“家族公司”中职务侵占罪的研究

发布时间：2018-03-19 23:24

本文选题：家族公司　切入点：公司人格否认　出处：《西南政法大学》2010年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】： 我国改革开放30年来,市场经济不断发展和完善,多种经济成分蓬勃发展,一些个体作坊有了基本的资本原始积累,同时为了事业的壮大、适应公司法的发展,小型的有限公司应运而生。但是实践中存在大量的“家族公司”,法人治理结构不完善,公司财产和家庭财产不分,如果股东亲属利用职务上的便利,将本单位财物非法占为己有,数额较大的,按现行刑法的规定,应认定为职务侵占罪。然而个案中案件事实复杂,一律认定为职务侵占罪失之偏颇,有客观归罪之嫌。本文拟从一则有关职务侵占罪的具体案例入手,着重讨论“家族公司”中职务侵占罪的问题。文章分四个大部分对其进行探讨和研究: 一、案例的引出。案例是2003年北京市通州区法院审判的李爽职务侵占案,该案例基本情况为:孙旭系北京天旭实业集团、北京天旭达房地产开发有限责任公司董事长兼总经理,被告人李爽和孙旭为夫妻关系。孙旭是北京天旭实业集团、北京天旭达房地产开发有限责任公司的大股东,孙旭的女儿孙悦、女婿关键是公司小股东。被告人李爽利用职务上的便利,将公司财产占为己有,并且数额达28万元,法院判决其构成职务侵占罪,但是考虑到公司性质为家族公司,对李爽从轻处罚。二、案件的争议焦点和分歧意见。(一)案件的争议焦点。实质上的“一人公司”的财产性质应如何认定以及“一人公司”股东的妻子能否成为职务侵占罪的主体。(二)案件的分歧意见。目前学界和实务界对此类案件主要有三种不同意见:第一种意见认为李爽构成职务侵占罪。第二种意见认为李爽构成职务侵占罪,但是免除刑事处罚。第三种意见认为李爽不构成犯罪。(三)本文赞同第三种意见,李爽不构成犯罪。首先,李爽不具有客观构成要件要求的将“本单位”财物非法占为己有的属性。其次,李爽不具有主观构成要件要求的直接故意、以非法占有为目的的属性。三、涉及本案的相关法律问题研究。(一)有限责任公司的设立规则及其公司人格否认制度。分析结论为:个人公司或者家族公司的财产与家庭财产相混同时,应适用公司人格否认制度。(二)职务侵占罪的认定。文章从职务侵占罪的立法过程出发,运用两要件犯罪构成学说对案例进行具体分析。客观构成要件着重分析各种行为主体构成职务侵占罪的可能性,同时对“利用职务上的便利”和“非法占为己有”等行为内容进行了深入剖析。主观构成要件阐述了职务侵占罪必须具有直接故意、非法占有为目的的具体内涵,并联系案例实际从违法性认识的可能性和期待可能性层面进行分析。四、研究结论。文章分五种情况进行总结:(一)法人治理结构完善的有限公司,如果其工作人员利用职务上的便利,将本单位财物非法占为己有,数额较大的,应认定为职务侵占罪。(二)在法人治理结构相对比较完善的家族式有限公司中,其公司成员利用职务上的便利,将本单位财物非法占为己有,数额较大的,不论是股东与非股东,或者是一般工作人员还是股东亲属与否,都应当认定为职务侵占罪。(三)法人治理结构混乱的家族式有限公司,工商登记为有限公司(股东为两人以上),但是除大股东之外的小股东均为挂名股东,是以普通有限公司之名行一人有限公司之实的,对大股东的直系亲属一般不认为构成犯罪。而对公司中一般的雇佣关系的员工应认定为侵占罪。(四)法人治理结构混乱的夫妻公司,如果夫妻一方利用职务上的便利,将本单位财物非法占为己有,数额较大的,不构成职务侵占罪,但是可能构成侵占罪。(五)对个体工商户中夫妻一方侵占财产是否构成犯罪分情况进行讨论。最后,笔者认为案件虽小,却很有典型性,由此抛出两个值得重视和深思的问题,以便请各位法学专家以及法律工作者赐教。
[Abstract]:30 years of China's reform and opening up, the rapid development of market economy and perfect, the vigorous development of various economic sectors, some individual workshops have basic primitive accumulation of capital, at the same time in order to adapt to the development of business growth, the company law, the company came into being. But there are a lot of small "family company" in the practice of corporate governance structure the company is not perfect, and family property is not divided, if the shareholders of relatives taking advantage of his position, the unit of property illegally for himself, a relatively large amount, according to the provisions of the criminal law, should be identified as official embezzlement. However, in the case of complex facts, are identified as biased embezzlement lost, there are objective incrimination. This paper starts from a case of embezzlement, focuses on the "family company" in the embezzlement problem. The article is divided into four parts to carry on the Discussion and research:
A case case is elicited. In 2003 Li Shuang Tongzhou District Beijing city court trial positions occupied case, the basic situation of the case: Sun Xu Department of Beijing tianxulndustry group, chairman and general manager of Beijing days Kotewall real estate development limited liability company, defendant Li Shuang and Sun Xu as husband and wife. Sun Xu is Beijing tianxulndustry group. The major shareholder of Beijing days Kotewall real estate development limited liability company, Sun Xu's daughter Yue Sun, son-in-law is the key to the company's minority shareholders. The defendant Li Shuang taking advantage of his position, the company's property for himself, and the amount of up to 280 thousand yuan, the court verdict constitutes embezzlement, but taking into account the nature of the company for the family company, to Li Shuang lighter punishment.
