Qualitative Research Of The Conduct Of Embezzling Customer’s Capital To Buy Fund

Some Hu, a sales director of a State-owned Commercial Bank, embezzledcustomer’s capital to buy fund. On this case, some view it as the crime of embezzlement,but others think it dose not constitute a crime. From the key point of the dispute, thedifferences mainly lies in:1. Whether the capital which the actor use is public funds ornot.2.Whether the actor’s behavior is embezzlement or not.3. Whether the capital in thiscase is for personal use or not. According to the laws and regulations, the capital in thiscase should be regarded as public funds, because it is belong to State-owned CommercialBank since the customers saved in. Proceed from the literal meaning, the word embezzlein crime of embezzlement, refers to violate the financial management system,embezzling public funds for personal use clandestinely. And, from this case, the actor’sbehavior is provided with illegality, privacy and self-interested, so it should be regardedas embezzle.Based on the analysis of criminal law and theoretical controversy, for personal usein crime of embezzlement should be understand as the following: First, take the publicfunds for personal use or, provide the public funds to their friends and relatives or othernatural person in one’s own name. Secondly, provide the public funds to otherorganization in one’s own name or in the name of the organization by personal decision.From the facts in this case, the actor’s behavior accord with embezzle the publicfunds for personal profit-making activities use. Allover, the actor’s behavior constitutethe crime of embezzlement.