职务侵占罪司法实践疑难问题研究

发布时间：2018-04-16 00:15

本文选题：职务侵占罪 + 虚拟财产　；参考：《内蒙古大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：司法实践中,有关职务侵占罪的疑难问题主要集中在对本罪的客体、主体和客观方面的理解与界定方面。本单位的财产所有权和诚实信用的信托关系均为职务侵占罪的客体,二者缺一不可。网络虚拟财产可以为职务侵占罪的犯罪对象。对职务侵占罪中"职务"范围的界定,不能局限于用管理性、劳务性、持续性等客观、外在表现形式予以阐述,而将"非管理性"、"临时性"和"授权性"业务排除在"职务"的范围之外,应以是否具有侵犯职务侵占罪"诚实信用信托关系"客体的可能性作为指导原则,凡是不具有侵犯该客体可能性的,不构成职务侵占罪;具有侵犯该客体可能性的,则应分析"行为人所从事的事务是否对侵占的本单位财物具有控制、支配地位,具有控制、支配地位的则属于职务侵占罪之职务;不具有控制、支配地位的则不属于职务侵占罪之职务。"利用职务上的便利"是认定职务侵占罪的关键所在,基于诚实信用的信托关系,行为人在从事事务过程中形成对本单位财物控制、支配的地位,并负有保证其所控制、支配下的本单位财物免受侵害的义务,如该行为人背离了该义务,利用这种控制、支配本单位财物的地位而将本单位财物非法占为已有,就属于利用职务上的便利。非法占为己有即侵占,应对侵占作广义理解,其行为和手段包括侵占、窃取、骗取等手段。在判断一个人是否为公司、企业或者其他单位人员时,不应该采用其是否和单位签订劳动合同这一形式上的标准,而应该根据其所从事的事务是否承担了一定的单位职责来做出实质判断,只要行为人事实上从事了公司、企业或者其他单位员工所从事的事务,就应认定其为本罪的行为主体。
[Abstract]:In judicial practice, the difficult problems of duty embezzlement mainly focus on the understanding and definition of the object, subject and objective aspects of the crime.The ownership of property and the trust relationship of good faith are the object of the crime of duty embezzlement, both of which are indispensable.Network virtual property can be the object of crime of duty embezzlement.The definition of the scope of "duty" in the crime of duty embezzlement cannot be limited to the objective and external forms of expression, such as management, labor, persistence, etc.If "non-management", "temporary" and "authorized" business are excluded from the scope of "duty", the possibility of the object of "good faith trust" in the crime of infringing duty embezzlement should be taken as the guiding principle.Whoever does not have the possibility of encroaching upon the object shall not constitute a crime of official embezzlement; if the possibility of infringing the object is present, it shall be analyzed whether the affairs engaged by the perpetrator have control, dominance and control over the property of the unit occupied by him,Those in the dominant position belong to the position of the crime of duty embezzlement; those that do not have control; those in the dominant position do not belong to the position of the crime of occupation of duty. "Making use of the convenience of duty "is the key to determine the crime of duty embezzlement. Based on the trust relationship of good faith, the actor forms the position of controlling and dominating the property of his unit in the course of undertaking the affairs, and he has the responsibility to ensure his control."If the doer deviates from the obligation to use this kind of control to control the property of the unit and illegally occupy the property of the unit as his own, it is the convenience of utilizing his position.It is necessary to make a broad understanding of illegal appropriation, which includes usurpation, theft, fraud and so on.In judging whether a person is a person of a company, enterprise or other unit, the formal criterion of whether he or she has signed a labor contract with the unit should not be applied.But should make the substantive judgment according to the affairs that they are engaged in, as long as the actor is actually engaged in the affairs of the company, the enterprise or the employees of other units, it should be regarded as the behavior subject of this crime.
【学位授予单位】：内蒙古大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】