【典型案例】

　　王某(mou)(mou)，男，中(zhong)共黨員，某(mou)(mou)市交(jiao)通局(ju)副局(ju)長，某(mou)(mou)重大(da)公(gong)(gong)(gong)路(lu)工程項目(mu)建設指(zhi)揮(hui)(hui)部(bu)（系該市交(jiao)通局(ju)下(xia)設機構，以下(xia)簡(jian)稱“指(zhi)揮(hui)(hui)部(bu)”）負責人(ren)。2018年(nian)(nian)12月，該市A公(gong)(gong)(gong)路(lu)工程有(you)限公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)（私有(you)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)，以下(xia)簡(jian)稱“A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)”）急需支付(fu)農民(min)工工資，A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)董事長李某(mou)(mou)找到(dao)王某(mou)(mou)，請(qing)求王某(mou)(mou)從(cong)指(zhi)揮(hui)(hui)部(bu)為A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)借(jie)款300萬元(yuan)，王某(mou)(mou)同意。2018年(nian)(nian)12月20日(ri)，經(jing)王某(mou)(mou)簽批，指(zhi)揮(hui)(hui)部(bu)借(jie)給A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)300萬元(yuan)。2019年(nian)(nian)5月20日(ri)，A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)歸還了上述(shu)借(jie)款。經(jing)查(cha)，王某(mou)(mou)未從(cong)中(zhong)謀取個人(ren)利益。

　　【分歧意見】

　　本案在辦(ban)理過程(cheng)中，對于王某上述(shu)行為(wei)是否構成挪用公款罪存在分歧。

　　第一種意見認為：王(wang)某作為某市交通局副局長、指(zhi)揮(hui)部負責人，明(ming)知300萬元系單位(wei)公款，非法將該款借給A公司(si)，致使該款項脫離指(zhi)揮(hui)部的(de)掌(zhang)握(wo)和控制達(da)5個月之(zhi)久，雖(sui)然A公司(si)最終(zhong)歸還了該款項，但王(wang)某的(de)行(xing)為已(yi)構成挪(nuo)用公款罪(zui)。

　　第二種(zhong)意見(jian)認(ren)為(wei)(wei)：王某雖(sui)有違(wei)規(gui)出借公(gong)款的(de)(de)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)，但該300萬元的(de)(de)借款對象是A公(gong)司，不(bu)符(fu)合刑法第三(san)百八十四條挪(nuo)用(yong)公(gong)款罪中“挪(nuo)用(yong)公(gong)款歸個人使(shi)用(yong)”的(de)(de)要(yao)件規(gui)定，不(bu)應(ying)認(ren)定王某的(de)(de)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)構成挪(nuo)用(yong)公(gong)款罪，而宜以違(wei)規(gui)出借公(gong)款予以定性，按照(zhao)違(wei)反工作紀律進行(xing)(xing)評價。

　　【評析意見】

　　筆者同意第二種意見。

　　一、王某的(de)行為不(bu)構(gou)成(cheng)挪用(yong)公款罪

　　刑法第三(san)百八十四條規(gui)定(ding)，國家工(gong)作(zuo)人員(yuan)利(li)(li)用(yong)(yong)(yong)職務上(shang)的(de)便(bian)利(li)(li)，挪用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)歸(gui)(gui)個人使用(yong)(yong)(yong)，進行非法活(huo)動(dong)的(de)，或者挪用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)數額(e)較大(da)、進行營利(li)(li)活(huo)動(dong)的(de)，或者挪用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)數額(e)較大(da)、超(chao)過三(san)個月未(wei)還的(de)，是(shi)挪用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)罪(zui)。上(shang)述第一種(zhong)意(yi)見(jian)認(ren)為，王(wang)某作(zuo)為國家工(gong)作(zuo)人員(yuan)，利(li)(li)用(yong)(yong)(yong)職務便(bian)利(li)(li)挪用(yong)(yong)(yong)300萬元給A公(gong)(gong)司使用(yong)(yong)(yong)，超(chao)過三(san)個月未(wei)歸(gui)(gui)還的(de)行為，符(fu)合法定(ding)的(de)挪用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)罪(zui)所列舉的(de)情形，應(ying)認(ren)定(ding)構成挪用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)罪(zui)。但(dan)因其(qi)未(wei)考慮“挪用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)歸(gui)(gui)個人使用(yong)(yong)(yong)”具體要件，因此，這種(zhong)觀(guan)點是(shi)錯誤的(de)。

