The Qualitative Of Bank Employees' Behavior Of Stealing The Customer's Funds That Already Come To The Account

With the rapid development of the market economy,in recent years,the incidence of cases of financial fraud has risen,showing the tendency of increasing the amount involved and complicating criminal means,posing a huge threat to the social and economic stability.As one of the crime types of financial fraud,the crime of negotiable instrument fraud not only directly infringes the ownership of public and private property,but also seriously undermines the country's financial management system and order.In view of the serious social harmfulness of the bill fraud,the state must closely monitor and severely punish it.However,in the current judicial practice process,due to the inability to correctly determine the connotation and extension of bill fraud crimes and other crimes,the crackdown on bill fraud is far from enough.This article attempts to start from a real case,through the concrete analysis of the specific problems of the case,to clarify the composition and the difference between crimes of bill fraud,crime of official embezzlement,theft and other related crimes,and try to solve the problem of easy confusion between bill fraud and other crimes,and hope to provide some reference and help for the handling of similar cases in judicial practice.This article mainly studies and discusses the basic situation of the case,the jurisprudence analysis of the relevant issues,the analysis and conclusion of the case,and the research enlightenment of this case.The full text is more than 25,000 words.The first part: the basic situation of the case.Including the case,the case introduction,disagreement,and the focus of the dispute,the four sections specifically introduced the basic situation of the case,combed out several different opinions on handling the case,and extracted the focus of disputes that must be resolved to deal with this case.The second part: the legal analysis of related issues.This part mainly discusses the theoretical issues involved in this case,including three aspects: the possession of the client's account funds and the authority to dispose of the funds,the identification of the convenience of using the post and the discrimination of the crime of stolen notes and the crime of theft under the perspective of the punishment action Further elaborates on several manifestations of the crime of negotiable instrument fraud and attempts to analyze the related issues in depth from the perspective of jurisprudence so as to provide a solid theoretical support for the conclusion of the third part of the article as follows: Banks have the legal right to occupy and disposal authority for the client's account funds;"Utilizing the convenience of duties" shouldbe understood as follows: Actors rely directly or indirectly on the convenience conditions formed by superiors,the duties,responsibilities and responsibilities of the supervisor,management,handling company affairs,and company property in accordance with the internal rules and regulations of the unit or the temporary assignment of assignments.The third part: the case analysis and conclusion.This part is mainly based on the legal analysis of the related issues mentioned above,combined with the facts of the case,specific argumentation,and drawing a reasonable and logical conclusion: Although the defendant Hou meets the Subject requirements for the crime of occupational misappropriation,his illegal means of occupying the loan in the client's account does not belong to the convenience of his employment,and thus does not constitute the crime of occupational misappropriation;After Hou defrauded Jin and LT Technology Co.,Ltd.to make a full set of seals,he forged a cash withdrawal cheque in the name of Jin and LT Technology Co.,Ltd.,“Brightly and positively”submitted a cash withdrawal request to the bank.The counter staff served as an external representative of the Xi'an Bank Hancheng Road Branch in the business,when Hou provided with relevant cash withdrawal materials,due to the special nature of bank operations,bank staff generally only conduct formal examinations on the materials provided by customers and do not carry out substantive inspections,Thus the false cheque were mistakenly regarded as issued by Jin and LT Technology Co.,Ltd.,and based on this misconception,the property involved in the punishment was dealt with.It does not meet the "secret" requirement for the crime of theft,but it also punishes the bank for punishing the property in the scope of its own disciplinary authority and therefore does not constitute the crime of theft;Hou's behavior is consistent with the characteristics of fraud,according to the specific case of the case,the composition of the crime of the crime of bill fraud,and is the case of the “Knowingly forged or altered bills of exchange,promissory notes,cheque and use” in the bill fraud crime.The fourth part: the research enlightenment of this case.Firstly it briefly combs the problems that such cases may encounter in qualitative analysis,and puts forward the author's point of view on how to get out of the dilemma,and then states the author's revelation in the study of this case: it is necessary to clarify the related crimes to prevent improper punishment and to the bank staff management made some suggestions.