manager of the company from its establishment in 2010 until his departure in late 2016 [2] Financial Transactions - On September 1, 2010, Zhang Jizhong allegedly used his position to have Hunan Meihouwang sign a script agreement with a company he controlled, resulting in a transfer of $650,000 [2] - On September 19, 2010, he facilitated a market consulting agreement that led to a transfer of $400,000 to his own company [2] - Zhang is accused of transferring a total of 2 million yuan to his personal account through various means, with 780,000 yuan remaining unaccounted for [2] Legal Context - Hunan Meihouwang Film Co., Ltd. asserts that these actions constitute embezzlement, which severely harms the company's development and shareholder interests [3] - Legal experts note that embezzlement is a common crime in private enterprises, often linked to power struggles or management changes [3] - The legal definition of embezzlement includes the illegal appropriation of company assets, with a threshold of 30,000 yuan for criminal prosecution [3]

Core Viewpoint - Hunan Meihouwang Film Co., Ltd. has reported to the Beijing Economic Crime Investigation Unit that Zhang Jizhong is suspected of embezzlement, with the amount involved being substantial [3][9]. Company Overview - Hunan Meihouwang Film Co., Ltd. was established in June 2010 with a registered capital of 10 million yuan, focusing on film and television planning and cultural project investment [4][5]. - The company is co-owned by Beijing Meihouwang Cultural Development Co., Ltd., Shanxi Tongyu Cultural Communication Co., Ltd., and Fan Xinman (Zhang Jizhong's ex-wife), who holds a 5% stake [4][7]. Allegations Against Zhang Jizhong - Zhang Jizhong, who served as the general manager and director, is accused of misusing his position to transfer company funds to his personal accounts and companies he controls, totaling significant amounts [8][9]. - Specific transactions include a transfer of 650,000 USD to a company he controlled and unauthorized transfers totaling 2 million yuan to his personal account [8]. Legal Context - The allegations fall under the category of embezzlement, a common crime in private enterprises, often linked to power struggles or disputes over management rights [9]. - According to Article 271 of the Criminal Law, embezzlement can lead to imprisonment for up to three years or detention, with the threshold for prosecution being an amount exceeding 30,000 yuan [9].

Core Viewpoint - The case of Li, a member of the village committee, highlights the misuse of public funds and the legal implications of such actions, specifically regarding the classification of his crimes as embezzlement and misappropriation of public property [3][11][14]. Group 1: Case Background - Li joined the Communist Party in November 2015 and served as a member and accountant of the village committee from 2016 to 2023 [3]. - In 2016, the government approved the expropriation of collective land in C Village, resulting in a compensation payment of 1.4 million yuan being deposited into the village's account [3][10]. - Li misappropriated the 1.4 million yuan compensation during his management of the funds, which were intended for distribution to villagers [10][14]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - Li voluntarily surrendered to authorities on May 10, 2023, leading to an investigation and subsequent disciplinary actions [4][5]. - On August 23, 2023, he was expelled from the Party and the case was transferred to the local prosecutor's office for further legal action [5]. - The prosecution formally charged Li with embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds, resulting in a combined sentence of 19 years in prison and fines totaling 4.8 million yuan [6][14]. Group 3: Legal Classification of Crimes - Li's actions were classified as embezzlement due to his role as a village committee member, which allowed him to manage public funds [11][14]. - The nature of the 1.4 million yuan compensation was determined to be public property, as it was government funds intended for public benefit, thus qualifying Li's actions as embezzlement [13][14]. - In contrast, Li's misappropriation of 19.61 million yuan from village collective funds was classified as misappropriation due to the funds being considered as belonging to the village collective rather than public property [15][17].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a case of embezzlement involving an employee of a paper products company in Jiangxi, who exploited his position to illegally appropriate company funds from the sale of waste paper, resulting in significant financial loss for the company [2][3][6]. Summary by Sections - **Case Details** - The defendant, Ming, held positions as a warehouse manager and purchaser at a paper products company and misused his access to the company's waste paper sales channels [2]. - Ming coordinated with drivers to sell the waste paper at a higher price while underreporting the sale price to the company, leading to a total embezzlement of over 830,000 yuan [3]. - **Court Proceedings** - The court found that Ming's actions constituted embezzlement due to his abuse of his position, resulting in a significant amount of illegal appropriation [6]. - The court sentenced Ming to 1 year and 11 months in prison, imposed a fine of 50,000 yuan, and ordered him to repay the company for the losses incurred [6]. - **Legal Framework** - The article references the relevant legal provisions under the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China regarding embezzlement and the penalties associated with such crimes [7][8]. - It emphasizes the importance of integrity and ethical conduct in professional settings, highlighting the severe legal consequences for those who exploit their positions for personal gain [8].

