Qualitative Research On Bank Staff Stealing Customer's Funds From Account

Along with the rapid development of social economy,the objective form of crime is becoming more and more complicated,which leads to many issues in judicial practice.The means of committing a crime are numerous and varied.As the most common crime,theft is easy to be confused with corruption and fraud which also contains the elements of deception and stealing.Through a real case,this thesis turns to analyze how to judge a corruption case when the crime has special subject and how to judge a fraud when the behavior contains “cheat” ingredients.Furthermore,it differentiates the theft and fraud.This thesis consists of four parts except the preface:The first part: the basic situation of the case.This part will make a brief introduction of the case and list the disagreements of the counsel,procuratorate and the court.And then,according to the specific details and different opinions,the thesis summarizes the contentious issues of the case.The second part: the jurisprudence analysis of the related issues.Being the main body of the thesis,this part includes four aspects.Firstly,after the analysis of the conception and characteristics of “position”,as well as the contents and difference among taking advantage of position,identity and work,it mainly concludes the conforming of taking advantage of his position.Secondly,it discusses the attribution of 480 thousand loans.Through the analysis of three different viewpoints,it comes to a conclusion of the possessor of the suspected money,which is the key to distinguish corruption and other assets-offending crimes.Thirdly,the paper probes into the judicial cognizance of the primary element “deception” of fraud and “secret larceny” of theft in order to accurately distinguish fraud and theft.The third part: the analysis and conclusion of the case.This part synthesizes the analysis above reasonably and finally comes to the conclusions: Denies the establishment of corruption as Yan uses the position convenience,but the funds isn't public property;Gaining the seals by cheating is just to provide convenience for theft,but not the crucial factor which cause the loss of the relevant deposit.In addition,the victim doesn't fall into the misunderstanding to dispose his property.So,it should be identified as larceny,not fraud.The fourth part: the enlightenments of the study.This part puts forward to two suggestions: improving laws and regulations concerning the deposit attribution and increase penalties of “cheating” theft,in order to follow the principles of legality and criminal responsibility in criminal law.