　　根據《最高人(ren)民法(fa)院關于審理挪用(yong)公款(kuan)案件(jian)具體應用(yong)法(fa)律若干(gan)問(wen)題的(de)解釋》（法(fa)釋〔1998〕9號，以下簡稱(cheng)《解釋》），挪用(yong)公款(kuan)罪(zui)，有三種(zhong)具體的(de)表現(xian)形式：（1）挪用(yong)公款(kuan)歸(gui)(gui)個人(ren)使(shi)(shi)用(yong)，數額(e)較(jiao)大、超過(guo)三個月(yue)未還的(de)；（2）挪用(yong)公款(kuan)數額(e)較(jiao)大，歸(gui)(gui)個人(ren)進行營利活(huo)動(dong)的(de)；（3）挪用(yong)公款(kuan)歸(gui)(gui)個人(ren)使(shi)(shi)用(yong)，進行賭(du)博、走私等非法(fa)活(huo)動(dong)的(de)。可見(jian)，無論(lun)哪種(zhong)具體表現(xian)形式，“歸(gui)(gui)個人(ren)使(shi)(shi)用(yong)”是構(gou)成挪用(yong)公款(kuan)罪(zui)的(de)法(fa)定(ding)必(bi)備要(yao)件(jian)。

　　本(ben)案中(zhong)，王某(mou)(mou)將(jiang)公(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)300萬元以指揮部的(de)(de)(de)名義(yi)(yi)出借(jie)(jie)給(gei)李某(mou)(mou)的(de)(de)(de)A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)，是否屬(shu)(shu)于(yu)挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)歸(gui)(gui)個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)？這涉及(ji)到對“歸(gui)(gui)個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)”含義(yi)(yi)的(de)(de)(de)理解(jie)(jie)(jie)。《解(jie)(jie)(jie)釋》曾(ceng)經(jing)明確(que)，“挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)給(gei)私有公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)、私有企業使(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)的(de)(de)(de)，屬(shu)(shu)于(yu)挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)歸(gui)(gui)個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)”。據此理解(jie)(jie)(jie)，本(ben)案中(zhong)王某(mou)(mou)將(jiang)公(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)借(jie)(jie)給(gei)私有公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)，屬(shu)(shu)于(yu)挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)歸(gui)(gui)個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)無疑。但2002年4月28日，全國(guo)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)民代表(biao)大(da)會常務委員會發布了(le)《關于(yu)〈中(zhong)華人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)民共和(he)國(guo)刑法〉第(di)(di)三百八十四條第(di)(di)一(yi)(yi)款(kuan)的(de)(de)(de)解(jie)(jie)(jie)釋》，對刑法第(di)(di)三百八十四條第(di)(di)一(yi)(yi)款(kuan)規定的(de)(de)(de)國(guo)家工(gong)作人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員利用(yong)(yong)(yong)職(zhi)務上的(de)(de)(de)便(bian)利，挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)“歸(gui)(gui)個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)”的(de)(de)(de)含義(yi)(yi)，進行(xing)了(le)專門的(de)(de)(de)立(li)法解(jie)(jie)(jie)釋，其(qi)規定，有下(xia)列三種(zhong)情(qing)形之一(yi)(yi)的(de)(de)(de)，屬(shu)(shu)于(yu)挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)“歸(gui)(gui)個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)”：（1）將(jiang)公(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)供本(ben)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)、親友或(huo)者其(qi)他自然人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)的(de)(de)(de)；（2）以個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)名義(yi)(yi)將(jiang)公(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)供其(qi)他單位(wei)(wei)使(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)的(de)(de)(de)；（3）個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)決定以單位(wei)(wei)名義(yi)(yi)將(jiang)公(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)供其(qi)他單位(wei)(wei)使(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)，謀(mou)取(qu)個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)利益的(de)(de)(de)。該(gai)立(li)法解(jie)(jie)(jie)釋明確(que)了(le)挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)“歸(gui)(gui)個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)”的(de)(de)(de)具體含義(yi)(yi)，最(zui)高人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)民法院《解(jie)(jie)(jie)釋》中(zhong)的(de)(de)(de)有關界定，因(yin)與立(li)法解(jie)(jie)(jie)釋沖突，不(bu)再(zai)適(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)。因(yin)此，不(bu)能(neng)因(yin)王某(mou)(mou)將(jiang)300萬元借(jie)(jie)給(gei)私有公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)使(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)，便(bian)認定其(qi)挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)歸(gui)(gui)個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)。