Core Viewpoint - The case involves Zhang, a former sales director at A Company, who exploited his position to illegally profit from transactions involving PAC, leading to potential charges of embezzlement and corruption based on his changing status from a company employee to a state worker [2][5][10]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - A Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of state-owned B Company, engaged in the production and sale of PAC. Zhang, hired in 2012, manipulated sales contracts to benefit a shell company, C Company, resulting in a profit of 1.8 million yuan, of which he received 1.4 million yuan [2][3]. Disputed Opinions - Three differing opinions exist regarding the classification of Zhang's actions: 1. Zhang's actions before February 2017 constitute embezzlement, while actions after that date are classified as corruption, leading to dual charges [5]. 2. Zhang's continuous actions should be viewed as a single offense of corruption due to his final status as a state worker, totaling 6.7 million yuan in illicit gains [6]. 3. Zhang's actions before and after his status change should be classified separately, with embezzlement for earlier actions and corruption for later ones, resulting in a total of 3.2 million yuan for embezzlement and 3.5 million yuan for corruption [7]. Legal Analysis - The distinction between company employees and state workers is crucial in determining the nature of the crimes. Embezzlement applies to company employees, while corruption applies to state workers [9][10]. - Zhang's actions involved artificially inflating transaction processes to siphon profits from A Company, which constitutes illegal appropriation of company assets [12][13]. Calculation of Criminal Amounts - Zhang and Li, as co-conspirators, are liable for both embezzlement and corruption, with the total amounts for each crime being 3.2 million yuan and 3.5 million yuan, respectively [14][15].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal interpretation of whether village committee members assisting government in administrative tasks can be classified as "public servants" under Chinese law, particularly in the context of a case involving embezzlement of public funds by a village leader [1][3]. Group 1: Case Background - Xu, a party secretary of a village, was involved in a project funded by a street office to build a water reservoir for the village, which was outside the street's administrative jurisdiction [2]. - The street office allocated 300,000 yuan for the project, but Xu misappropriated 60,000 yuan by falsifying invoices [2]. Group 2: Legal Interpretations - There are two main viewpoints regarding Xu's actions: one argues that since the village is not within the street's jurisdiction, Xu does not qualify as a public servant and thus committed embezzlement; the other argues that Xu's actions fall under the category of public service as he was assisting the government in fulfilling its duties [3][6]. - The article supports the second viewpoint, asserting that the funds were public property intended for poverty alleviation and thus Xu's actions constituted embezzlement [4][6]. Group 3: Definition of Public Property - Public property is defined under Chinese law to include state-owned assets, collective assets, and funds designated for public welfare, such as poverty alleviation [4]. - The funds allocated for the water reservoir project are classified as public property since they were intended for a specific public purpose and controlled by the street office [4]. Group 4: Role of Village Committees - Village committees are considered autonomous organizations that do not inherently possess public authority unless they are assisting the government in administrative tasks [5]. - The article emphasizes that the classification of village committee members as public servants depends on their role in assisting government functions, which was applicable in Xu's case [5]. Group 5: Conclusion on Criminal Charges - Xu's actions are classified as embezzlement rather than misappropriation of collective funds, as he was acting in a capacity that involved public service [6]. - The distinction between embezzlement and misappropriation hinges on whether the individual was acting as a public servant while committing the act [6].

Core Viewpoint - The actual controller of Beiliang Company, Ma Xuejun, has been found to have occupied company funds through various means, raising concerns about financial transparency and governance [1][4][5]. Group 1: Fund Occupation Details - From October 2021 to the end of 2022, Ma Xuejun occupied a total of 408,230 yuan through employee loans [1]. - Additionally, the company made advance payments totaling 8 million yuan to a supplier, which were later identified as funds occupied by Ma Xuejun [3]. - The occupied funds have been returned, but the interest accrued remains a concern for regulatory compliance [4]. Group 2: Regulatory Implications - The occupation of funds by the major shareholder may lead to regulatory penalties, as it constitutes a violation of information disclosure obligations [4][5]. - Legal experts indicate that the actions could potentially violate securities laws and may result in criminal charges if certain conditions are met [5][6]. Group 3: Company Financial Performance - Beiliang Company has reported continuous losses over the past three years, with revenues of 895 million yuan, 1.275 billion yuan, and 1.085 billion yuan from 2022 to 2024, respectively [7]. - The net profit figures for the same period were -124 million yuan, -50.24 million yuan, and 1.019 million yuan, indicating a lack of significant recovery [7]. - High sales expenses have been a persistent issue, with sales expenses reaching 482 million yuan, 680 million yuan, and 544 million yuan, leading to high sales expense ratios [9]. Group 4: Market Position and Strategy - The company primarily relies on direct sales and has established a significant presence in physical retail locations, which incurs high fixed costs [11]. - The product category is characterized as non-essential, leading to reliance on promotional activities to drive sales, which further increases marketing costs [11]. - There is potential for improvement in sales efficiency and cost management, but the company is currently in an expansion phase that necessitates high marketing expenditures [11].