>>>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
 
The No. 1 Branch of the People's Procuratorate of Shanghai Municipality v. Tang Zhihua, et al. (Case of Embezzlement, Duty-related Encroachment and Acceptance of Bribes by Enterprise Employees)
唐志华等五人贪污、职务侵占、企业人员受贿案
【法宝引证码】

The No. 1 Branch of the People’s Procuratorate of Shanghai Municipality v. Tang Zhihua, et al. (Case of Embezzlement, Duty-related Encroachment and Acceptance of Bribes by Enterprise Employees)
(Case of Embezzlement, Duty-related Encroachment and Acceptance of Bribes by Enterprise Employees)
唐志华等五人贪污、职务侵占、企业人员受贿案

The No. 1 Branch of the People's Procuratorate of Shanghai Municipality v. Tang Zhihua, et al.

 

唐志华等五人贪污、职务侵占、企业人员受贿案@#

(Case of Embezzlement, Duty-related Encroachment and Acceptance of Bribes by Enterprise Employees)@# @#
BASIC FACTS@# 公诉机关:上海市人民检察院第一分院。@#
Public Prosecution Organ: The No. 1 Branch of the People's Procuratorate of Shanghai Municipality.@# 被告人:唐志华,男,46岁,原系上海宝强实为有限公司法定代表人,2000年2月23日被逮捕。@#
Defendant: Tang Zhihua, male, 46 years old, former legal representative of Shanghai Baoqiang Industrial Co., Ltd., and arrested on February 23, 2000.@# 辩护人:吕绳庆,郑传本厂律师事务所律师。@#
Defender: Lü Shengqing, attorney-at-law of Zheng Chuanben Law Firm.@# 辩护人:许文宝,上海市科伟律师事务所律师。@#
Defender: Xu Wenbao, attorney-at-law of Shanghai Kewei Law Firm.@# 被告人:邵先初,男,52岁,原系上海精工机械电器厂厂长,2000年3月22日被逮捕。@#
Defendant: Shao Xianchu, male, 52 years old, former director of Shanghai Fine Machinery and Electric Appliance Factory, and arrested on March 22, 2000.@# 辩护人:赵能文,上海市毅石律师事务所律师。@#
Defender: Zhao Xiongwen, attorney-at-law of Shanghai Yishi Law Firm.@# 辩护人:杜爱武,上海市华源律师事务所律师。@#
Defender: Du Aiwu, attorney-at-law of Shanghai Huayuan Law Firm.@# 被告人:张勇,男,41岁,原系上海精工机械电器厂副厂长,2000年7月19日被逮捕。@#
Defendant: Zhang Yong, male, 41 years old, former vice director of Shanghai Fine Machinery and Electric Appliance Factory, and arrested on July 19, 2000.@# 辩护人:黄明刚,上海市联诚律师事务所律师。@#
Defender: Huang Minggang, attorney-at-law of Shanghai Liancheng Law Firm.@# 被告人:张龙海,男,48岁,原系上海第三印刷机械厂厂长,2000年7月12日被逮捕。@#
Defendant: Zhang Longhai, male, 48 years old, former director of Shanghai No.3 Printing Machine Factory, and arrested on July 12, 2000.@# 辩护人:翟建、余增国,上海市明日律师事务所律师。@#
