罪”與“非罪”：股權糾紛，還是職務侵佔？－－評枝江法院一審馬立新職務侵佔案

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

對於利用職務之便、通過偽造文件等方式“佔有”他人股權的行為，實踐中開始出現以職務侵佔的刑事路徑進行規制的現象。“佔有”他人股權能否構成職務侵佔罪，在司法實踐和學術界中均存在著爭議。問題的核心在於能否將個人股東股權界定為職務侵佔罪的對象－－“本單位財物”。“佔有”個人股東股權，雖然使得他人股權所代表的財產利益受損，但就公司而言，其所能夠支配的財物並沒有減少。通過對馬立新職務侵佔案的分析，可以看到，法院混淆了 “股東股權”與“公司財產”兩個概念，錯誤地將“原本屬於股東的股權”理解為“屬於公司的股權”，錯誤地將“公司股東的股權”理解為“公司的財物”，導致原本屬於民事範圍的“股權糾紛”被錯誤地納入到刑事領域。

In practice, there appears to be a phenomenon that misappropriation is regulated through criminal approaches, which aims at those acts that individuals 'misappropriate' stockholders' equities by taking advantage of their duties and forging documents. It is controversial in both judicial practice and academia that whether or not misappropriating equities can constitute a misappropriation crime. The key point, however, is whether or not equities shared by stockholders can be defined as 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 of analyzing the Ma Lixin's case of misappropriation, it can be observed that the court has confused two different concepts of 'stakeholder equity' and 'company property', thereby misunderstanding 'equities originally belongs to stockholders' as 'equities belongs to the company' and misunderstanding 'stakeholders' equities' to be 'property of the company'. As a result, a 'equity dispute' that originally belongs to civil fields is mistakenly incoiporated in criminal fields.