Bank executives shut out 250 million depositors. Where is the difficulty?

The main reason for the accusation is that the nature of this case is difficult to define. Is Liang a crime of theft or embezzlement? In fact, in the final analysis, no one wants to bear this responsibility, and neither the bank nor Liang wants to compensate the money.

Presumably, everyone has heard that "bank executives transferred 250 million deposits". After all, I have been on a hot search for several days recently.

The deposit of more than 250 million yuan in Nanning Branch of China Industrial and Commercial Bank was transferred by black-box operation, and the case was not committed by others. She is a bank executive named Liang. Shimou, Liang's personal assistant, surrendered to the police on 20 19, claiming that he had forged large deposit certificates many times at Liang's instigation.

After getting the news, the police quickly arrested Liang. After catching Liang, the next step is to deal with him and discuss the compensation for depositors' deposits. 202 1, Nanning Intermediate People's Court made a first-instance judgment: Liang was convicted of theft, fraud and forgery of financial tickets and was sentenced to life imprisonment; Five people, including Shi, were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment ranging from 7 years to 15 years; The defendant was ordered to compensate the victim for economic losses.

It is worth noting that this case is characterized as theft, and it is Liang himself who needs compensation. Such a judgment also means that banks do not need compensation and do not have to bear corresponding responsibilities. The bank must be laughing at the moment, thinking, "Although it is my employee, what happened in our bank has nothing to do with me!"

After the case was decided, Liang immediately appealed. In her opinion, the victim is quite clear about her job and life. She asked for a deposit certificate only because she was the general manager of Nanning Branch, so it should be characterized as the crime of job embezzlement.

You may not know the difference between duty embezzlement and theft. To put it simply, if this case is characterized as the crime of duty embezzlement, then the bank will compensate the depositors for their losses and bear the responsibility; But if it is defined as theft, then the defendant will bear the corresponding compensation and responsibility. Therefore, Liang and the bank hold their own words.

In the eyes of the victims, they also believe that Liang's behavior belongs to the crime of duty embezzlement and the bank needs compensation. Of course, I agree with them. Because there are many restrictions to transfer the money from the deposit slip to the account, it is difficult for Liang alone to achieve this kind of theft.

At the same time, I want to say here that there will be no pies in the sky. At first, these victims trusted Liang so much not only because she was an executive of ICBC Nanning Branch, but also because she was driven by interests and wanted to get more generous returns.