The Criminal Law Nature Of Taking Out Research Funds

In recent years,there have been frequent reports of corruption in scientific research,and a large amount of news has appeared in the newspapers.From the perspective of the current situation,researchers mostly use the opportunity of undertaking research projects to use improper means to withdraw scientific research funds.Such actions are often regulated in judicial practice.For corruption.The conviction basis of the judiciary mainly includes the following points:(1)First,the identity of the scientific researcher.The judiciary believes that whether it is a university teacher or a research institute researcher,it belongs to the staff of the state-owned unit.According to the law,it belongs to the national staff,so it has the qualifications for the crime of corruption;(2)Secondly,because the subject of the act is mostly responsible for scientific research issues,there are “serviceable facilities”that can be used.Even if some actor is not the person in charge of the project,but with the project group members or non-membership in coordination with the project leader to implement the corresponding arbitrage behavior;(3)again,objectively to prepare a false budget,use false invoices(including not actual It is used for scientific research funds issued in the form of true and legal invoices,such as offsetting,collecting labor costs in the name of others,etc.,and making use of the state’s allocated research funds for illegal acquisition,which meets the objective requirements for corruption;(4)Finally,most of the research funding comes from the financial allocations of thecentral government or local governments.The seizure of scientific research funds falls within the category of public property.Although the act of taking scientific research funds needs to be regulated by management,the legitimacy of rationality based on the aforementioned convictions deserves scrutiny.Whether or not the act of taking scientific research funds can be regulated by the crime of corruption within the framework of the current criminal law still needs further discussion.The full text is divided into four chapters,mainly including the following topics and arguments:The first chapter sorted out the status of withdrawal of scientific research funds and related domestic cases.In 2017,China’s R&D expenditure totaled 1.75 trillion yuan,ranking the second in the world.However,in recent years,the actual scientific research level of the applicant has been on the decline.No matter whether it is the material for the application of the project or the material for the project,few excellent works appear.The reason for this is that the author found through the search of the China Judicial Document Network that from 2013 to 2016,the cases related to scientific research funds showed an increasing trend.The unreasonable system of reimbursement of funds and the convictions involved in this case have largely hampered the enthusiasm of scientific research.Through sorting out related judicial cases,we summarized the types of behavior and the paradigm of behavior,and based on this,the relevant analysis was carried out.The second chapter focuses on the objective properties of research funding.From the perspective of the division of research topics(horizontal topics and vertical issues),the nature of research contracts,and the relativity of “public funds” based on contractual relationships,the ownership of research funding is demonstrated.Not all scientific research funds are “public funds”,it is only a consideration payment for the research activities of the counterparty of the contract;the expense is considered as the property of the unit is a rule of fiction.The reason why it is fictionality is because of the existence of contractual relations.Therefore,such fictional relations can only be applied to third parties outside the contract,and cannot be applied to contract counterparts.In addition,Article 92 of the "Criminal Law" as the starting point,arguethat the provisions of the article can not contain state-owned institutions,so state-owned institutions(such as schools)of the private property held by the property can not be identified as belonging to public property.The third chapter discusses the identity of researchers.Researchers do not have the status of “national staff” when they engage in scientific research activities.At the same time,research activities are not official activities and do not have the appearance of power.Therefore,researchers do not have the qualifications for corruption.At the time of argumentation,it focused on the interpretation of the interpretation of the text and the interpretation of the system,and clarified that the interpretation of the system must be used when the provisions of the context are vague or the relationship between the clauses is unclear,and it must follow the basic requirements of the proportionality principle.The fourth chapter discusses the nature of fund management from the angle of fund management responsibilities,management responsibilities,and job convenience.Therefore,the use of funds is not a manifestation of strict management responsibilities.Based on this,it also demonstrates that researchers do not belong to “entrusted management of state-owned assets”.