People's Procuratorate of Yunnan Province v. Chu Shijian, et al.
(Case on Embezzlement and on Holding a Huge Amount of Property with Unidentified Sources)@#
Criminal Judgment of the Higher People's Court of Yunnan Province@#
(No. 1 [1998])@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Prosecuting organ: People's Procuratorate of Yunnan Province.@#
Defendant: Chu Shijian, male, born in Huaning County, Yunnan Province on February 1, 1928, of the Han nationality, with high school educational background, former board chairman and president of Yunnan Yuxi Hongta Tobacco (Group) Limited Liability Corporation, dwelling at the dormitory of Yuxi Cigarette Factory. He began to be under surveillance of residence on February 8, 1997 due to the present case, and was arrested on July 10. He is presently detained in the watch house of Yunnan Provincial Public Security Department.@#
Defenders: Ma Jun, Luo Tao, lawyers of Yunnan Zhenxu Law Firm.@#
Defendant: Luo Yijun, male, born in Tonghai County, Yunnan Province on June 13, 1953, of the Han nationality, with junior college educational background, former general accountant of Yunnan Yuxi Hongta Tobacco (Group) Limited Liability Corporation, dwelling at the dormitory of Yuxi Cigarette Factory. He was criminally detained on August 8, 1997 due to the present case, and was arrested on August 22. He is presently detained in the watch house of Yunnan Provincial Public Security Department.@#
Defenders: Wang Beichuan and He Jing, lawyers of Yunnan Beichuan Law Firm.@#
Defendant: Qiao Facco, male, born in Puning County, Yunnan Province on September 5, 1938, of the Han nationality, with an educational background of Master's degree, former vice board chairman and vice president of Yunnan Yuxi Hongta Tobacco (Group) Limited Liability Corporation, dwelling at the dormitory of Yuxi Cigarette Factory. He was criminally detained on August 8, 1997 due to the present case, and was arrested on August 22. He is presently detained in the watch house of Yunnan Provincial Public Security Department.@#
Defender: Huan Rui, lawyer of Yunnan Donglu Law Firm.@#
The People's Procuratorate of Yunnan Province (hereinafter referred to as Yunnan Procuratorate) lodged a prosecution to the present court on August 6, 1998 against Chu Shijian for the crime of embezzlement and the crime of holding a huge amount of property with unidentified sources, as well as against Luo Yijun and Qiao Facco for the crime of embezzlement. After accepting the case, the present court formed a collegial panel according to law and heard the case publicly. Zhu Jianwei, Mao Jianyi and Zheng Bo, prosecutors of Yunnan Procuratorate, appeared in the court and supported the prosecution. Chu Shijian and his defenders Ma Jun and Luo Tao, Luo Yijun and his defenders Wang Beichuan and He Jing, Qiao Facco and his defender Huan Rui, and witnesses Liu Ruilin, et al appeared in the court and took part in the court proceedings. The present case was deliberated by the collegial panel and was reported to the Judicial Committee of the present court for discussion and decision, and the trial has now been finalized.@#
