Case Analysis Of Li Jiang Crime Of Duty Encroachment

With the deepening reform and opening up,China's economy is developing rapidly. While increasing economic exchanges between people and more crimes against property category,as an important part of crimes against property category,crime of duty encroachment also shows an increasing trend year by year. But compared to other categories of crime against property.the crime of duty encroachment hasn't existed a long time and been studied deeply. Until 1995, "on the Punishment of Crimes Against the Company's decision" issued,the crime of duty encroachment separated from the corruption offence and became a new kind of crime,and even began to play an important role in the Criminal Law of P.R.C.. Due to the shorter establishment and the complexity of judicial practice,the identity of the crime of duty encroachment is difficult more than imaging.The paper focuses on the perspective of the criminal constitution to address how to understand the subject and using the convenience of position related to the crime of duty encroachment. Combining with the difference between the crime and theft, Li's convicted to crime of duty encroachment instead of theft ultimately because of his behaviour of using the convenience of position to possess illegally company's possession.This paper is divided into three parts, the first to introduce the case of Li Jiang crime of duty encroachment,like the first and second trials, controversies in proceeding in order to make a clear focus on his crime of duty of encroachment or theft. The second part, the author conducted for the legal analysis of cases focus of controversy. First of all,analysis on the crime of duty encroachment in theory and judicial practice. Second, analysis on theft constitution. Again,clear distinction between crime of duty encroachment and theft,and how to define the problem in judicial practice. The third part, basing on the second part's analysis, with the specific behaviour of Li and from a sentencing point of view, eventually identified the nature of the behaviour, that is crime of duty encroachment, not a theft.