Analytical Paper On Actual Case:Act Of Misappropriation Of Deposits By Director In Xiaoxiang Notary

In the before and after the implementation of the “Notarization Law”, all over the countr y appeared in the case of the notary office, director of the misapprop riation of deposits, courts in such cases were made a guilt y verdict for embezzlement of public funds. With the 2007 National notarization institutions implement notary reform spread, all over the notary machine structure of their restructuring, the format ion of the system of institutions, cooperative system or keep the existing administrative system of the three forms. Existing of these three kinds of different organizational forms enable practitioners in correct identification of the notarization institut ions and notaries on duty crimes generated considerable controversy.The director of Xiaoxiang notary office misappropriation of deposits as a case, investigation and supervision departments of procurator organs deems that notarization institutions do not have the state administrative authorit y, the notary does not have the status of national staff, notary deposits nor criminal law sense of public funds, the notary office director of misappropriation of deposits behavior should be identified as the crime of misappropriation of funds. But through the analysis, it's more accurate to evaluate the behavior as the crime of misappropriating public funds. Firstly, whether the evaluation of notarization institutions with state administrative power from the provisions of the “Notarization Law” to examine the scope of business. In notarization business, the labor part depending on legal professional knowledge and skills can not be identified to have national administrative functions. In notary business, the notary business authorized by administrative regulations and the public has quasi judicial and administrative organs of the state and the same credibilit y of notarization institutions, the nature of notary business, shall be deemed to have state administrative functions. The notarization right should be attributed to the latter. Secondly, the evaluation of the whether the notary is national staff or not, mainly depend on whether it is engaged in public service. The notary for deposit business is an exercise of the notarization right, and it should be identified as engaged in public service. But when it is engaged in other notary service, just like a lawyer to provide legal help, it is engaged in labor. Thirdly, the evaluation of whether the notary deposits belong to the criminal law on the significance of public funds or not in this case should also depend on the identit y of the perpetrator. Although article 91 of the criminal law has clear the scope of public funds, the specific provisions of the relevant provisions and judicial interpretations provided by the behavior of people determine the nature of identit y misappropriation case. In the specific circumstances of the case, the notary office is state-owned institutions; the notary office director is the personnel of state-owned institutions, so the misappropriation of funds should be deemed as embezzlement theory.Along with the deepening of reform of the national notary, notary institutions will gradually lose the identit y of “state-owned”. The affirmation of the behavior which is violated the “Criminal Law” when the notary organ and notaries perform the notarial function, should be analyzed concretely in a concrete case.