1
Let's restore the whole story first.
2065438+August 2007 to present, manager of financial business department of Nanning Branch of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Ren Liang.
Taking advantage of his position in the bank and everyone's natural trust in the bank, starting from 20 1 1, Liang used high interest as bait to attract funds from social workers.
By the beginning of 20 18, she had to pay back about 4.5 million interest every month, and all her investment projects were in a loss state, so she could not repay the principal and interest after the funds expired, so she planned a big scam to exchange fake certificates of deposit for real certificates of deposit to defraud users of funds.
From September, 20 18 to May, 20 19, Liang sorted out a reason: the state has preferential policies to support the development of small and micro enterprises, and the conditions for bank loans to enterprises require enterprises to make 30% deposit contributions, but some enterprises have no extra funds to make deposit contributions, so they hope to have foreign funds to make deposit contributions.
Later, Liang found customers with idle funds through Mo Mou and others, and handled large deposits at ICBC. The term of these deposits is usually three months.
Liang promised that in addition to giving normal interest to large bank deposits, after handling large deposits, he would give Mo Mou and others about 4.5% extra income every month.
At that time, because Liang was the manager of the financial business department of ICBC Nanning Branch, the deposit rate of return was very high, and the targets of fraud were all Liang's former colleagues or classmates and friends for many years. Many people had no doubt and directly deposited their large sums of money into ICBC.
These customers make deposits through formal channels of ICBC, and the certificates of deposit they get are also real certificates of deposit.
However, when customers make deposits, Liang put forward four requirements:
First, the password of the certificate of deposit must be set as the password designated by the enterprise;
Second, the certificate of deposit must be sealed in an envelope in front of Liang, enterprises and customers. After sealing the envelope under the witness of three parties, the three parties shall sign and seal it;
Third, after the certificate of deposit expires, the previously sealed envelope must be opened under the witness of three parties, and the company will accompany it to withdraw it;
Fourth, after the deposit certificate is stamped, the customer should give the ID card to Liang or the business representative to verify the customer's identity.
These four requirements can be said to be interlocking, which makes customers "reassured", and many customers think there is no risk.
However, at the same time when the customer handles the real deposit, Liang asked the finance department of Nanning Zhonghou Automobile Sales Co., Ltd., which he actually controlled, to be responsible for forging bank bills such as deposit certificates and preparing them to replace the customer's real deposit certificates.
After the customer's deposit got the certificate of deposit, Liang asked Shi Bei to accompany him in the name of the enterprise representative. When the two sides sealed the certificates of deposit, Liang and Shibei used the forged large certificates of deposit in advance to exchange the real certificates of deposit without the customer's defense, and then sealed their forged certificates of deposit in advance.
Then Liang asked the victim to hand over the original ID card to Shibei on the grounds of verifying the customer's identity. Shibei took the original ID card of the customer and the victim's real deposit slip to the bank counter, and then used the deposit password mastered in advance to withdraw the money from the customer's deposit slip on behalf of the customer, and finally transferred it to the account controlled by Liang and Shibei.
Through this repeated operation, Liang took away the deposits of 28 victims, including Su Mou and Shi Mou, totaling 253.36 million yuan. It was identified that 350 of the 4 19 bank drafts seized in this case were forged.
Up to now, except for some of the money returned before the incident, about 654.38+0.2 billion yuan has not been returned after the incident.
2
The court ruled that this was personal theft and the bank did not have to bear any responsibility.
After Liang defrauded the customer's deposit, the customer's deposit could not be recovered normally. Therefore, Liang and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China were sued to the court, demanding that Industrial and Commercial Bank of China bear the liability for compensation.
According to the judgment of the court of first instance, Liang was sentenced to life imprisonment for committing theft, fraud and forging financial tickets. 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.
However, it is incredible that in the judgment of the court of first instance, Nanning Branch of ICBC does not have to bear any liability for compensation.
Nanning Intermediate People's Court held that Liang's real purpose was to steal the victim's subsequent deposits. Although Liang has the status of a bank executive, he also knows that he can't take advantage of his position to directly withdraw the victim's deposit from the bank account by false means, so he has completed the illegal possession of the victim's deposit through the above methods, and his behavior does not conform to the criminal characteristics of the crime of occupational embezzlement.
Finally, the court mentioned in the judgment that whether Liang Yuan's unit is responsible for restitution is beyond the scope of this case, and our court will not make a judgment.
