挪用公款罪研究

【作者】 王为明；

【导师】 韩轶；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 法律， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 本文意图从挪用公款罪的历史沿革入手，对该罪名在立法、刑法理论和司法实务中的诸多问题，存在的矛盾、对立和争议，及其应用价值有重点地进行评析、论证和判断，以求得我们对挪用公款罪的本质认识和研究能更进一步。在体系结构上，全文共分为导言、主体内容、结语和附录内容。 导言简要论述了挪用公款罪立法的历史背景和社会物质基础，明确指出挪用公款罪是1997年《刑法》分则中最具有争议的罪名之一，挪用公款案是司法实践中最为棘手的案件之一，并初步分析了其原因，即随着社会主义市场经济体制的逐步确立，市场机制越来越复杂，各种经济成分共同发展，市场主体呈现多样性及对其保护的平等性，导致了与挪用公款罪相关问题大量出现并呈现复杂化。 该文的主体内容分为三大部分，第一部分主要是初步探究了挪用公款罪的历史沿革，认为鉴于挪用型犯罪无论是对财产所有权制度、经济秩序的破坏，还是对官员廉洁性的影响，均是较为严重的，故古今中外刑事法典中均留有大量的针对该罪的立法痕迹。 在该部分中首先论述了中国的古代、近代法律中有关挪用型犯罪的立法发展。在中国古代法律中历来重视惩治挪用型犯罪，一仅:降其作为保护公有财产的重要手段:而一且_是加强封建吏治的重要措施。该具有双重性的立法指导思想:对当代刑事立法应有-积板的意又该「又认为从中华法系最早的封建成又法《法经》。到其代表性法典《唐律疏议》:再到最后一部封建法典《大清律例》.尹挪用型犯罪的立法规定是一脉相承的，自成体系:均是对挪用型犯罪以“盗”论。直至20世纪初的清末修律，开始输入资本主义的法律又化，设立了含有“背信”内容的侵占罪，才打破这一体系。其次论述了中国现代刑法有关挪用型犯罪的立法发展二该文以新中国建国初的1952年《中华_人民共和国惩治贪污条例》、1979年《刑法》、1988年全国人大常委会《关于惩治贪污罪贿赂罪的补充规定》和1997年《刑法》等四大法律为主线，论述了中国现代刑法有关挪用型犯罪的立法:是经历了一个从无到有、从简单到复杂的立法发展进程，即先由司法解释确立挪用公款行为以犯罪论，再由单行刑法设置独立罪名，最后以刑法典建立_挪用型犯罪的罪名体系。再次论述了国外有关挪用型犯罪的立法概况，认为挪用型犯罪的立法在国外主要表现为社会主义国家、大陆法系国家和英美法系国家的二大立法类型。 主体内容的第二部分主要是针对当前挪用公款犯罪在刑法理论界、司法实务部门中关于犯罪主体、主客观要件、共同犯罪等方面存在的诸多有争议的疑难问题，择其九个重点。着重进行了探讨。在评析、论证的基础上进行了判断。 (一)关丁挪用公款罪的主体问题，该文认为国有资本控股、参股的股一份有限_公司不属于国有公司;受国家机关、国有一公司、企一业、事业卑位人民团体委托管理、经营国有财产的人员不属一士挪用公一款罪的主体。 (二)关丁‘挪用公款罪的对象问题，该文认为非特定公物不是挪用公款罪的犯罪对象，而有价证券则是该罪的犯罪对象。挪用公款罪的犯罪对象不应仅限于本单位的公款，上级单位中担任领导职务的国家工作人员。利用职务上的便利，指使下级单位的国家工作.人员利用职务上的便利挪用公款归个人使用的，可构成挪用公款罪。 (三)关于挪用公款罪的犯罪数额问题，该文论述了多次挪用行为及以大额记帐式有价证券为质押贷取少量贷款的挪用行为的犯罪数额的计算方式。 (四)关于挪用公款罪公款使用方式问题，该文重点分析和论述了“营利活动”与“非法活动”的性质及区别，并对实践中有争议的几种公款使用方式的性质逐一进行了评析和定性。该文认为:1，‘国家工作人员挪用公款进行个人经商活动，若经营活动是法律允许的.范围，属“营利活动”，反之，则属“非法活动”。2、挪用公款归还个人贷款或私人借款，应以行为人明知的贷款、借款的用途来确定该挪用行为是一般的“归个人使用”，还是进行“非法活动”或者“营利活动。”3、娜用公款用于私人公司的注册资金，在验贵后随即抽回的行为属进行“非法活动”。4、挪用公款购买福利彩票属进行“营利活动二’” 。五、关一于挪用时laJ问题，该文认为最高人民法院关于挪用公款旧个人使用，数额较大，超过三个月未还但在案发前全部归还及金的应如何处理的司法解释，是符合刑法理沦和刑法规定及司法买践要求的。 ‘六、关于“挪用公款归个人使用”问题，该文从最高人民法院和最高人民检察院的相关司法解释之间的冲突，入手，着重分析了全国人大常委会立法解释的必要性和正确性。 、七)关于挪用公款罪的共同犯罪问题，该文强调要从立法原意上深刻理解刑法设置挪用公款罪，主要是在于惩治利用职务上的便利挪用公款的国家工作人员，故对一般的教唆国家工作.人员实行挪用公款的，不宜以共犯论处。并在此基础上论述了非国家工作人员构成挪用公款罪共犯的条件。 (‘八、关于几种特更多还原

