【內容提要】

　　在貪污犯罪(zui)(zui)案(an)(an)件中，犯罪(zui)(zui)對(dui)(dui)象(xiang)一(yi)般是本單(dan)位所有或者經營、管理的(de)公(gong)共(gong)財(cai)產，但對(dui)(dui)于(yu)擅(shan)自以(yi)本單(dan)位名義收取，且單(dan)位尚(shang)未實際控制的(de)不合法財(cai)物(wu)，能否(fou)作為(wei)貪污犯罪(zui)(zui)的(de)對(dui)(dui)象(xiang)則存在不同認(ren)識。筆(bi)者結(jie)合案(an)(an)例(li)，從貪污罪(zui)(zui)與(yu)詐騙罪(zui)(zui)、受賄罪(zui)(zui)的(de)區別著手(shou)，對(dui)(dui)行(xing)為(wei)人(ren)利(li)用職務便利(li)擅(shan)自出借公(gong)司資(zi)質的(de)行(xing)為(wei)是否(fou)應認(ren)定(ding)為(wei)單(dan)位行(xing)為(wei)，貪污罪(zui)(zui)犯罪(zui)(zui)對(dui)(dui)象(xiang)是否(fou)包括單(dan)位尚(shang)未取得的(de)財(cai)物(wu)以(yi)及單(dan)位非法獲(huo)得的(de)財(cai)物(wu)等方(fang)面進行(xing)論述，以(yi)供參考。

　　【基本案情】

　　袁(yuan)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)，A國有公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)總經理(li)；孫某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)，B民(min)營公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)法定(ding)代表人(ren)。2016年1月，孫某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)與(yu)袁(yuan)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)商(shang)議，希望能夠掛(gua)靠(kao)A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)承接(jie)C公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)建(jian)設工(gong)(gong)(gong)程(cheng)(cheng)項(xiang)目(mu)，掛(gua)靠(kao)管(guan)理(li)費按照(zhao)工(gong)(gong)(gong)程(cheng)(cheng)總價5%左右支付，袁(yuan)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)同(tong)意。2016年至2021年間，袁(yuan)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)未經A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)同(tong)意，擅自使用其私自保留(liu)的A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)印(yin)章(zhang)，與(yu)B公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)簽(qian)訂(ding)掛(gua)靠(kao)協(xie)議，并幫助B公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)以A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)名(ming)義(yi)與(yu)C公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)先后(hou)簽(qian)訂(ding)18份(fen)建(jian)設工(gong)(gong)(gong)程(cheng)(cheng)施工(gong)(gong)(gong)合同(tong)并完(wan)(wan)成施工(gong)(gong)(gong)。施工(gong)(gong)(gong)過程(cheng)(cheng)中，袁(yuan)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)要求C公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)將項(xiang)目(mu)工(gong)(gong)(gong)程(cheng)(cheng)款800余(yu)萬元(yuan)打入A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)對公(gong)(gong)(gong)賬戶，該對公(gong)(gong)(gong)賬戶系袁(yuan)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)通過私刻(ke)A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)職(zhi)工(gong)(gong)(gong)印(yin)章(zhang)在銀行違規(gui)開設，A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)對此并不知情，未納入公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)財務管(guan)理(li)。項(xiang)目(mu)完(wan)(wan)工(gong)(gong)(gong)后(hou)，袁(yuan)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)與(yu)孫某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)商(shang)定(ding)掛(gua)靠(kao)管(guan)理(li)費為50萬元(yuan)，從前(qian)述對公(gong)(gong)(gong)賬戶直接(jie)支付，其余(yu)工(gong)(gong)(gong)程(cheng)(cheng)款扣除稅費等費用后(hou)支付給(gei)B公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)。后(hou)袁(yuan)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)將上述50萬元(yuan)占為己(ji)有。

　　【分歧意見】

　　本(ben)案(an)中，國有公司管理人員袁某利用職務上的便利，擅自以單位(wei)名義與他人簽(qian)訂掛(gua)靠(kao)協議，再將通過掛(gua)靠(kao)協議取(qu)得的財物占為己有的行為如何定性，存在三種不同意見。

