本文選題：家族公司　切入點(diǎn)：公司人格否認(rèn)　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】： 我國改革開放30年來,市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)不斷發(fā)展和完善,多種經(jīng)濟(jì)成分蓬勃發(fā)展,一些個(gè)體作坊有了基本的資本原始積累,同時(shí)為了事業(yè)的壯大、適應(yīng)公司法的發(fā)展,小型的有限公司應(yīng)運(yùn)而生。但是實(shí)踐中存在大量的“家族公司”,法人治理結(jié)構(gòu)不完善,公司財(cái)產(chǎn)和家庭財(cái)產(chǎn)不分,如果股東親屬利用職務(wù)上的便利,將本單位財(cái)物非法占為己有,數(shù)額較大的,按現(xiàn)行刑法的規(guī)定,應(yīng)認(rèn)定為職務(wù)侵占罪。然而個(gè)案中案件事實(shí)復(fù)雜,一律認(rèn)定為職務(wù)侵占罪失之偏頗,有客觀歸罪之嫌。本文擬從一則有關(guān)職務(wù)侵占罪的具體案例入手,著重討論“家族公司”中職務(wù)侵占罪的問題。文章分四個(gè)大部分對(duì)其進(jìn)行探討和研究: 一、案例的引出。案例是2003年北京市通州區(qū)法院審判的李爽職務(wù)侵占案,該案例基本情況為:孫旭系北京天旭實(shí)業(yè)集團(tuán)、北京天旭達(dá)房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)有限責(zé)任公司董事長兼總經(jīng)理,被告人李爽和孫旭為夫妻關(guān)系。孫旭是北京天旭實(shí)業(yè)集團(tuán)、北京天旭達(dá)房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)有限責(zé)任公司的大股東,孫旭的女兒孫悅、女婿關(guān)鍵是公司小股東。被告人李爽利用職務(wù)上的便利,將公司財(cái)產(chǎn)占為己有,并且數(shù)額達(dá)28萬元,法院判決其構(gòu)成職務(wù)侵占罪,但是考慮到公司性質(zhì)為家族公司,對(duì)李爽從輕處罰。 二、案件的爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)和分歧意見。(一)案件的爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)。實(shí)質(zhì)上的“一人公司”的財(cái)產(chǎn)性質(zhì)應(yīng)如何認(rèn)定以及“一人公司”股東的妻子能否成為職務(wù)侵占罪的主體。(二)案件的分歧意見。目前學(xué)界和實(shí)務(wù)界對(duì)此類案件主要有三種不同意見:第一種意見認(rèn)為李爽構(gòu)成職務(wù)侵占罪。第二種意見認(rèn)為李爽構(gòu)成職務(wù)侵占罪,但是免除刑事處罰。第三種意見認(rèn)為李爽不構(gòu)成犯罪。(三)本文贊同第三種意見,李爽不構(gòu)成犯罪。首先,李爽不具有客觀構(gòu)成要件要求的將“本單位”財(cái)物非法占為己有的屬性。其次,李爽不具有主觀構(gòu)成要件要求的直接故意、以非法占有為目的的屬性。 三、涉及本案的相關(guān)法律問題研究。(一)有限責(zé)任公司的設(shè)立規(guī)則及其公司人格否認(rèn)制度。分析結(jié)論為:個(gè)人公司或者家族公司的財(cái)產(chǎn)與家庭財(cái)產(chǎn)相混同時(shí),應(yīng)適用公司人格否認(rèn)制度。(二)職務(wù)侵占罪的認(rèn)定。文章從職務(wù)侵占罪的立法過程出發(fā),運(yùn)用兩要件犯罪構(gòu)成學(xué)說對(duì)案例進(jìn)行具體分析�？陀^構(gòu)成要件著重分析各種行為主體構(gòu)成職務(wù)侵占罪的可能性,同時(shí)對(duì)“利用職務(wù)上的便利”和“非法占為己有”等行為內(nèi)容進(jìn)行了深入剖析。主觀構(gòu)成要件闡述了職務(wù)侵占罪必須具有直接故意、非法占有為目的的具體內(nèi)涵,并聯(lián)系案例實(shí)際從違法性認(rèn)識(shí)的可能性和期待可能性層面進(jìn)行分析。 四、研究結(jié)論。文章分五種情況進(jìn)行總結(jié):(一)法人治理結(jié)構(gòu)完善的有限公司,如果其工作人員利用職務(wù)上的便利,將本單位財(cái)物非法占為己有,數(shù)額較大的,應(yīng)認(rèn)定為職務(wù)侵占罪。(二)在法人治理結(jié)構(gòu)相對(duì)比較完善的家族式有限公司中,其公司成員利用職務(wù)上的便利,將本單位財(cái)物非法占為己有,數(shù)額較大的,不論是股東與非股東,或者是一般工作人員還是股東親屬與否,都應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定為職務(wù)侵占罪。(三)法人治理結(jié)構(gòu)混亂的家族式有限公司,工商登記為有限公司(股東為兩人以上),但是除大股東之外的小股東均為掛名股東,是以普通有限公司之名行一人有限公司之實(shí)的,對(duì)大股東的直系親屬一般不認(rèn)為構(gòu)成犯罪。而對(duì)公司中一般的雇傭關(guān)系的員工應(yīng)認(rèn)定為侵占罪。(四)法人治理結(jié)構(gòu)混亂的夫妻公司,如果夫妻一方利用職務(wù)上的便利,將本單位財(cái)物非法占為己有,數(shù)額較大的,不構(gòu)成職務(wù)侵占罪,但是可能構(gòu)成侵占罪。(五)對(duì)個(gè)體工商戶中夫妻一方侵占財(cái)產(chǎn)是否構(gòu)成犯罪分情況進(jìn)行討論。 最后,筆者認(rèn)為案件雖小,卻很有典型性,由此拋出兩個(gè)值得重視和深思的問題,以便請(qǐng)各位法學(xué)專家以及法律工作者賜教。
[Abstract]:30 years of China's reform and opening up, the rapid development of market economy and perfect, the vigorous development of various economic sectors, some individual workshops have basic primitive accumulation of capital, at the same time in order to adapt to the development of business growth, the company law, the company came into being. But there are a lot of small "family company" in the practice of corporate governance structure the company is not perfect, and family property is not divided, if the shareholders of relatives taking advantage of his position, the unit of property illegally for himself, a relatively large amount, according to the provisions of the criminal law, should be identified as official embezzlement. However, in the case of complex facts, are identified as biased embezzlement lost, there are objective incrimination. This paper starts from a case of embezzlement, focuses on the "family company" in the embezzlement problem. The article is divided into four parts to carry on the Discussion and research:
A case case is elicited. In 2003 Li Shuang Tongzhou District Beijing city court trial positions occupied case, the basic situation of the case: Sun Xu Department of Beijing tianxulndustry group, chairman and general manager of Beijing days Kotewall real estate development limited liability company, defendant Li Shuang and Sun Xu as husband and wife. Sun Xu is Beijing tianxulndustry group. The major shareholder of Beijing days Kotewall real estate development limited liability company, Sun Xu's daughter Yue Sun, son-in-law is the key to the company's minority shareholders. The defendant Li Shuang taking advantage of his position, the company's property for himself, and the amount of up to 280 thousand yuan, the court verdict constitutes embezzlement, but taking into account the nature of the company for the family company, to Li Shuang lighter punishment.
