职务侵占罪客观要件争议问题研究
|
摘要
职务侵占罪是身份犯,其主体是公司、企业或者其他单位的"人员"。不是公司、企业内部的正式职工,不在公司、企业职工名册上的人员,也能成为职务侵占罪的主体。司法实务中,公司、企业的实际控制人,以及虽无公司、企业人员身份但实际承担了公司、企业管理职责的人员都能够成立本罪。职务侵占罪客观要件中"利用职务便利"的实质是行为人根据其工作职责能够占有、控制本单位财物,仅仅短时间内"握有"单位财物,或者是财物仅仅从行为人手中"过一下",而对该财物并无占有、处分权限的,不属于本罪的"利用职务便利",这种被告人可能构成盗窃罪。职务侵占罪的行为对象不应包括股权,股权是财产性利益,其不是"本单位财物",而是归属于特定股东即出资者个人的财产权益。有关部门关于非法占有他人股权是否构成职务侵占罪的意见法律位阶较低,不属于司法解释,不具有法律约束力。对侵占其他股东股权(而非本单位财物)的行为如果确有定罪必要的,也应由被害股东根据我国《刑法》第270条的规定以(普通)侵占罪提起自诉。
The crime of duty-related embezzlement is a kind of status crimes, that is, its subject is a "staff" of a company, enterprise or other units, so a person who is not a regular employee or not on the list of employees of a company or enterprise can also be the subject of the crime of duty-related embezzlement.In practice, the actual controller of a company or enterprise, as well as the person who has actually assumed the responsibilities for managing the company or enterprise without the status of a staff of such company or enterprise can commit the crime. The essence of "taking advantage of one's duty" among the objective elements of the crime of duty-related embezzlement is that the perpetrator can occupy and control the property of its unit according to his duty. The person who only holds the property for a short time or just passes the property through its hand, but has no power to occupy or dispose of such property does not fall in the category of taking advantage of one' s duty and may be convicted of the crime of theft. The object of the crime of duty-related embezzlement should not include the equity which is a kind of financial interest but not the property of the unit. It is the financial interest belonging to a specific shareholder, that is, the capital contributor. The opinions of relevant departments on whether illegal possession of others' equity constitutes the crime of duty-related embezzlement are at the lowest level of legal effect and not judicial interpretation, thus having no legal binding effect. The injured shareholder may initiate the private prosecution and accuse the defendant of the crime of( ordinary) embezzlement according to Article 270 of the Criminal Code of China if it is really necessary to convict a behavior of embezzling other shareholders' equity( not the property of the unit).
The crime of duty-related embezzlement is a kind of status crimes, that is, its subject is a "staff" of a company, enterprise or other units, so a person who is not a regular employee or not on the list of employees of a company or enterprise can also be the subject of the crime of duty-related embezzlement.In practice, the actual controller of a company or enterprise, as well as the person who has actually assumed the responsibilities for managing the company or enterprise without the status of a staff of such company or enterprise can commit the crime. The essence of "taking advantage of one's duty" among the objective elements of the crime of duty-related embezzlement is that the perpetrator can occupy and control the property of its unit according to his duty. The person who only holds the property for a short time or just passes the property through its hand, but has no power to occupy or dispose of such property does not fall in the category of taking advantage of one' s duty and may be convicted of the crime of theft. The object of the crime of duty-related embezzlement should not include the equity which is a kind of financial interest but not the property of the unit. It is the financial interest belonging to a specific shareholder, that is, the capital contributor. The opinions of relevant departments on whether illegal possession of others' equity constitutes the crime of duty-related embezzlement are at the lowest level of legal effect and not judicial interpretation, thus having no legal binding effect. The injured shareholder may initiate the private prosecution and accuse the defendant of the crime of( ordinary) embezzlement according to Article 270 of the Criminal Code of China if it is really necessary to convict a behavior of embezzling other shareholders' equity( not the property of the unit).
引文
(1)参见四川省凉山州中级人民法院(2007)川凉中刑初字第102号刑事判决书。
(2)参见梁廷耀、闫广道:《“行署副专员”升天始末》,《四川监察》1999年第5期。
(3)参见海剑:《曹忠武:“三假”干部》,《检察风云》2017年第24期。
(4)参见四川省双流县人民法院(2014)双流刑初字第338号刑事判决书。
(5)参见四川省成都市中级人民法院(2014)成刑终字第293号刑事判决书。
(6)参见福建省漳州市中级人民法院(2016)闽06刑终254号二审刑事裁定书。
(7)河南省新密市人民法院(2015)新密刑初字第161号一审刑事判决书。
(8)参见熊红文:《股权不能成为职务侵占罪的对象》,《检察日报》2012年3月30日,第3版。
(2)参见梁廷耀、闫广道:《“行署副专员”升天始末》,《四川监察》1999年第5期。
(3)参见海剑:《曹忠武:“三假”干部》,《检察风云》2017年第24期。
(4)参见四川省双流县人民法院(2014)双流刑初字第338号刑事判决书。
(5)参见四川省成都市中级人民法院(2014)成刑终字第293号刑事判决书。
(6)参见福建省漳州市中级人民法院(2016)闽06刑终254号二审刑事裁定书。
(7)河南省新密市人民法院(2015)新密刑初字第161号一审刑事判决书。
(8)参见熊红文:《股权不能成为职务侵占罪的对象》,《检察日报》2012年3月30日,第3版。