“罪”与“非罪”：股权纠纷,还是职务侵占？--评枝江法院一审马立新职务侵占案

“Crime” and “Non-Crime”: Equity Dispute or Misappropriation?: Review Zhijiang Court's Trial of First Instance on the Ma Lixin's Case of Misappropriation

对于利用职务之便、通过伪造文件等方式"占有"他人股权的行为,实践中开始出现以职务侵占的刑事路径进行规制的现象。"占有"他人股权能否构成职务侵占罪,在司法实践和学术界中均存在着争议。问题的核心在于能否将个人股东股权界定为职务侵占罪的对象—"本单位财物"。"占有"个人股东股权,虽然使得他人股权所代表的财产利益受损,但就公司而言,其所能够支配的财物并没有减少。通过对马立新职务侵占案的分析,可以看到,法院混淆了"股东股权"与"公司财产"两个概念,错误地将"原本属于股东的股权"理解为"属于公司的股权",错误地将"公司股东的股权"理解为"公司的财物",导致原本属于民事范围的"股权纠纷"被错误地纳入到刑事领域。

In practice, there appears to be a phenomenon that misappropriationis regulated through criminal approaches, which aims at those acts that individuals“misappropriate” stockholders’ equities by taking advantage of their duties andforging documents. It is controversial in both judicial practice and academia thatwhether or not misappropriating equities can constitute a misappropriation crime. Thekey point, however, is whether or not equities shared by stockholders can be definedas the object of misappropriation：“property of the unit”. Although the illegal act of“misappropriating” other stockholders’ equities may damage their property interests,to the company itself, its disposable property has not been reduced. By means ofanalyzing the Ma Lixin’s case of misappropriation, it can be observed that the courthas confused two different concepts of “stakeholder equity” and “company property”,thereby misunderstanding “equities originally belongs to stockholders” as “equitiesbelongs to the company” and misunderstanding “stakeholders’ equities” to be “propertyof the company”. As a result, a “equity dispute” that originally belongs to civil fieldsis mistakenly incorporated in criminal fields.