An Analysis Of The Cases Of Corruption And Private State-Owned Assets Of Huang Moumou And Zhou Moumou In The Process Of State-Owned Enterprise Bankruptcy Reform

In 1997,China' s criminal law has set a crime of privately dividing state-owned assets.The crime of privately dividing state-owned assets has been controversial both in practice and in theory.In the practical world,the distinction between the crime of privately dividing state-owned assets and the crime of corruption is even more difficult.The opinions of the public prosecution authorities and the courts in a large number of cases cannot be agreed.Even the opinions of the courts of first instance and the court of second instance are divided.This is mainly for private points.The understanding of the crimes of state-owned assets crimes and corruption crimes is not in place and the lack of relevant laws and regulations on the crime of privately dividing state-owned assets.The bankruptcy reform of state-owned enterprises hides the state-owned assets in a very high incidence.In the bankruptcy reform,the state-owned assets are concealed.Because of different situations,some cases constitute corruption,and some cases constitute the crime of privately dividing state-owned assets.Most cases are complicated because of the case.There is a big controversy over whether it constitutes a crime of privately dividing state-owned assets or corruption.In the case of state-owned enterprise bankruptcy reform,Huang Moumou,Zhou Moumou and other cases of corruption and private state-owned assets,the public prosecution agency and the court for the parties constitute a crime of corruption or private state-owned assets crime?Does the case reflect the will of the unit?Whether the proportion of the case can be used as a criterion for distinguishing the crime of corruption and the crime of privately dividing state-owned assets.For the above three controversial points,the article mainly adopts three parts to discuss.Firstly,it comprehensively analyzes the case and evidence,and explores whether the case belongs to the unit will through the combination of theory and evidence.Whether the proportion of profitable people in this case is small can be used as a criterion for determining the crime of corruption.Secondly,it analyzes the traditional four elements of the crime of privately dividing state-owned assets and the crime of corruption,and clarifies the differences and similarities between the two crimes.Combined with the content of the first part,it comprehensively identifies whether it constitutes a crime of corruption or a crime of privately dividing state-owned assets.Finally,through the controversy in this case,some suggestions were put forward for the legislative and private state-owned assets crimes.Through the analysis of the case,the author believes that the case should constitute a crime of privately dividing state-owned assets.The reasons are as follows:First,the write-off of assets in this case was carried out through the asset write-off meeting.The main leaders and middle-level leaders of the original pigment chemical plant participated in the meeting,which reflected the unit of crime of privately dividing state-owned assets.The characteristics of the will,followed by the public offering of the assets written off,reflect the openness of the privately-owned state-owned assets,and make the majority of the employees of the unit gain,although the number of people does not reach the ideal proportion due to reasons other than the will,but This shows that the level of responsibility of the perpetrator is reduced,which is the biggest difference between the crime of privately dividing state assets and the crime of corruption.