It is equivalent to the customer being cheated of 250 million yuan, which is entirely Liang's personal behavior and has nothing to do with ICBC, and ICBC does not have to bear any responsibility.
three
Is ICBC really innocent? There are many doubts in this case.
Seeing this judgment of the court, I believe that the majority of netizens have many questions.
Although Liang himself carried out the case, is it really irrelevant to ICBC? There are at least a few doubts in this.
First, customers' deposits are handled through formal banking procedures, and the certificates of deposit they get are all real certificates of deposit;
Second, during the crime, Liang was the general manager of the financial business department of China Industrial and Commercial Bank Nanning Branch, and it was because of her identity that the client agreed to deposit the money in the bank.
Third, customers' deposits and withdrawals are withdrawn on the same day. Didn't the bank find anything suspicious Or do you know the doubts, but cover each other up?
Fourth, in the industrial and commercial bank system, the withdrawal of more than 500,000 deposits requires the approval of the president, and in this case, many customers have more than 500,000 deposits. How did Liang withdraw easily?
Fifth, in this case, there are not individual users, but dozens of customers. In the short term, Liang and Shimou frequently withdraw deposits in advance on behalf of customers. Doesn't the bank think there is a problem?
6. 20 18 18 On February 7th, at Nanning East Sub-branch of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a depositor used a fake certificate of deposit replaced by Liang to handle business, and the teller called the police on the spot after seeing that it was forged. However, the case was finally dropped, and then Liang was able to continue committing crimes for half a year.
For such an employee with a criminal record, why did the bank allow her to withdraw money in advance on behalf of her customers? Do banks really not know or turn a blind eye?
To sum up the above doubts, I think that in this case, the bank is definitely not innocent, and the bank is not completely ignorant.
In this process, it is very likely that Liang used his influence in the bank to get through the internal relations, so all the processes went smoothly.
This obviously belongs to the transfer of client funds by taking advantage of his position.
In addition, when Liang was detained by the police in May 20 19, she was also accused of corruption. However, in the prosecution stage, the charges were changed to theft, fraud, forgery of financial tickets and so on.
The reason why the court didn't find that Liang constituted the crime of duty embezzlement was that although Liang was a bank executive, he knew that he couldn't take advantage of his position to withdraw the victim's deposit directly from the bank account by false means, so he completed the illegal possession of the victim's deposit through the above methods, and his behavior did not conform to the criminal characteristics of the crime of duty embezzlement.
I think this reason is funny. Let's assume that Liang is not the head of the banking department, but an ordinary salesman. Can she repeatedly transfer large sums of money from clients? I definitely can't.
Because there are various restrictions on transferring the money in the certificate of deposit to other people's accounts, ordinary employees have no right to transfer it out at all, and Liang's position as the general manager of the financial business department at ICBC has enabled many customers to transfer large deposits smoothly.
Therefore, it is an obvious fact that Liang used her position to transfer the stolen money from beginning to end, but we don't know why the court finally found that she constituted theft, not duty embezzlement.
Judging whether it is the crime of duty embezzlement or theft is actually very simple. The criminal feature of theft is that it should be carried out in secret. However, Liang has always done it in the formal place of the bank during the crime, and there is no so-called secret theft.
In addition, Liang took advantage of his position to seal the deposit slip, transfer the parcel, take the depositor's ID card and withdraw money. If you don't take advantage of your position and influence, it is impossible for the certificate of deposit to be stolen.
Therefore, the nature of the whole process is obvious, that is, Liang took advantage of his position to take away the customer's money.
But why didn't the court decide that it constituted the crime of duty embezzlement? We don't know whether there is anyone behind it.
But at least Liang's conviction of theft is beneficial to the bank, so that the bank does not have to bear any losses.
If Liang is convicted of embezzlement, it will be completely different for the bank. If an employee commits the crime of duty embezzlement, the bank should bear the corresponding liability for compensation.
We assume that the bank will bear 50% of the responsibility in the end, but at present, the amount transferred by Liang is still about 65.438+0.2 billion yuan, which means that the bank itself will bear about 60 million yuan to compensate for the losses.
Compared with this amount of compensation, if the bank spends hundreds of thousands of yuan to hire some lawyers to determine that Liang constitutes theft rather than duty embezzlement, it is a very cost-effective deal.
But the result of this judgment will undoubtedly produce great controversy.
If other bank executives transfer customers' money in this way, the bank pats its ass and says it has nothing to do with itself. How can customers' deposits be guaranteed? If this case cannot be solved fairly, it will lead to the credit crisis of the bank. Who will dare to deposit money in the bank then?
:3704