Two, the focus of controversy and disagreement cases. (a) the controversial focus of the case. The essence of the "one company" should be how to determine the nature of property and the "a" shareholder's wife can become the embezzlement subject. (two) divergence of the case. At present, the academic and practical circles mainly there are three different views on such cases: the first opinion Li Shuang constitute embezzlement. The second opinion Li Shuang constitute embezzlement, but exempted from criminal punishment. The third opinion Li Shuang does not constitute a crime. (three) this paper agree with the third view, Li Shuang does not constitute a crime. Firstly, Li cool is not the objective constitution requirements will be "the unit" property illegally for himself some attributes. Secondly, Li Shuang does not have the subjective elements of the requirements of direct intent, for the purpose of illegal possession of the property.
Three, involves the study of legal issues related to the case. (a) the establishment of a limited liability company rules and the system of disregard of corporate personality. The analysis conclusion is: the individual company or family company mixed property and family property at the same time, shall apply the system of disregard of corporate personality. (two) identified embezzlement. The legislative process from the office the crime of embezzlement of the use of the two elements of the crime theory to analyze the case. Focuses on the analysis of various elements of the possibility of objective constitution behavior constitutes embezzlement, at the same time to "take advantage of duty" and "illegal possession" and other content are analyzed. Expounds the subjective elements of embezzlement must have the direct intention of illegal possession for the purpose of specific connotation, and contact the actual cases from the possibility and look forward to the possibility of illegal knowledge level was analyzed.
Four, the conclusion of the study. This article is divided into five types: (a) summarizes the limited sound corporate governance structure, if the staff taking advantage of his position, the unit of property illegally for himself, a relatively large amount, should be identified as embezzlement. (two) in the corporate governance structure is relatively perfect family company, the members of the company by taking advantage of his position, the unit of property illegally for himself, the larger the amount of both shareholders and non shareholders, or general staff or relatives of shareholders or not, can be identified as embezzlement. (three) corporate governance chaos family business limited company, registered as a limited company (shareholders of more than two people), but in addition to large shareholders outside the small shareholders are the nominal shareholder, is a common company in the name of a limited company of the real, immediate family of major shareholders Is generally not considered to constitute a crime. While the general employment relationship in the company's staff should be identified as the crime of embezzlement. (four) corporate governance chaos couples, if one spouse is taking advantage of his position, the unit of property illegally for himself, a relatively large amount, but does not constitute embezzlement. May constitute a crime of embezzlement. (five) couple individual industrial and commercial households in Party embezzlement constitute a crime case are discussed.
At last, the author thinks that the case is small, but is very typical, which throws two worthy of attention and discussion, so please enlighten legal experts and legal workers.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 雷霆;夫妻公司的財(cái)產(chǎn)處分權(quán)研究[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：1636515