Two, the focus of controversy and disagreement cases. (a) the controversial focus of the case. The essence of the "one company" should be how to determine the nature of property and the "a" shareholder's wife can become the embezzlement subject. (two) divergence of the case. At present, the academic and practical circles mainly there are three different views on such cases: the first opinion Li Shuang constitute embezzlement. The second opinion Li Shuang constitute embezzlement, but exempted from criminal punishment. The third opinion Li Shuang does not constitute a crime. (three) this paper agree with the third view, Li Shuang does not constitute a crime. Firstly, Li cool is not the objective constitution requirements will be "the unit" property illegally for himself some attributes. Secondly, Li Shuang does not have the subjective elements of the requirements of direct intent, for the purpose of illegal possession of the property.
Three, involves the study of legal issues related to the case. (a) the establishment of a limited liability company rules and the system of disregard of corporate personality. The analysis conclusion is: the individual company or family company mixed property and family property at the same time, shall apply the system of disregard of corporate personality. (two) identified embezzlement. The legislative process from the office the crime of embezzlement of the use of the two elements of the crime theory to analyze the case. Focuses on the analysis of various elements of the possibility of objective constitution behavior constitutes embezzlement, at the same time to "take advantage of duty" and "illegal possession" and other content are analyzed. Expounds the subjective elements of embezzlement must have the direct intention of illegal possession for the purpose of specific connotation, and contact the actual cases from the possibility and look forward to the possibility of illegal knowledge level was analyzed.
Four, the conclusion of the study. This article is divided into five types: (a) summarizes the limited sound corporate governance structure, if the staff taking advantage of his position, the unit of property illegally for himself, a relatively large amount, should be identified as embezzlement. (two) in the corporate governance structure is relatively perfect family company, the members of the company by taking advantage of his position, the unit of property illegally for himself, the larger the amount of both shareholders and non shareholders, or general staff or relatives of shareholders or not, can be identified as embezzlement. (three) corporate governance chaos family business limited company, registered as a limited company (shareholders of more than two people), but in addition to large shareholders outside the small shareholders are the nominal shareholder, is a common company in the name of a limited company of the real, immediate family of major shareholders Is generally not considered to constitute a crime. While the general employment relationship in the company's staff should be identified as the crime of embezzlement. (four) corporate governance chaos couples, if one spouse is taking advantage of his position, the unit of property illegally for himself, a relatively large amount, but does not constitute embezzlement. May constitute a crime of embezzlement. (five) couple individual industrial and commercial households in Party embezzlement constitute a crime case are discussed.
At last, the author thinks that the case is small, but is very typical, which throws two worthy of attention and discussion, so please enlighten legal experts and legal workers.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D924.3

【引证文献】