　　第一(yi)種意(yi)見認為(wei)：袁某的(de)行為(wei)構(gou)成詐(zha)騙罪(zui)(zui)。袁某利(li)用(yong)其A公(gong)司(si)總(zong)經(jing)理的(de)身份，通過私自使用(yong)公(gong)司(si)印章、私設公(gong)司(si)對公(gong)賬戶等方式，虛構(gou)A公(gong)司(si)同意(yi)B公(gong)司(si)掛(gua)靠(kao)的(de)事實，使B公(gong)司(si)誤以(yi)為(wei)袁某有權代理A公(gong)司(si)與其簽訂掛(gua)靠(kao)協議，并(bing)據此支(zhi)付掛(gua)靠(kao)管理費，構(gou)成詐(zha)騙罪(zui)(zui)。

　　第二(er)種意見(jian)認為(wei)：袁(yuan)某的行(xing)為(wei)構(gou)成(cheng)受賄罪(zui)。袁(yuan)某作(zuo)為(wei)A公(gong)(gong)司總經理，未經公(gong)(gong)司授權(quan)，利(li)用(yong)職務之便(bian)向B公(gong)(gong)司出(chu)借資質(zhi)，與C公(gong)(gong)司簽訂建設工(gong)程施工(gong)合同，為(wei)B公(gong)(gong)司承接(jie)工(gong)程項目(mu)賺取利(li)潤提(ti)供幫助，并私(si)自收受孫某以(yi)掛靠管(guan)理費為(wei)名給予的好處費50萬(wan)元，謀取了個人利(li)益(yi)，構(gou)成(cheng)受賄罪(zui)。

　　第三種意見認為：袁某的行為構成貪(tan)污罪。袁某作為A公(gong)司(si)總(zong)經理(li)(li)，利用職(zhi)務便利，擅自出借A公(gong)司(si)資(zi)質的行為，對(dui)外(wai)應認定(ding)為單位行為，袁某收取的掛(gua)靠(kao)管(guan)理(li)(li)費應屬于A公(gong)司(si)所有(you)，屬于公(gong)共財物，袁某非法(fa)將其占為己有(you)，數(shu)額巨大，構成貪(tan)污罪。

　　【意見分析】

　　筆者同(tong)意(yi)第三種意(yi)見，具體分析如下。

　　一、袁某(mou)利用職務便利擅(shan)自出借公司(si)資質(zhi)的(de)行(xing)(xing)為，對(dui)外應認定為單位行(xing)(xing)為

　　刑法第(di)二(er)百六十(shi)六條規定了詐(zha)騙罪(zui)(zui)。詐(zha)騙罪(zui)(zui)是指以非法占有為(wei)目的，使用欺騙方法，騙取數額較大的公(gong)(gong)私財(cai)(cai)物(wu)的行(xing)(xing)為(wei)。該罪(zui)(zui)客觀方面系行(xing)(xing)為(wei)人實施了欺詐(zha)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)，使被(bei)害人產(chan)(chan)生(sheng)錯誤(wu)(wu)認(ren)識處分(fen)(fen)財(cai)(cai)產(chan)(chan)，行(xing)(xing)為(wei)人因此獲得財(cai)(cai)產(chan)(chan)，被(bei)害人財(cai)(cai)產(chan)(chan)遭受損(sun)害。本案中(zhong)，認(ren)定袁(yuan)某是否構(gou)成詐(zha)騙罪(zui)(zui)，需要區(qu)分(fen)(fen)A公(gong)(gong)司與B公(gong)(gong)司形成掛靠關(guan)系過程中(zhong)，袁(yuan)某是否具備代(dai)表A公(gong)(gong)司的權力外觀，使B公(gong)(gong)司基(ji)于錯誤(wu)(wu)認(ren)識而處分(fen)(fen)財(cai)(cai)物(wu)，遭受損(sun)失。

　　首先(xian)，從主體身份的角度來(lai)看。袁某系A公(gong)(gong)司(si)總經(jing)理(li)，在袁某以(yi)A公(gong)(gong)司(si)名義(yi)分(fen)別與(yu)B公(gong)(gong)司(si)簽訂掛靠協議(yi)，與(yu)C公(gong)(gong)司(si)簽訂建設工程施工合同時(shi)，其具備國家(jia)工作人員(yuan)的身份和(he)代(dai)表A公(gong)(gong)司(si)簽訂合同的資格和(he)能力(li)。