Defenders: Zhai Jian and Yu Zengguo, attorneys-at-law of Shanghai Mingri Law Firm.@# 被告人:刘恺恺,男,55岁,原系上海第三印刷机械厂副厂长,2000年7月12日被逮捕。@#
Defendant: Liu Kaikai, male, 55 years old, former vice director of Shanghai No.3 Printing Machine Factory, and arrested on July 12, 2000.@# 辩护人:王湘堡、黄冬红,郑传本律师事务所律师。@#
Defenders: Wang Xiangbao and Huang Donghong, attorneys-at-law of Zheng Chuanben Law Firm.@# @#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@# 被告人唐志华、张龙海、刘恺恺、邵先初、张勇贪污、职务侵占和企业人员受贿案,由上海市人民检察院第一分院向上海市第一中级人民法院提起公诉。@#
The No. 1 Branch of the People's Procuratorate of Shanghai Municipality filed a public prosecution against Tang Zhihua, Zhang Longhai, Liu Kaikai, Shao Xianchu and Zhang Yong with the No.1 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality for the case of embezzlement, duty-related encroachment, and acceptance of bribes by enterprise employees.@# 起诉书指控:@#
It is indicted in the bill of prosecution that:@# 被告人唐志华与担任上海第三印刷机械厂(以下简称三印厂)厂长职务的被告人张龙海共谋,给三印厂增设进货环节,贪污三印厂多支出的货款77万余元由唐志华私吞。唐志华、张龙海还伙同担任三印厂副厂长职务的被告人刘恺恺,利用职务便利虚列各项费用,骗取三印厂的公款24万余元,由唐志华私吞。三被告人的行为触犯《中华人民共和国刑法》(以下简称刑法)第三百八十二条的规定,构成贪污罪。@#
Tang Zhihua, in conspiracy with Zhang Longhai, then director of Shanghai No.3 Printing Machine Factory (hereinafter referred to as No.3 Printing Factory), illegally inserted an extra link to the purchase of goods by No.3 Printing Factory, and made No.3 Printing Factory pay an extra of 770,000 yuan, and which was encroached on by Tang himself. Tang and Zhang, further colluding with Liu Kaikai, then vice director of No.3 Printing Factory, falsely invented various kinds of expenses by taking advantage of his post and obtained by fraudulent means more than 240,000 yuan of public money from No.3 Printing Factory, which were also encroached on by Tang himself. Thus, the acts of Tang, Zhang and Liu had violated Article 382 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Law) and constituted the crime of embezzlement.@# 被告人唐志华与分别担任上海精工机械电器厂(以下简称精工厂)正、副厂长职务的被告人邵先初、张勇共谋,给精工厂增设进货环节,侵占精工厂多支出的货款260万余元由唐志华私吞。三被告人的行为触犯刑法二百七十一条的规定,构成职务侵占罪。@#
