Font Size: a A A

The Behavior Of The Embezzlement Of The Company’s Property As A Means To Ask For The Arrears

Posted on:2015-11-29Degree:MasterType:Thesis
Country:ChinaCandidate:P QuFull Text:PDF
GTID:2296330467468023Subject:Punishment law
Abstract/Summary:PDF Full Text Request
In recent years,after the embezzlement of the company’s property,companyemployees ask for their arrears by virtue of the property they embezzled.And suchcases are increasingly widespread concerned.Characterization of such cases there is abig controversy in theory and practice.For the behavior of the embezzlement of thecompany’s property,some scholars believe that they commit Embezzlement.Butsome believe that they commit fraud and deception.But for the behavior of asking fortheir arrears with the embezzlement of the company’s property,some scholars believethat they commit extortion and blackmail.Some believe that they commit no crime;buttheir behavior of defending rights go beyond the scope permitted by law.In judicialpractice,courts handle such cases also quite different.In this paper, by the case of Guoas an example, the author analysis the behavior of the embezzlement of thecompany’s property as a means to ask for the arrears.This article is mainly divided into four parts:Part I: The basic introduction of the case. This part briefly introduces the causeof action, the details of a case, the disputes and the focus of controversies. The detailsof the case: the defendant Guo embezzled the company’s property and asked for hisarrears.The main disagreements lie in the determination on the nature of the twokinds of behavior and the relations of the two kinds of behavior. The focus ofcontroversies is that the behavior of the embezzlement of the company’s property isProfessional Embezzlement or Fraud and use of the property they embezzled to askfor arrears is crime of extortion or improper exercise rights. The two kinds ofbehavior shall be a sin in broken or combined punishment for several crimes.PartII: The relevant legal analysis of the problem. This part is the basic theory ofthis article,and is also a key part of this article. This part includes three aspects. First,the determination on the nature of the embezzlement of the company’s property. Itmainly includes the analysis of Professional Embezzlement,Fraud and theirdifferences;the analysis of the embezzlement of the company’s property by Guo. Second, the determination on the nature of asking for arrears by virtue of theproperty they embezzled.Its main contents are the analysis of the crime of extortion,the boundaries between the crime of extortion and improper exercise civil rights andthe analysis of asking for arrears by virtue of the property Guo embezzled. Third,theconcept and characteristics of implicated offence.And in this case, the behavior is notthe implicated offence.PartIII: The analysis and conclusion of this case. According to the legal analysisof this article,make a concrete analysis as follows: First of all,Mr.Guo’s behavior ofthe embezzlement of the company’s property constitutes ProfessionalEmbezzlement;second,Mr.Guo and three other people’s behavior of asking for theirarrears by virtue of the property they embezzled,include Mr.Cai,Mr.Jia andMr.Wang,does not constitute a crime. In the end, implicated relationship lies inMr.Guo’s early behavior and the late behavior.PartIV: The enlightenment to the case.
Keywords/Search Tags:Professional Embezzlement, Fraud, Extortion, Implicated offence
PDF Full Text Request
Related items