>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Sun Wei v. Nantong Baichuan Flour Co., Ltd. (dispute over unjust enrichment)
孙卫与南通百川面粉有限公司不当得利纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Sun Wei v. Nantong Baichuan Flour Co., Ltd. (dispute over unjust enrichment)
(dispute over unjust enrichment)
孙卫与南通百川面粉有限公司不当得利纠纷案
[Key Terms]
criminal judgment ; amount of illicit money ; scope of losses ; standard of proof
[核心术语]
刑事判决;赃款数额;损失范围;证明标准
[Disputed Issues]
Whether the scope of losses to the victim can be determined on the basis of the amount of illicit money as recognized in the criminal judgment?
[争议焦点]
1.能否依据刑事判决认定赃款的数额确定受害人的损失范围?
[Case Summary]
Although the amount of illicit money has been recognized in the criminal judgment such amount of illicit money is not equivalent to the scope of losses to the victim. Under normal conditions the scope of direct and indirect losses to a victim caused by a criminal offense is greater than the amount of the illicit money the criminal offender has directly obtained. In the settlement of dispute over compensation for civil losses in a criminal case...
[案例要旨]
刑事判决虽然认定了赃款的数额但刑事判决认定其所获赃款数额与受害人的损失范围并不等同。因为一般情况下犯罪行为给受害人造成直接和间接损失的范围要大于作案人所直接获得的赃款。因而...
Sun Wei v. Nantong Baichuan Flour Co., Ltd. (dispute over unjust enrichment) 孙卫与南通百川面粉有限公司不当得利纠纷案
[Judgment Abstract] [裁判摘要]
The amount of illicit money as recognized in the criminal judgment is not equivalent to the scope of losses caused by the criminal offense and the scope of losses cannot be determined simply on the basis of the amount of illicit money as recognized in the criminal judgment. The standard of proof for a criminal case differs from that for a civil case and the civil standard of proof should not be replaced by the higher criminal standard of proof. 刑事判决认定的赃款数额并非等同于作案造成损失的范围,不能简单依据刑事判决认定赃款的数额确定损失范围。刑事案件与民事案件的证明标准不同,不应以刑事案件的高标准取代民事证明标准。
BASIC FACTS 
Plaintiff: Sun Wei, female, 34 years old, domiciled in Hai'an County, Jiangsu Province. 原告:孙卫。
Defendant: Nantong Baichuan Flour Co., Ltd., domiciled in Hebin West Road, Hai'an Township, Hai'an County. 被告:南通百川面粉有限公司。
Plaintiff Sun Wei filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Hai'an County, Jiangsu Province against defendant Nantong Baichuan Flour Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Baichuan Company”) for dispute over unjust enrichment. 原告孙卫因与被告南通百川面粉有限公司(以下简称百川公司)发生不当得利纠纷,向江苏省海安县人民法院提起诉讼。
Plaintiff Sun Wei alleged that she was once the warehouse keeper of Baichuan Company. In 2011, Baichuan Company found that Sun Wei committed duty-related embezzlement with Yang Jianjun and Zhang Ronggen. Upon consultation, both parties agreed that such duty-related embezzlement would be settled internally at the expense of 400,000 yuan and Sun Wei would not be subject to criminal liability. After the oral agreement was concluded, Sun Wei commissioned other person to deposit 400,463.92 yuan to the bank account of Baichuan Company, but she was still be tipped off and subject to criminal liability. In 2013, the court rendered a criminal judgment, recognizing that Sun Wei has embezzled property of Baichuan Company, amounting to 100,000 yuan in total. Therefore, Sun Wei claimed that the additional 300,463.92 yuan returned by her should be the unjust enrichment of Baichuan Company. She requested the court to order that Baichuan Company should return the unjust enrichment of 300,463.92 yuan and the interest thereof amounting to 54,000 yuan, and bear the litigation costs of this case. 