Tang, colluding with Shao Xianchu and Zhang Yong, then director and vice director of Shanghai Fine Machinery and Electric Appliance Factory, respectively (hereinafter referred to as Fine Machinery Factory), illegally inserted an extra link to the purchase of goods by Fine Machinery Factory, and made Fine Machinery Factory pay an extra of more than 2.6 million yuan, and which was encroached on by Tang himself. Thus, the acts of Tang, Shao and Zhang had violated Article 271 of the Criminal Law and constituted the crime of duty-related encroachment.@# 被告人邵先初在担任精工厂厂长期间,利用职务上的便利,收受他人贿赂的财物合计2.48万元。邵先初的行为触犯刑法一百六十三条的规定,构成企业人员受贿罪。@#
When Shao Xianchu was serving as the director of Fine Machinery Factory, he took advantage of his post and accepted a total 24,800 yuan of bribes from others. Thus, the acts of Shao had violated Article 163 of the Criminal Law and constituted the crime of acceptance of bribes by enterprise employee.@# 被告人张龙海、刘恺恺、邵先初、张勇犯罪后自首,请依法判处。@#
Zhang Longhai, Liu Kaikai, Shao Xianchu and Zhang Yong surrendered themselves to the police after the crime, and the No. 1 Branch of the People's Procuratorate of Shanghai Municipality pleaded the court to punish them according to law.@# 为证实上述指控,公诉机关当庭宣读和出示了被告人唐志华、张龙海、刘恺恺、邵先初、张勇的身份、职务证明,未出庭证人张少湘、杨健、吕诚吉、吴幼令、汤凯、屠健、刘学铭、王德钧、任雪峰、韩毓妹的证言,有关的购销发票、付款证明、收货凭证和审计、价格鉴定结论,以及唐志华、张龙海、邵先初、张勇到案后在侦查机关所作的供述,并请证人韩东海、陈廷春和鉴定人陈华明出庭作证。@#
In order to affirm the aforesaid accusations, the prosecutor announced at the court session and presented the certifications on the status and post of Tang Zhihua, Zhang Longhai, Liu Kaikai, Shao Xianchu and Zhang Yong, the testimonies of witnesses Zhang Shaoxiang, Yang Jian, Lü Chengji, Wu Youling, Tang Kai, Tu Jian, Liu Xueming, Wang Dejun, Ren Xuefeng and Han Yumei who did not appear in the court proceedings, the relevant purchase and sales invoices, payment vouchers, vouchers on receipt of goods, audit conclusions and price appraisal conclusions, as well as the confessions made by Tang Zhihua, Zhang Longhai, Shao Xianchu and Zhang Yong at the investigation organ. The prosecutors also invited Han Donghai and Chen Tingchun as well as the appraiser Chen Huaming to serve as a witness in the court.@# 针对起诉书的指控,被告人唐志华、张龙海、邵先初、张勇辩称:进货环节是根据实际需要经过增设的,没有共谋情节;唐志华的赢利不是通过转手加价侵吞企业货款实现的,而主要是通过压低上家销货方的销售价格实现。因此,各被告人没有犯罪的故意和行为。唐志华、张龙海、刘恺恺还辩称,三印厂支出的24万余元,确实是因唐志华介绍韩东海向三印厂提供了技术服务而开支的,不是贪污。@#
