The Research Of Some Problem About Embezzlement Of Public Funds

The establishment of embezzlement of public funds is a great breakthrough in our criminal legislation. It gives us a proper sentencing standard of embezzlement behavior and overcomes the sentencing improper of identifying the embezzlement of public funds as"corruption". In the judicial practices, because of the complication of the cases and many judicial interpretations, there are different opinions about the following issues: the understanding of the embezzlement; the effect of public funds'whereabouts on the nature of embezzlement behavior and the identification of the subject. In this paper, the author will try to analyze the above issues with practical cases.The whole paper includes introduction, main body and conclusion of about 30000 words. The introduction is about the significance of the topic and the lead-in of the main body.There are three parts of the main body. The first part is the author's understanding of embezzlement. In Pan's case, questions such as the boundary between embezzlement and loan of the public funds, whether the director of the state-owned units"approval of oneself"of funds can all be identified as embezzlement of public funds will be discussed. In the author's opinion, profit-making and illegal activities with loaned public funds should be identified as "embezzlement". But if the director loaned the funds for life emergencies, offered borrowing procedures to the finance and under supervision, even if"approval by oneself", it should not be identified as embezzlement of public funds. In Wu's case, the"moved without using"funds is discussed. The author agrees that"moved without using"is"accomplished crime". Identifying"use"and"personal use"as the subjective or objective elements of embezzlement of public funds is the focus of"moved without using"discussion. And they are the objective elements in author's opinion.The second part talks about the effect of public funds'whereabouts on the nature of embezzlement behavior. In author's opinion, when the director of state-owned unit embezzled the public funds for shareholding enterprises, the nature of the participating enterprises doesn't effect the identification of shareholding enterprises as"other units". Private companies and enterprises without legal personality should also be identified as"other units". But if the actual investor of the shareholding enterprises is the state-owned unit, the case is units'internal money lending. The embezzlement to others for companies'registration and capital verification is embezzlement for"profit-making"activities.The third part talks about whether village team leader and contractor of state-owned enterprise should be identified as the subject of crime. In author's opinion, village team belongs to"village grassroots organization". So village team leader is duality. When he assists the people's government on the seven kinds of administrations, he belongs to"the staff in official business under laws"; when in village's self-management, he is not national official. According to the current criminal law, the contractor of the state-owned units who embezzled the public funds should be sentenced misappropriation of funds because the contractor is"the entrusted official who control and manage the state property".The conclusion is the summary of the whole paper.