原告孙卫诉称:其原系百川公司仓库保管员。2011年,百川公司发现其与杨建军、张荣根的职务侵占行为后,经过协商同意以40万元内部解决,不追究刑事责任。口头协议达成后,孙卫委托他人向百川公司账户打入400463.92元,但仍被举报追究刑事责任。2013年,法院刑事判决书认定,孙卫共侵占单位财物10万元。故而,孙卫多退的300463.92元,应为百川公司的不当得利。请求法院判令被告百川公司返还不当得利300 463.92元及利息54 000元,并承担本案诉讼费用。

...... 被告百川公司辩称:原告孙卫等人侵占我公司财产所造成的损失,经审计核算达721 881元。被公司发现侵占行为后,孙卫等人与公司协商,要求不追究刑事责任,口头达成退赔400463.92元的协议,该款并非孙卫一人所退。海安县人民法院对孙卫等人职务侵占案进行刑事庭审时,孙卫承认对审计报告没有意见,而审计报告中孙卫等人侵占的财产超出其退赔款。刑事判决书认定赃款10万元,并非孙卫等人侵占公司财产的全部,孙卫通过民事程序要求公司退款缺乏依据。请求法院判决驳回孙卫的诉讼请求。
 江苏省海安县人民法院审理查明:
 2004年,原告孙卫开始担任百川公司仓库保管员。2011年,被告百川公司发现孙卫与核算员杨建军、生产车间班长张荣根等人有共同侵占单位面粉及麸皮嫌疑,但单位找孙卫谈话时其拒绝承认。百川公司遂委托江苏中正同仁会计事务所有限公司,对百川公司2008年5月至2010年12月期间库存产成品保管情况及与之相关的企业内控、财务管理等情况实施了专项审计工作。2011年3月26日,中正同仁所出具了同仁专审2011第239号《南通百川面粉有限公司产成品保管情况专项审计报告》。孙卫承担审计费20 000元。审计结果出来后,孙卫、杨建军、张荣根等人承认了非法侵占公司财产的事实,要求公司不追究刑事责任,口头协商达成退赔协议,由孙卫等人向百川公司退赔400463.92元。孙卫通过其亲戚邵俊兰,于2011年4月10日、2011年4月26日分二次共向百川公司账户打款400 463.92元,该款中包括杨建军、张荣根二人所退款10万元。
 2011年10月21日,南通市公安局接群众举报孙卫、杨建军、张荣根三人涉嫌职务侵占后,移交海安县公安局进行刑事立案侦查。2013年12月16日,海安县人民法院作出(2013)安刑二初字第0195号刑事判决书,认定孙卫、杨建军、张荣根构成职务侵占罪,三人均被判处缓刑。三人未上诉。刑事判决书查明:孙卫于2007年1月份至2009年10月份,在担任百川公司仓库保管员期间,利用登记百川公司生产的面粉及麸皮出入库数量等工作的职务之便,将积余的面粉及麸皮私自以市场价让他人代为销售,得款人民币2万元,占为己有。孙卫、杨建军、张荣根于2009年10月份至2010年10月份,在清点面粉及麸皮入库数量的过程中,采取少计入库数量的手段,将多出的面粉及麸皮,由孙卫负责以市场价让他人代为销售,得款人民币8万元。孙卫、杨建军、张荣根按4:4:2的比例分掉赃款人民币8万元。案发后,孙卫、杨建军、张荣根赔偿被害单位的全部经济损失。
 刑事判决书查明的事实与海安公安局海公(经)诉字[2013]393号起诉意见书、海安县人民检察院海检诉刑诉[2013]453号起诉书、海安县人民检察院海检诉量建 [2013]453号量刑建议书认定的事实基本一致,将孙卫、杨建军、张荣根三人侵占直接所得赃款从10万余元,逐步固定为10万元,并明确三人积极退赔被害单位全部经济损失。
 ......

Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥500.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese