| Countries have set up special funds aimed at effectively relieve strained local finances, andconstantly improve people’s livelihood facilities, and actively promote the results of the reform ofsocial sharing. Logically, according to the relevant units and individuals shall be properlymanaged to ensure that " earmarking." However, the fact has repeatedly shown that these shouldserve the people’s livelihood in this field of construction of special funds are increasingly beingeroded some units and individuals crazy, thus adversely affecting the national special fundfulfilling its functions, serious damage to people’s fundamental interests. For such a seriousviolation of the country’s financial management system, endangering national security specialfund criminal acts, should strengthen the judicial disciplinary efforts. But confusing is that, inrelation to the illegal taking, embezzlement, misappropriation of state special funds of crime, weoften see is the units involved, rarely heard by the criminal liability related units. Well, thereasons behind what is? Is a legislative oversight, judicial helplessness, or inadequate theoreticalresearch? Furthermore, we should take measures to improve how to close the French Open, tocurb the further spread of such crimes? With the above problems, this paper intends to obtainfrom the judicial practice, a typical case is cut through the qualitative differences between thecases discussed, showing the unit illegally taking, embezzlement, misappropriation of statespecial funds to conduct an objective existence in practice judicial confusion, then explore andanalyze their causes, and on this basis to propose a preliminary solution or perfect views.This paper is divided into five parts, a total of about25,000words.Article preamble on topics of the background for a simple introduction, that is, in contemporaryChina, this should serve the people’s livelihood and which should be " earmarked " nationalspecial funds, in fact, has become part of the units and individuals any mercy of the " official toldus." On this basis, leads to a number of issues of concern in this paper, in order to expand thediscussion later.The first part of the article introduces the basic situation of the typical cases are introduced.Introduces the " unlawful taking of state grants Zhang Mouwei case" cause of action, the case,differences of opinion. On this basis, the focus of debate summed up the case, that the case liesin the heart of controversy river IT schools illegal taking, embezzlement, misappropriation ofstate grants qualitative behavior. And that really involve the community in recent years as apopular topic of concern, namely units violations taking, embezzlement, misappropriation ofstate special funds criminal regulation issues.The second part of the article revolves around the core of the typical cases launched acontroversial point related to theoretical analysis. The part that something like " Zhang Mouweiunlawful taking of state grants," the unit unlawful taking, embezzlement, misappropriation ofstate special funds to conduct criminal regulation issues has become a troubled current criminaljustice practice a major practical problem. Judicial reasons led to this confusion mainly includesthree aspects:(1) lack of legislation constitutes an illegal taking, embezzlement ormisappropriation of funds criminal law at the national special case of the soft environmentalbarriers;(2) Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorates issued a judicialexplained in the unit illegally taking, embezzlement, misappropriation of state special funds forthe regulation of behavior, showing a clear contradiction;(3) the relevant academic views onthe serious opposition makes judicial practice unit for illegal taking, embezzlement,misappropriation of state special funds punish acts of judicial lost " last straw." The third part combined with relevant legal analysis," Zhang Mouwei unlawful taking of stategrants case" qualitative analyzes and conclusions are given. Article that, for any legalrepresentative Zhang Mouwei river IT schools illegal acts taking of state grants, the existing legalframework, can not be held criminally responsible. In other words, for the unit illegally taking,embezzlement, misappropriation of state special funds act, must not take " alternative justice"approach, but should return to the level of criminal legislation, criminal legislation through tofinal liberation. Because "the work of justice " a violation of the principle of legality, in violationof the principle of guilt conceited, causing serious consequences of legal nihilism.The fourth section focuses on articles from the legislative point of view reveals the perfectrevelation of the case. Articles that although the present from the judicial point of view we aretemporarily unable to effectively regulate the illegal taking of metric units, embezzlement,misappropriation of state special funds behavior, but in the future to achieve the legislative process"too late." In this regard, the article focuses on the legislative mode and the two aspects of thelegislative technique to be discussed. Articles that from the legislative model point of view,General Method of amendment package although you can solve problems, but the legislativemodel too radical, it should not be advocated. On the contrary, by revising the legislative sub-model is able to provide a solution to the problem is relatively modest, pragmatic solution. In thespecific legislative technically, compared to the potential transformation of the old sin indeedaffect the whole body of the class ’s many problems, a separate new offense more operational.Specifically, it should be in the " Criminal Law" Article273" misappropriation of funds andmaterials specific crimes" under the introduction of " one of the first273", that unit illegallytaking, embezzlement, misappropriation of state special funds for that type of crime offenses bythe law regulation. |
PDF Full Text Request