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 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 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 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 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 Points - The case involves a public institution (A unit) and a private company (B company), where the head of A unit, Shen, solicited a donation of 1 million yuan from Zhang, the actual controller of B company, to fund a research project [1][2] - The donation was used to gain favorable treatment in project bidding, with B company winning contracts worth over 20 million yuan as a result [1][2] - Different legal interpretations exist regarding the nature of the donation, with one view categorizing it as bribery and the other as a legitimate donation benefiting the unit [2][3] Summary by Sections - **Nature of the Donation**: The 1 million yuan donation from Zhang to A unit is characterized as a bribe rather than a legitimate donation, as it was not voluntary and aimed at securing improper benefits [3][4] - **Legal Implications**: Shen's actions are analyzed under the lens of bribery laws, with the consensus leaning towards classifying the donation as unit bribery, and Shen's subsequent actions as both unit bribery and personal embezzlement [2][5] - **Financial Misappropriation**: Shen misappropriated 150,000 yuan for personal use from the donation, which constitutes embezzlement under criminal law, highlighting the misuse of public funds [5][6]

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].

Core Viewpoint - The case revolves around the actions of Che, who used Company A's name to "invest" in Company B, ultimately obtaining over 4.15 million yuan in "dividends," raising questions about whether this constitutes a violation of business regulations or embezzlement [2][18]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - Che joined the Communist Party in June 1994 and served as the chairman and general manager of Company A, a state-owned enterprise, until his retirement in October 2021 [3]. Embezzlement Details - In October 2013, Che arranged for an employee to register Company B under his name, with a registered capital of 1 million yuan, which was loaned from a state-owned small loan company [4]. - Company B was managed by Company A's asset management department and was used as a tool for external business operations [4][5]. - In 2014, Che manipulated the financing service contracts to benefit Company B, which he knew was profitable and low-risk, and decided to "invest" in Company B to extract its profits [5]. Financial Transactions and Control - From March to December 2015, Che facilitated the transfer of 50% of Company B's shares to Company A and its management team without any payment, maintaining control over the company [6]. - Between September 2016 and March 2017, Che received over 4.15 million yuan in dividends from Company B based on a 30% shareholding [6]. Investigation and Legal Proceedings - The investigation into Che's actions began on June 27, 2023, leading to his detention and subsequent legal actions, including a public prosecution for embezzlement [8][9][10]. - On January 11, 2024, the court sentenced Che to 11 years and 6 months in prison for embezzlement, along with a fine of 1.3 million yuan [11]. Company Nature and Legal Implications - There are differing opinions on whether Company B is a state-owned enterprise or a private company, but evidence suggests it is controlled by Company A, thus qualifying as a state-owned entity [13][14][17]. - Che's actions, including undervaluing Company B's shares and using its funds for personal gain, are classified as embezzlement under the law [22][25]. Conclusion on Che's Actions - Che's investment in Company B was deemed a means to unlawfully acquire state-owned assets, constituting embezzlement rather than a legitimate business activity [21][25].

Group 1 - The core argument revolves around the classification of village cadres as state workers based on their engagement in public duties, particularly in the context of land expropriation and compensation [1][9] - Case one illustrates a scenario where village cadre A and official B conspired to fraudulently obtain over 5 million yuan in compensation by fabricating population and land area documents, raising questions about their legal accountability [2][4] - Case two involves cadre C, who improperly allocated compensation to individuals not entitled to it, resulting in over 5 million yuan in losses, highlighting the misuse of authority in local governance [3][5] Group 2 - There are differing opinions on the legal classification of the actions taken by cadres A and C, with one view suggesting they committed abuse of power, while another argues for the classification of their actions as embezzlement [4][14] - The distinction between public duties and village management is crucial in determining the legal status of village cadres, as their actions may fall under different legal frameworks depending on their engagement in governmental functions [7][9] - The analysis emphasizes that the nature of the funds involved—whether they are public or collective assets—plays a significant role in determining the applicable legal consequences for the actions of the village cadres [12][13]

Group 1 - The article discusses the legal distinctions and similarities between bribery and embezzlement in the context of a specific case involving a hospital department head and a drug dealer [1][3] - The case highlights the complexities of determining whether certain funds should be classified as unit bribery or personal embezzlement, particularly regarding the payment of 180,000 yuan for the head's daughter's salary and social insurance [2][4][6] - Different viewpoints exist on how to classify the 180,000 yuan payment, with one perspective arguing it should be considered as part of unit bribery, while another suggests it constitutes embezzlement due to the misappropriation of unit funds [3][5][7] Group 2 - The article emphasizes that for a crime to be classified as unit bribery, the funds must be controlled and owned by the unit, which was not the case in this instance [4][5] - It is argued that the 180,000 yuan payment does not qualify as embezzlement since the funds were never under the unit's control or ownership, thus not infringing on public property rights [6] - Ultimately, the article concludes that the 180,000 yuan should be classified as personal bribery for the department head, as the transaction was a result of a new agreement between him and the drug dealer [7]