Owned Assets Crime

Crime of dividing up state-owned assets in secret is a new accusation, which was added into the specific provisions of Criminal Law in 1997. It is a significant step to set up this accusation and is meaningful to avoid the loss of state-owned assets. But in the judicial practice, because of lacking relevant laws and many other reasons, it is very difficult to deal with such legal cases. This thesis makes a study on the crime, including determination of subject, objective determination, subjective analysis, determination of this crime, punishment of this crime and limitation of prosecution etc. This thesis is divided into six parts.Part I is about the determination of subject of the crime. The author discusses whether the crime is of unit or natural man and the subject scope and whether natural man may become the subject of this crime, among which the author thinks the crime is of unit for the former. For the subject scope, the author determinates government agency, state-owned corporation, state-owned enterprise, institution and people's organization and sets forth the subsidiary departments of above-mentioned units may also be the subject of this crime under certain conditions, namely when the qualification of legal person or the status of quasi-legal person is provided. For the question whether natural man may become the subject of this crime, the author thinks the criminal responsibility of natural man is a part of that of unit because the natural man in unit crime and its unit constitute an integer and the natural man as the subject of crime isn't independent of its unit.Part II is about the objective determination. Mainly according to own practice and experience, the author brings forward the identification of three questions in handling this kind of legal cases including "violation of stateregulations", "collectively making secret individual distribution in the name of unit" and "large amount involved" a big amount", and raises the tentative idea to make an attempt on perfecting relevantly legislation.Part III is about the subjective analysis of this crime. By analyzing cognitive and will factors , the author thinks indirect intention of a crime shall constitute this crime. By analyzing the criminal purpose, the author thinks the purpose of criminal behavior is not the essential constitution of this crime.Part IV is the determination of this crime, including the determination between crime and noncrime, as well as the determination between this crime and the relative one. In the latter, the author concentrates on the determination between this crime and crime of embezzlement as well as this crime and crime of dividing up in secret the fines of confiscated money or property, and at the same time the author makes some legislative suggestions.Part V is about the punishment of this crime. The author emphatically determinates the scope of direct responsible persons of this crime and thinks the chief or manager in charge of state-owned assets of nongovernmental corporation, enterprise, institution and organization should bear the criminal responsibility of this crime. At the same time, the author puts forward the viewpoint that the amount of stated-owned assets divided in secret is in direct proportion with the scope of direct responsible person.Part VI is about the limitation of prosecution of this crime. The author thinks current limitation of prosecution applies to crime of dividing up state-owned assets in secret and discusses the initial date of the limitation of prosecution of this crime.