The facts of a legal case

Defendant Hu, former customer manager of the customer management department of Baixia Sub-branch of China Everbright Bank. Hu failed to recover the 2 million yuan loan he had handled, and repeatedly urged Wang Jun (sentenced), the legal representative of Nanjing Kangfuda Industrial Co., Ltd., the borrower, to fail, so he conspired with Wang Jun to defraud money for repayment of the owed loan and personal use. As the account manager of China Everbright Bank, Hu made a door-to-door deposit, obtained the victim's deposit and gave it to Wang Jun. Wang Jun provided a false time deposit account opening certificate and a bank bill, and then Hu gave it 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 deposit100,000 yuan into Baixia Sub-branch of China Everbright Bank. 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. Later, Wang Jun opened a notice deposit for the money in the name of Sufute Company in Nanjing East Branch of Guangdong Development Bank, and forged the company seal to transfer the money away.

In March 2002, Hu once again defrauded Sotheby's company and agreed to deposit RMB 654.38 million 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. Later, Wang Jun opened a notice deposit for the money in the name of Sufute Company in Nanjing East Branch of Guangdong Development Bank, and forged the company seal to transfer the money away. 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, and their behavior 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 having clear criminal facts and sufficient evidence. Defendant Hu had paid more than 970,000 yuan to Softcompany in the name of paying interest before the crime, which should not be included in the crime amount, so the crime amount of financial voucher fraud should be determined as190,000 yuan. The defendant Hu surrendered himself after committing a crime and was given a lighter punishment according to law.

Defendant Hu colluded with Wang Jun, and Wang Jun contacted the deposit unit through others to defraud his trust. Hu went to the door as a bank employee, obtained the financial ticket issued by the injured unit and handed it to Wang Jun. Wang Junyong took out the money with the forged seal of the deposit unit. At the same time, Hu handed over the forged account opening certificate and bank receipt of Wang Jun Everbright Bank Baixia Sub-branch to the depositor, which made the depositor mistakenly think that the deposit had been deposited in the account opened by the depositor in China Everbright Bank. During the whole fraud process, the defendant Hu was a staff member of China Everbright Bank, but he didn't issue any unit entrustment certificate to the victim. Based on the introduction of the middleman and himself, the victim mistakenly thought that he worked 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 Everbright Bank except his own bank employee status, and 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 using forged or altered bank settlement vouchers such as entrusted collection vouchers, remittance vouchers and bank deposit vouchers by fabricating facts and concealing the truth for the purpose of illegal possession. Bills and bank settlement vouchers are tools for payment and settlement, accounting vouchers for banks, units and individuals, and written vouchers for recording economic business and clarifying economic responsibilities. According to the documents of the People's Bank of China, the account opening certificate of unit time deposit is the certificate of RMB time deposit rights issued by the financial institution that accepts deposits to depositors. It is essentially a financial voucher, and its function is the same as that of a 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 the bank to the payee to prove that the money has arrived, which should belong to the settlement certificate of another bank.

In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the 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 reasons for appeal and defense opinions hold that Hu is an accessory in the joint crime and a decisive mistake in the trial; In addition, it is 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 second trial will reduce the punishment for Hu.

The final judgment made by the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province holds that the appellant Hu Mou and others used false other bank settlement vouchers to defraud public property190,000 yuan for the purpose of illegal possession, and caused 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. The appellant Hu played a major role in the joint crime 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 appeal grounds 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 statement" of the People's Bank of China belongs to other bank settlement vouchers, 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 has a positive attitude and initiative, knowing that Wang Jun used forged bank account opening certificates and bank drafts to commit fraud. Objectively, he took advantage of his special status as a bank worker 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. He plays a major role in the joint crime and should be the principal offender. According to Hu's criminal facts and the plot of surrender, the original judgment sentenced him appropriately. In view of the fact that Hu's relatives voluntarily returned the money of 6.5438+0.2 million yuan during the second trial, they can be given a mitigated punishment according to law, and some defense opinions put forward by their 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 in prison and fined 654.38 million yuan; The money recovered by the public security organs is RMB 6,543.8 +0.44 million and US$ 7,488.49, and the money returned by Hu's relatives is RMB 6,543.8 +0.2 million, which has been 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.