Tang Zhihua, Zhang Longhai, Shao Xianchu and Zhang Yong defended that: the link of purchasing goods was added in light of the actuality instead of being invented through conspiracy; and the profits of Tang were not obtained from encroaching on the money of the said enterprises by changing hands and raising the price but from lowering the selling price of the suppliers. As a result, each defendant had neither criminal intent nor criminal act. Tang Zhihua, Zhang Longhai and Liu Kaikai also defended that: the over 240,000 yuan was truly paid by No.3 Printing Factory because Tang introduced Han Donghai to provide technical services to this factory, and it was not illicit money.@# 各被告人的辩护人也认为,唐志华赚取的利润主要来自于上家给他供货时的让利;唐志华介绍韩东海给三印厂提供技术服务后,三印厂应当支出技术服务费;且张龙海、刘恺恺、邵先初、张勇从未在唐志华所赚的钱款中分得好处,证明他们既没有犯罪的目的,也没有犯罪的动机,其行为不构成犯罪。指控唐志华、张龙海、刘恺恺、邵先初、张勇共谋犯贪污罪、职务侵占罪的事实不清、证据不足,不能认定。@#
...... 被告人张龙海的辩护人还提出,如果认为张龙海的行为构成犯罪,也只能构成刑法一百六十六条规定的为亲友非法牟利罪。考虑到张龙海在担任三印厂常务副厂长、厂长期间,曾经为企业的生产经营和市场开拓付出了巨大努力,做了不少有益的工作,有突出贡献,对张龙海应当免除处罚。@#
 被告人邵先初对起诉书指控其受贿的事实没有异议,但辩称自己没有利用职务之便,且所得用于业务交际。邵先初的辩护人据此提出,邵先初出于业务交际才收取他人财物,其行为不构成企业人员受贿罪,认定企业人员受贿罪的事实不清、证据不足。@#
 上海市第一中级人民法院经审理查明:@#
 一、关于贪污罪和职务侵占罪@#
 被告人唐志华原为上海市东方造纸机械厂职工,1986年辞职后,先后从事个体运输、家具调剂业务。期间,唐志华与上海印刷包装机械总公司(以下简称印包公司)原总经理陆忠信等人保持了熟识的关系。三印厂是隶属于印包公司的国有企业,被告人张龙海、刘恺恺于1996年10月分别被印包公司任命为该厂的常务副厂长(主持工作)、副厂长;精工厂是印包公司与外方合资的企业上海紫光机械有限公司主管的集体企业,被告人邵先初、张勇于1995年12月分别被主管单位聘任为该厂的正、副厂长。@#
 1995年6月,被告人唐志华在上海市嘉定区黄渡镇注册登记了以其法定代表人的私营企业上海宝强实业有限公司(以下简称宝强公司),与其妻陈廷春共同经营。为使该公司赢利,唐志华利用与陆忠信等人的熟识关系,对印包公司及其下属企业的有关人员施加影响。@#
 被告人张龙海当上三印厂常务副厂长以后,利用主管该厂全面工作和分管进货采购的职务便利,与被告人唐志华共同指使三印厂供应科的采购人员在采购电动机、变频控制器等配套件时,让供货方上海华盛电器成套公司(以下简称华盛公司)、上海华光数字控制有限公司(以下简称华光公司)、上海富基电气有限公司(以下简称富基公司)、上海倍加福自动化有限公司(以下简倍加福公司)在继续直接向三印厂供货的同时,改向唐志华的宝强公司结算货款,再由唐志华加价后与三印厂结算,三印厂将货款直接付给宝强公司。自1997年1月至1999年12月,上述供货单位给三印厂供货共计188.1万余元,而唐志华以宝强公司名义转手向三印厂结算上述货物的货款共计274.4万余元(均已扣除应交税款)。依据上海市价格事务所的价格鉴定结论,唐志华转开发票加价86.2万余元,加价幅度平均超过原价45%。扣除上述供货单位可能给的销售让利数额,唐志华和张龙海利用转开发票,使三印厂多支出货款合计77.7万余元,该款由唐志华占为己有。@#
 1997年1-2月间,被告人唐志华得知三印厂进行电机技术改造,即介绍华光公司副总经理兼工程师韩东海前去察看。韩东海到三印厂后,参与了三印厂技术人员对电机的技术改造。之后,因三印厂购买并使用了华光公司的电机产品及配件,华光公司和韩东海均未要求三印厂支付韩东海参与技术改造的费用。唐志华借此机会,以介绍他人帮助技术改造使三印厂获利为由,多次要求被告人张龙海、刘恺恺向其支付介绍费。自1997年2月至1999年10月中旬,张龙海、刘恺恺明知唐志华巧立名目要钱,仍利用职务上的便利,采用虚列支付宝强公司工程服务费、墙板加工费、技术咨询费等名义,先后8次从三印厂支出公款24.55万元给唐志华独吞。@#
 被告人唐志华为插手精工厂关于变频控制器和程序控制器等配件的采购工作,与被告人邵先初、张勇共谋,由邵、张利用主管和分管精工厂进货采购的职务便利,私自增设进货环节,让原有的供货方华盛公司、华光公司在继续直接向精工厂供货的同时,改向唐志华的宝强公司结算货款,再由唐志华加价后与精工厂结算,精工厂直接给宝强公司付货款。从1995年12月至1999年12月,华盛公司、华光公司向精工厂供货共计652.6万余元,而唐志华以宝强公司名义转手向精工厂结算上述货物的货款共计967.8万余元(均已扣除应交税款)。依据上海市价格事务所的价格鉴定结论,唐志华转开发票加价315.1万余元,加价幅度平均超过原价48%。扣除华盛公司、华光公司可能给的销售上让数额,唐志华、邵先初、张勇利用转开发票使精工厂多支出货款合计264.5万余元,该款由唐志华占为己有。@#