　　本案中王某(mou)決(jue)定，以指揮部名義出(chu)借300萬元給A公(gong)司，按(an)照全國人大常委會的立法解釋(shi)，必須(xu)查實王某(mou)在其中謀取個(ge)人利益，方可(ke)證明其挪(nuo)用(yong)公(gong)款“歸個(ge)人使用(yong)”。但經查證，王某(mou)在本案中未謀取個(ge)人利益，因(yin)此，其行為不符合挪(nuo)用(yong)公(gong)款罪的法定構成(cheng)要(yao)件，不構成(cheng)挪(nuo)用(yong)公(gong)款罪。

　　二、王某違(wei)規出(chu)借公(gong)款的行(xing)為屬于違(wei)反(fan)工作紀律

　　王(wang)某的(de)(de)行(xing)為雖不(bu)構成(cheng)挪用公款罪(zui)，但其(qi)將(jiang)指揮(hui)部(bu)管理(li)、使用的(de)(de)財(cai)政(zheng)(zheng)(zheng)撥付資(zi)金300萬元出借(jie)，違反(fan)了財(cai)政(zheng)(zheng)(zheng)部(bu)《行(xing)政(zheng)(zheng)(zheng)單(dan)位(wei)財(cai)務(wu)規則》第二(er)十一條(tiao)“行(xing)政(zheng)(zheng)(zheng)單(dan)位(wei)從(cong)財(cai)政(zheng)(zheng)(zheng)部(bu)門或者上級(ji)預算單(dan)位(wei)取得的(de)(de)項(xiang)(xiang)目(mu)資(zi)金，應當按照批準(zhun)(zhun)的(de)(de)項(xiang)(xiang)目(mu)和用途使用”和第四十條(tiao)“未經同級(ji)財(cai)政(zheng)(zheng)(zheng)部(bu)門批準(zhun)(zhun)，行(xing)政(zheng)(zheng)(zheng)單(dan)位(wei)不(bu)得將(jiang)占有、使用的(de)(de)國(guo)有資(zi)產對外出租、出借(jie)”的(de)(de)規定(ding)。應認定(ding)王(wang)某違反(fan)工作(zuo)紀(ji)律(lv)，并依據《中(zhong)國(guo)共產黨紀(ji)律(lv)處(chu)(chu)分(fen)(fen)條(tiao)例》《中(zhong)華人民共和國(guo)公職人員(yuan)政(zheng)(zheng)(zheng)務(wu)處(chu)(chu)分(fen)(fen)法》《行(xing)政(zheng)(zheng)(zheng)機關(guan)(guan)公務(wu)員(yuan)處(chu)(chu)分(fen)(fen)條(tiao)例》等有關(guan)(guan)規定(ding)給予其(qi)黨紀(ji)政(zheng)(zheng)(zheng)務(wu)處(chu)(chu)分(fen)(fen)。（內蒙古(gu)自(zi)治區紀(ji)委監委 趙宇賓）