Qualitative Study On The Crime Of State-Owned Enterprise Driver Stealing Delivery Goods

In juridical practice, cases such as state-owned enterprise driver stealing delivery goods, take place frequently. But how to convict this kind of crime causes difficulties. Take Wang’s stealing product oil from oil tanks case for example, the concept of corruption believes that, Wang as an official of state-owned enterprise, engaging in public affairs, has the supervision responsibility for the product oil. Taking advantage of his position convenience, he illegally possesses the product oil he delivers, which convicts crime of corruption. This statement inaccurately defines the concept of public affairs engagement. Public affairs engagement means people or organization on behalf of the government execute power and administrate the public affairs of the country, community and the society. As a driver, Wang has the responsibility to supervise the safety of the delivered oil, doesn’t have the right to administrate public affairs on behalf of the government. As a result, Wang’s case can’t be convicted as corruption.The concept of misappropriation believes that, Wang as the company employee, takes advantage of his position convenience, illegal possesses the product oil he delivers in a large amount, which is misappropriation. This statement inaccurately defines the concept of taking advantage of one’s position convenience. Taking advantage of one’s position convenience means people having the rights to supervise, administrate and manage the properties and objects he accesses at work and take advantage of these rights. But in fact, Wang doesn’t have these rights; so his stealing can’t be thought as taking advantage of his position convenience. As a result, Wang’s case can’t be convicted as misappropriation.The concept of embezzlement believes that, Wang, commissioned by transport company, transports the product oil, which is secondary proxy. Wang is responsible for the supervision. During transportation, he takes other people’s property as his own and refuses to return, which convicts embezzlement. But this statement has two questions: first, the sales company and the transport company are affiliated to oil company. Wang is responsible for the supervision because of job need, which is not in commendam. Second, the sealed product oil are not Wang’s honest possession. As a result, Wang’s case can’t be convicted crime of embezzlement.The concept of theft believes that, product oil in oil tanks belong to oil company, therefore Wang’s stealing product oil convicts crime of theft. There is doubt that Wang and oil company joint possess the oil, Wang convicts crime of embezzlement. When the top-bottom relationship and owner-member relationship exist between them, only if the member Wang and the owner oil company have a high degree trust relationship, Wang’s dominion over the oil equals to the oil company’s, and they joint possess the oil. But oil company doesn’t give Wang the dominion over the oil, they seal the oil tank before transportation, which means there is no trust relationship between them. Accordingly, Wang’s taking the product oil as his own during transportation convicts theft.