 综上,被告人唐志华通过被告人张龙海、刘恺恺、邵先初、张勇,共侵吞、侵占三印厂、精工厂的资金366.7万余元。唐志华除将其中一小部分买些礼物送给张勇,或者用于对邵先初、张勇、刘恺恺等人的吃请利诱外,其余用于购买住宅一套及在银行存款、买卖证券。案发后,唐志华处的部分款物以及唐志华送给张勇的礼物被查获。@#
 以上事实,有下列证据证实:@#
 (一)认定涉案单位的经济性质和各被告人身份的证据有:@#
 1、宝强公司的营业执照、股东身份和出资情况的证明,唐志华之妻陈廷春的证言和唐志华的供述,证明宝强公司是唐志华的私营公司,两名股东是唐志华和妻子陈廷春;宝强公司既无资金、又无经营人员和经营能力、经营场所,唐志华、陈廷春都对有关机电产品、配件的采购和供应知识一无所知。@#
 2、三印厂的企业法人营业执照、张龙海和刘恺恺填写的《干部履历表》、张龙海和刘恺恺的职务证明以及二人的供述,证明三印厂是国有企业,张龙海、刘恺恺作为该厂的正、副厂长,具有国家工作人员身份。@#
 3、精工厂的企业法人营业执照、邵先初和张勇的职务证明以及邵先初、张勇的供述,证明精工厂是集体企业,邵先初、张勇于1995年12月被聘任为正、副厂长,分别主管和分管该厂的供销工作。@#
 (二)认定唐志华、张龙海采用加价转开发票的手段使三印厂多支出货款77.7万余元的证据有:@#
 1、华盛公司、华光公司、富基公司、倍加福公司的供货发票,宝强公司开给三印厂的发票,经张龙海签字批准的三印厂货款暂支单,审计、价格鉴定报告,证实唐志华、张龙海加价转开发票使三印厂多支出货款77.7万余元的事实。@#
 2、华盛公司等供货方最初出具给宝强公司的发票、宝强公司最初出具给三印厂的发票以及三印厂最初支付给宝强公司货款的凭证证实,三印厂最初不仅付款在先,且扣除同期应付货款,尚有9万余元货款被宝强公司占用。@#
 3、印包公司职员刘学铭陈述:因为三印厂要换厂长,张龙海很想当,后来传出可能刘恺恺当厂长,张龙海就对我说,这肯定是唐志华在帮刘的忙,刘恺恺与唐志华关系很好。为此我带张龙海到唐志华家。唐见到张龙海后,就骂张龙海“不上路”。我在旁边帮张龙海说些好话,唐志华后来又对张龙海说:“以后你做事要拎得清点,反正这件事我有数了。”当时给我和张龙海的印象是,唐志华在印包行业挺有能量的。@#
 三印厂供应科副科长吴幼令陈述:1996年底,华盛公司的张少湘带我到唐志华家。唐对我说刘恺恺刚走,让我以后从他的宝强公司进配件,并说此事张龙海厂长会关照我的。过了两、三天,张龙海叫我到他的办公室去,唐志华也在。张说以后我厂的配件给唐志华做,具体事由我和唐华志商量。以后张又对我说让唐志华从我们厂赚5%,其他事他不管。我厂实要货的数量、送货、提货等,都是我直接与华盛、倍加富、富基等单位联系。这些单位将发票开给宝强公司,宝强公司只是过账后加价给我厂开发票而已。后来,宝强公司转手给我厂的价格越来越高,中间的加价远远超过了5%,张龙海对此是知道的,但到底超过多少,他从不问我。我想这是他要为自己留后路。唐志华常在我面前说,张龙海的厂长是他叫当上的,张龙海现在应该让他在生产上赚钱。这样的话,他在张龙海面前也多次说过。张龙海多次责怪我说,宝强公司开出的价格高,但他从没有明确让我以后怎样做,还是照样签字同意付款。@#
 华盛公司原财务主管张少湘陈述:认识唐志华后,有一天邵先初来电约我吃饭,在饭桌上还有三印厂的副厂长刘恺恺。吃饭中,刘厂长拿出一份三印厂要采购电器的清单让我看。我看后说,这些产品已经在同你们做了,具体联系人是吴幼令。唐就说让把吴叫来。饭后到唐家,刘恺恺打通电话后,我接过电话让吴来。唐对吴说,三印厂今后的业务就让他宝强公司做,三印厂要电器直接向华盛进货,但发票要通过宝强公司开。@#
 华光公司职员韩东海陈述:我公司和精工厂发生业务关系后,唐志华说三印厂有一批马达质量不过关,叫我想办法。我去后,三印厂陆续更换零件,全部用我公司的产品,我公司就成为三印厂的供应商,唐志华作为中间商。在实际与三印厂做业务中,唐口气很狂,张龙海、刘恺恺被他随便骂,叫怎么做就得怎么做。唐对马达的价格一窍不通,他都是来问我市场价是多少。他转手开给三印厂的价格很高。我们给唐一根小电缆,经贸部600余元,陈廷春开出价是1000余元。业务员吴幼令去问他们,唐对吴幼令说:“价格问题,你业务员无权来和我说。”宝强公司赚的三印厂的钱,我公司没有损失。@#
 富基公司总经理汤凯陈述:我公司同三印厂在1996年初就建立了业务关系。发生了两、三笔业务后,吴幼令对我们说:今后的业务,要将发票开给宝强公司。以后,都是先由吴报来产品的型号、数量,我们送货到三印厂,发票交给吴幼令,由吴去向宝强公司收取支票再交给我。到现在,我们连宝强公司是什么性质的公司、老板是谁也不清楚。@#
 ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
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;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
【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