．．．．．．

褚时健等贪污、巨额财产来源不明案@#

云南省高级人民法院刑事判决书@#
（（１９９８）云高刑初字第１号）@#
@#
公诉机关：云南省人民检察院。@#
被告人褚时健，男，１９２８年２月１日生，汉族，高中文化，云南省华宁县人，原系云南玉溪红塔烟草（集团）有限责任公司董事长、总裁，住玉溪卷　烟厂职工宿舍。１９９７年２月８日因本案被监视居住，同年７月１０日被逮捕。现羁押于云南省公安厅看守所。@#
辩护人马军、罗涛，云南震序律师事务所律师。@#
被告人罗以军，男，１９５３年６月１３日生，汉族，大专文化，云南省通海县人，原系云南玉溪红塔烟草（集团）有限责任公司总会计师，住玉溪卷烟厂职工宿舍。１９９７年８月８日因本案被刑事拘留，同年８月２２日被逮捕。现羁押于云南省公安厅看守所。@#
辩护人王北川、何京，云南北川律师事务所律师。@#
被告人乔发科，男，１９３８年９月５日生，汉族，硕士研究生文化，云南省晋宁县人，原系云南玉溪红塔烟草（集团）有限责任公司副董事长、副总裁，住玉溪卷烟厂职工宿舍。１９９７年８月８日因本案被刑事拘留，同年８月２２日被逮捕。现羁押于云南省公安厅看守所。@#
辩护人宦锐，云南东陆律师事务所律师。@#
云南省人民检察院于１９９８年８月６日以被告人褚时健犯贪污罪、巨额财产来源不明罪，被告人罗以军、乔发科犯贪污罪和本院提起公诉。本院受理后，依法组成合义庭，公开开庭审理了本案。云南省人民检察院检察员朱建伟、毛健谊、郑波出庭支持公诉，被告人褚时健及其辩护人马军、罗涛，被告人罗以军及其辩护人王北川、何京，被告人乔发科及其辩护人宦锐，证人刘瑞麟等到庭参加诉讼。本案经合议庭评议并报本院审判委员会讨论决定，现已审理终结。@#
起诉书对被告人褚时健、罗以军、乔发科分别提出三项指控，法庭审理中，控、辩双方针对指控的事实、罪名及相关情节，当庭举证、质证和辩论，三被告人作了最后陈述。综合双方争议及各自理由，本院评判如下：@#
　　一、起诉书指控：１９９３年至１９９４年，玉溪卷烟厂在下属的香港华玉贸易发展有限公司（简称华玉瓮）存放销售卷烟收入款（也称浮价款）和新加坡卷烟加工利润留成收入款共计２８５７０７４８．５美元。褚时健指使罗以军交该款截留到玉溪卷烟厂和华玉公司的账外存放，并规定由其签字授权后才能动用。１９９５年６月，褚时健与罗以军、乔发科先后两次策划将这笔款先拿出３００万美元进行私分。褚决定自己要１００多万美元，给罗以军、乔发科每人６０至７０万美元，华玉公司总经理盛大勇（在逃）、华玉公司副总经理刘瑞麟（另案处理）也分一点，并把钱存放在新加玻商人钟照欣的账户上。１９９５年７月１５日，罗以军身带褚时健签字的四份授权委托书到达深圳，向盛大勇、刘瑞麟转达了褚的旨意，盛、刘亦同意。罗以军在授权委托书上填上转款数额，褚时健为１７４万美元，罗以军６８１０６１美元，乔发科６８万美元，盛大勇和刘瑞麟４５万美元。罗将填好转款数额的授权委托书和向钟照欣要的收款银行账号交给盛大勇，叫盛立即办理。７月１９日，盛大勇将３５５１０６１美元转到钟照欣的账号上。罗以军返回玉溪卷烟厂后，将办理情况报告了褚时健、乔发科。上述款项案发后已追回。@#
对指控的这一事实，公诉机关当庭宣读和出示了下列证据：@#
１、华玉公司的账页，以证明玉溪卷烟厂在华玉公司存放销售卷烟收入款（浮价款）和卷烟加工利润留成款共计２８５７０７４８．５美元。褚时健等人汇出的３５５１０６１美元属上述款项中的一部分。@#
２、被告人褚时健、罗以军、乔发科在侦查期间的陈述，以证明三被告人预谋私分美元的经过。@#
３、华玉公司的调账凭证，华玉公司副总经理刘瑞麟记录的调账备注和刘瑞麟的证言，以证明被告人罗以军持被告人褚时健签字的授权委托书到华玉公司调账的经过。@#
４、银行转款凭证和银行收款凭证，以证明从华玉公司汇出款项的时间、金额及收款银行和账号。@#
５、新加坡商人钟照欣证言，以证明被告人褚时健等人将款汇到他在香港汇丰银行账户存放的经过。@#
６、扣押款项凭证，以证明案发后款项已全部追回。@#
公诉机关认为，被告人褚时健、罗以军、乔发科利用职务之便，共同私分公款，数额特别巨大，均已构成贪污罪。在共同犯罪中，被告人褚时健提出犯意，起指挥作用，系主犯；被告人罗以军实施转款行为，被告人乔发科参与私分，均系从犯。@#
被告人褚时健、罗以军、乔发科当庭陈述的事实与指控事实基本一致。被告人褚时健提出，预谋私分美元的数额与指控贪污的数额有出入。@#
被告人褚时健的辩护人对指控提出三点异议：第一，各证据间反映出的数额与起诉书认定的数额存在矛盾；起诉书认定三被告人各自贪污的美元数额，只有罗以军的供述，没有其他证据证实。第二，三被告人私分的是销售卷烟价款，属账外资金，私分的决定是集体作出的，故应定集体私分国有资产罪，指控贪污的罪名不能成立。第三，款项转到新加玻商人钟照欣账户，被告人并未实际占有，属犯罪未遂。@#
被告人罗以军的辩护人提出，被告人褚时健指使被告人罗以军将３５５１０６１美元从华玉公司账上转到新加坡商人钟照欣在香港的银行账户存放，这一行为只为为三被告人私分创造了条件，款项并未按预谋的份额为各人控制，公款的性质没有改变，事后也以玉溪卷烟厂的名义将款全部转回，故三被告人行为属犯罪预备。@#
被告人乔发科的辩护人提出，被告人乔发科仅有犯意表示，没有实施犯罪行为，也没有实际占有私分的美元，指控其贪污不能成立。@#
本院认为，指控被告人褚对健、罗以军、乔发科共同私分公款３５５１０６１美元的基本事实清楚，基本证据充分，三被告人亦予供认。对争议的数额，本院确认三被告人在预谋私分美元时，商定褚时健１００多万，罗以军、乔发科各６０万到７０万，最后实际转款３５５１０６１美元的事实。@#
关于被告人褚时健的辩护人提出应当定集体私分国有资产罪的观点，本院认为，集体私分国有资产罪属单位犯罪，犯罪的主体是单位，犯罪的客观方面表现为单位决定，集体私分。被告人褚时健、罗以军、乔发科以个人非法占有为目的，利用职务上的便利，采用秘密的方式私分公款，既不属单位行为，也不是集体私分，不符合集体私分国有资产罪的基本特征。因此，辩护人的这一意见不予采纳。@#
关于被告人褚时健的辩护人提出属犯罪未遂的观点，被告人罗以军的辩护人提出属犯罪预备的观点，被告人乔发科的辩护人提出乔发科属犯意表示的观点，本院认为，三被告人主观上有共同私分公款的故意，客观上已将公款从华玉公司的银行账户转到钟照欣的帐户，这一过程完成后，玉溪卷烟厂华玉公司都对该款失去了占有和控制，实际支配权在被告人，款项的所有权已被非法侵犯，三被告人的行为符合贪污罪的全部构成要件，属犯罪既遂，故三辩护人的意见均不予采纳。@#
．．．．．．