【Abstract】 This thesis intends to analyzes and expound the appropriating public funds criminal charges in lawmaking, penal code theories and many problems occurring in judicial actual situation, the existent antinomy and dispute with judgment, and the value of application, in order to gel the further cognition of the innate character of the appropriating public funds criminal. It can be divided into preface, corpus contents, conclusion and appendix according to its systematic structure.The preface briefly discusses the historic background and the social material foundation of the legislation of the appropriating public funds crime. It clearly points out that the appropriating public funds crime is one of the most controversial crimes in the branch of the Penal Code in 1997 and the case of appropriating public funds crime is also the trickiness. The preface also analyzes its reason, that namely along with the gradual establishment of the socialism market economy system, the market mechanism is becoming more and more complicated with the development in every kind of economic composition, the market corpus presents variety and equality which causes many problems related to appropriating public funds crime and also make it more complicated.The main body is divided into three parts. The first part primarily talks about the history origin and development of this crime. The author believes it is serious not only to the breakage of the property rights system and economic order, but to the incorrupt influence in official. This is common to both China and foreign countries through the history.This part first discusses the legislation development of appropriating type crime during Chinese ancient times and modern age. The reason that ancient China focused so much on the punishment of appropriating type crime is that it is not only the important means to protect the public property, but also the important measure to enhance the feudalism. It has dual guide in thought with positive meaning to the contemporary pertaining of crime lawmaking. The author thinks that from the earliest feudal China written laws General Laws, to its representative code of The Rules andLaws of Tang, and then to the last feudal law Dharma of Qing, the legislation for appropriating type crime has the same idea regarding it as brigandage. This was kept for long till the beginning of 20th. with the importation of law culture from the capitalist countries, it has changed to the perfidy. The thesis next discusses the legislation development of appropriating type crime in Chinese modern penal code. It takes the Regulations for Punishing the Corruption in 1952, Penal Code in 1979, the Additional Regulations for Punishing the Bribe and Corruption in 1988’s National Peoples Congress and the Penal Code in 1997 for main line, expounding that the legislation development of appropriating type crime in modern Chinese penal code has experienced process from nothing and simple to complicated and complete. Third it discusses the general situation of lawmaking in foreign countries, pointing out that there are about three kinds of legislation of appropriating type crime in foreign countries, that is, socialism nations, mainland nations and British and American methods department nations.The second part tries to choose the nine points to discuss and expound the difficult problems and disputes of appropriating public funds crime about crime corpus, subjective and objective important items and common crime...etc in the penal code theories field and judicial situation section.1. As for the crime corpus of appropriating public funds crime, the thesis thinks the state-owned capital controlled share, joined limited-liability companies do not belong to the state-owned company, and the person who is entrusted by state-owned property, state-owned company, people group, business enterprise and business unit to manage state-owned property does not belong to the corpus of appropriating public funds crime.2. As for crime object of appropriating public funds crimes, the t更多还原