The facts of a legal case
Defendant Hu, former account manager of the customer management department of Baixia Sub-branch of China Everbright Bank. Hu failed to recover the loan of 2 million yuan he had handled, and repeatedly urged Wang Jun (sentenced), the legal representative of Nanjing Kangfuda Industrial Co., Ltd., to be unsuccessful, so he conspired with Wang Jun to defraud money to repay the owed loan and use it for his own use. As the customer department manager of China Everbright Bank, Hu made a door-to-door deposit, obtained the victim's deposit and handed it over to Wang Jun. Wang Jun provided a false time deposit account opening certificate and bank statement, and then Hu handed it over to the depositor. He defrauded nearly 30 million yuan many times, and returned nearly 10 million yuan before the incident, including:
In September, 20001year, Hu defrauded Sotheby's company through others' introduction, and agreed to deposit RMB100000 yuan into China Everbright Bank Baixia Sub-branch. As a bank employee, Hu obtained a promissory note of RMB 6,543,800,000 from the company and gave it to Wang Jun, and provided Sotheby's with a false certificate of time deposit account opening and bank statement. Subsequently, Wang Jun opened a notice deposit in the name of Sotheby's in the East Branch of Guangdong Development Bank, and forged the company seal to transfer the money.
In March 2002, Hu once again defrauded Sotheby's company and agreed to deposit RMB100000 yuan into China Everbright Bank Baixia Sub-branch. As a bank employee, Hu obtained a promissory note of 6,543,800 yuan from the company and gave it to Wang Jun, and provided Sotheby's with a false certificate of time deposit account opening and bank statement. Subsequently, Wang Jun opened a notice deposit in the name of Sotheby's in the East Branch of Guangdong Development Bank, and forged the company seal to transfer the money. In order to cover up the fact of defrauding deposits, Hu paid "interest" to Sotheby's three times, totaling more than 970,000 yuan.
On April 1 day, 2003, Hu took the initiative to surrender to the public security organs.
Referee
The Intermediate People's Court of Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province held that the defendant Hu Mou and others used false bank settlement vouchers to defraud public property for the purpose of illegal possession, which constituted the crime of financial voucher fraud, and the amount was extremely huge, causing particularly heavy losses to the interests of the country and the people. The Nanjing Municipal People's Procuratorate accused the defendant Hu of committing a crime, with clear basic facts and sufficient evidence. Defendant Hu had paid more than 970,000 yuan to Softcompany in the name of paying interest before committing the crime, which should not be included in the crime amount, so the crime amount of financial voucher fraud should be recognized as190,000 yuan. The defendant Hu surrendered himself after committing a crime and was given a lighter punishment according to law.
Defendant Hu Mou, Wang Jun and Wang Jun contacted the deposit unit through others to defraud their trust. As a bank employee, Hu went to the door to deposit money, obtained the financial ticket issued by the victim unit, and gave it to Wang Jun. Wang Junyong took out the money with the forged seal of the deposit unit. At the same time, Hu handed Wang Jun's forged account opening certificate and bank receipt to the depositor, which made the depositor mistakenly think that the deposit had been deposited in the account opened by the unit in China Everbright Bank. During the whole fraud process, although the defendant Hu was a staff member of China Everbright Bank, he did not issue any unit entrustment certificate to the injured unit. Based on the introduction of the middleman and himself, the injured unit mistakenly thought that he was doing it for the bank. Nor did it accept the injured unit or go through any formalities in its bank office; The money obtained from the crime did not enter the unit, and the relevant bank vouchers issued to the injured unit were also forged. In the process of committing the crime, the defendant Hu's behavior and consequences have nothing to do with China Everbright Bank except his own bank employee status, and China Everbright Bank should not be responsible for its criminal consequences, so the defendant Hu's criminal behavior is not necessarily related to his position.
The crime of financial voucher fraud refers to the fraudulent activities of fabricating facts and concealing the truth for the purpose of illegal possession, and using forged or altered bank settlement vouchers such as entrusted collection vouchers, remittance vouchers and bank deposit vouchers. Bills and bank settlement vouchers are tools for payment and settlement, accounting vouchers for banks, units and individuals to record accounts, and written vouchers for recording economic business and clarifying economic responsibilities. According to the documents of the People's Bank of China, the certificate of account opening for unit time deposit is the certificate of RMB time deposit rights issued by the deposit-taking financial institution to the depositor. It is essentially a kind of financial certificate, which has the same function as the certificate of deposit. China Industrial and Commercial Bank B transfer cheque, telegraphic transfer voucher, customs declaration and export settlement voucher are all bank settlement vouchers. The first notice of receipt of a bill is a certificate issued by a bank to the payee after receiving the money for the payee, which should belong to the settlement certificate of other banks.
In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), Nanjing Intermediate People's Court sentenced the defendant Hu to life imprisonment, deprived of his political rights for life, and confiscated all his personal property. The proceeds of crime shall be recovered and returned to the injured unit.
After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, the defendant Hu refused to accept the appeal. The appeal grounds and defense opinions hold that Hu became an accessory to the same crime because of a decisive mistake in the trial; It is also proposed that Hu's relatives voluntarily returned the stolen money 1.2 million yuan for Hu during the second trial, and combined with the plot of surrender, I hope that the punishment for Hu will be reduced in the second trial.
The final judgment of the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province held that the appellant Hu and others used false other bank settlement vouchers for the purpose of illegal possession to defraud public property190,000 yuan, resulting in actual losses of170,000 yuan. His behavior has constituted the crime of financial voucher fraud, and the amount is extremely huge, which has caused particularly heavy losses to the interests of the country and the people and should be severely punished according to law. In the joint crime, the appellant Hu played a major role and was the principal offender. Hu surrendered himself after committing a crime. The court of first instance found that the facts were clear, the evidence was true and sufficient, the nature was accurate, and the trial procedure was legal. According to the grounds of appeal and defense opinions, after investigation, the original judgment found that Hu's behavior constituted the crime of financial voucher fraud according to the above-mentioned criminal facts of Hu and the fact that the "bank draft" of the People's Bank of China belongs to other bank settlement documents, and according to the provisions of Article 194 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC). In the crime of financial voucher fraud, Hu subjectively knew that Wang Jun used forged bank account opening certificates and bank drafts to commit fraud, and his attitude was positive and active. Objectively speaking, he used his special status as a bank employee to absorb deposits at home and used high interest rates as bait, which led to many frauds and eventually caused huge losses to the injured unit. Play a major role in the crime of * * * and should be the principal offender. According to Hu's criminal facts and circumstances of surrender, the original judgment was appropriate. In view of the fact that Hu's relatives voluntarily returned the illegal money of 6.5438+0.2 million yuan during the second trial, the punishment can be mitigated according to law, and some defense opinions put forward by his defenders can be adopted; Other appeal grounds and defense opinions put forward by appellant Hu cannot be established and will not be adopted. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the appellant was found guilty of financial voucher fraud, sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment and fined RMB 654.38 million. The money recovered by the public security organs was RMB 6.5438 +0.44 million, and the money returned by Hu relatives was RMB 6.5438 +0.2 million, which was returned to the victim's unit, Sufute Software Co., Ltd.; The stolen money in this case continues to be recovered and returned to the victim unit.