Therefore, although Dai Wei is the CEO, he does not need to bear legal responsibility. Dai Wei, who used to be very optimistic about scenery and capital, seems to be not doing very well now, and has recently been restricted from high consumption. A few days ago, the Yuhua District People's Court of Changsha issued a consumption restriction order to Dai Wei.
In fact, according to the current law, ofo has nothing to do with most of these crimes:
1 does not meet the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits.
In the judicial interpretation "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Illegal Fund-raising" issued on 20 10, the Supreme Court formulated four criteria for the determination of the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits, namely illegality, openness, seduction and sociality.
In the case of Xiaohuangche, because ofo charged the deposit to the user without promising interest and return, it is not a crime of illegally absorbing public deposits.
2. It does not meet the crime of illegal use of funds.
This is relatively simple. The crime of illegal use of funds refers to the use of funds by public fund management institutions such as social security fund management institutions and housing provident fund management institutions, as well as insurance companies, insurance asset management companies and securities investment fund management companies in violation of state regulations, and the circumstances are serious. Bike-sharing obviously does not belong to the scope of the subject of this crime.
3. It does not meet the crime of fund-raising fraud.
The core of the crime of fund-raising fraud lies in whether there is "fraud" in ofo. The definition of "fraud" in Chinese law is "fabricating facts to conceal the truth to defraud public and private property".
Ofo did not fabricate any facts, nor did it conceal any truth. It also admitted that it was reasonable for users to refund the deposit. At least before it disappeared, it was still providing services and refunds, but it was a little slow. At present, although the company's abnormal operation leads to various rulings being unenforceable, it has nothing to do with the crime of fraud.
4. It does not meet the crime of embezzlement and fraud.
The subject of embezzlement and fraud is a natural person, and the company that signed the agreement with the user is ofo, not a natural person Dai Wei. So ofo does not involve these two crimes.
5. It does not meet the crime of misappropriating funds.
The crime of misappropriating funds objectively requires the actor to take advantage of his position to misappropriate the funds of his own unit for personal use, or to lend a large amount to others, which has not been paid back for more than three months, or there are other relevant circumstances.
In other words, if the user's deposit is used for the production of the enterprise, the purchase of a bicycle and other purposes, which reflects the will of the unit and the beneficiary is the unit, then this behavior does not infringe on the right to use the funds of the unit. Therefore, it does not constitute the crime of misappropriation of funds.
6. It does not meet the crime of misappropriation of public funds.
The subject of this crime must be the national staff.