Criminal Regulations Of Squandering Public Funds

Squandering the public fund is not only a moral issue; it is a matter of law as well. Itviolates the integrity of the civil servant and intensifies social contradictions, which has asignificant negative impact on the society. Those conducts, like wasting public funds Feasting,travelling and spending on public funds, shall be prohibited. No matter it relates to oneindividual or a group of people, squandering public funds is one step near the misconduct ofembezzlement, misappropriation and malfeasance. Although some provisions on the existingcriminal law can be applied to the misconduct of squandering public funds, there are stillsome behaviors that are beyond the reach of the criminal law. In addition, researches whichaim to study this problem systematically are rare. The research aims to do a systematicanalysis on this particular issue—squandering the public funds, with the intent to put up withsome legislative suggestions which may help with the construction of a comprehensive andeffective legal system.There are five parts after the introduction part.The first part gives a thorough introduction of the conduct of “squandering public funds”.It is defined as a serious misconduct of spending large sums of public funds lavishly. Thebehavior of squandering public funds may appear in different forms, and its emergence anddevelopment have certain historic and social origins.In the second part, the paper does a thorough research on the existing laws and finds thatsome malignant behavior of squandering public funds can be incorporated into the existinglegislation. Relevant judicial cases has already existed, mainly include crimes ofmisappropriation, embezzlement, and malfeasance. However, large numbers of thosemisbehaviors can only be restrained by non-legal means, such as principals of administration,provisions of the party or some disciplinary regulations.There are two different opinions concerning how to punish the act of squandering publicfunds. One emphasizes that the existing legislation is enough for regulate those misconduct.For example, specific crime conviction and sentencing can be applied to the crime ofembezzlement and abuse of power can be. The second opinion states that the legal systemshould be further completed with new laws, which can regulate the malignant behavior ofsquandering public funds specifically. The third part states that neither of the above view is satisfying, from the perspective ofspecific legal disposition. A compromise of the two may be more appropriate. That is, on theone hand, improving the existing legislation relating to the provisions of squandering publicfunds; on the other hand, making new laws which can restrain behaviors of wasting publicfunds that is currently beyond the reach of the law. Taking this compromised opinion has itsnecessity and feasibility. In the necessity part, it is the need to fill the seats of the criminal law,to implement anti-corruption and to make crime be able to be judged by law. Also, thehistorical traditions and realistic conditions will ensure its feasibility. Of course, thiscompromised approach may bring some adverse consequences, but those can certainly beresolved.The fourth part indicates that the improvement of the existing legislative provisions onsquandering public funds is mainly reflected in categorizing different misconducts intodifferent charges. This may require the publication of legislative or judicial interpretation toexplicitly include the malignant behavior of squandering public funds into the crimes ofmisappropriation, embezzlement, malfeasance and other crimes in the criminal act.The fifth part suggests that a charge of wasting public funds can be set up independently.In this way, those crimes which cannot be incorporated into the existing legislation can beregulated as well. However, based on statutory requirements and the modesty of criminalcrime, a serious consideration is needed. Concrete suggestions and recommendations will beprovided based on the discussion of necessity.