　　其(qi)次，從擅自(zi)簽訂(ding)掛(gua)靠協議的(de)方(fang)(fang)式來看。袁(yuan)某(mou)(mou)(mou)與(yu)(yu)B公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)磋(cuo)商掛(gua)靠事(shi)宜，實(shi)質是代(dai)表(biao)A公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)的(de)單(dan)位(wei)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)。這里單(dan)位(wei)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)是指公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)、企業、事(shi)業單(dan)位(wei)等為(wei)(wei)謀取單(dan)位(wei)利益，經單(dan)位(wei)集體研究或者由(you)(you)負責人(ren)決定(ding)，由(you)(you)單(dan)位(wei)直接責任(ren)人(ren)員(yuan)實(shi)施(shi)的(de)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)。雖然A公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)對(dui)于袁(yuan)某(mou)(mou)(mou)擅自(zi)使用公(gong)(gong)章、出借(jie)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)資(zi)質并不知情(qing)，但這是A公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)與(yu)(yu)袁(yuan)某(mou)(mou)(mou)之(zhi)間公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)內部法(fa)(fa)律關(guan)(guan)系(xi)(xi)。在A公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)與(yu)(yu)B公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)外部法(fa)(fa)律關(guan)(guan)系(xi)(xi)中，袁(yuan)某(mou)(mou)(mou)是以A公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)名義進行(xing)(xing)，基于袁(yuan)某(mou)(mou)(mou)的(de)職務以及持有公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)印章等事(shi)實(shi)，相(xiang)(xiang)對(dui)方(fang)(fang)B公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)有理(li)(li)由(you)(you)相(xiang)(xiang)信袁(yuan)某(mou)(mou)(mou)代(dai)表(biao)A公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)行(xing)(xing)使權(quan)力。根據民法(fa)(fa)典第一百(bai)七十二條規定(ding)，行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)人(ren)沒有代(dai)理(li)(li)權(quan)、超越代(dai)理(li)(li)權(quan)或者代(dai)理(li)(li)權(quan)終止后，仍(reng)然實(shi)施(shi)代(dai)理(li)(li)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)，相(xiang)(xiang)對(dui)人(ren)有理(li)(li)由(you)(you)相(xiang)(xiang)信行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)人(ren)有代(dai)理(li)(li)權(quan)的(de)，代(dai)理(li)(li)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)有效。故在對(dui)外法(fa)(fa)律關(guan)(guan)系(xi)(xi)中，袁(yuan)某(mou)(mou)(mou)的(de)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)應系(xi)(xi)代(dai)表(biao)A公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)的(de)單(dan)位(wei)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)。

　　再次，從行為后果(guo)來看。根據合同的(de)(de)(de)相(xiang)對性，對于(yu)袁某(mou)(mou)以(yi)A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)名義簽訂的(de)(de)(de)掛靠協(xie)議(yi)以(yi)及施工(gong)合同，A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)應承擔相(xiang)應的(de)(de)(de)責任(ren)。此(ci)外(wai)，B公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)并未基(ji)于(yu)錯(cuo)誤認(ren)識處(chu)分(fen)財(cai)物，遭受損(sun)(sun)失。袁某(mou)(mou)雖(sui)然隱(yin)(yin)瞞(man)A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)對其擅自使用公(gong)(gong)(gong)章不知(zhi)情的(de)(de)(de)真相(xiang)，但B公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)實(shi)際借用了A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)資(zi)質，并以(yi)A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)名義與C公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)簽訂合同，承接相(xiang)應工(gong)程，B公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)并未因袁某(mou)(mou)隱(yin)(yin)瞞(man)真相(xiang)的(de)(de)(de)行為錯(cuo)誤處(chu)分(fen)財(cai)物，遭受損(sun)(sun)失，故袁某(mou)(mou)不構成詐騙罪。

　　二、單位尚未實際取得(de)的財物可(ke)以成為(wei)貪污罪(zui)的犯(fan)罪(zui)對象

　　根(gen)據刑法(fa)第三百八十(shi)五(wu)條規定，受(shou)(shou)賄罪是國(guo)家(jia)工(gong)作人(ren)(ren)員利用職(zhi)(zhi)務(wu)上的(de)便利，索取他人(ren)(ren)財物(wu)，或(huo)者非法(fa)收受(shou)(shou)他人(ren)(ren)財物(wu)，為(wei)(wei)他人(ren)(ren)謀取利益的(de)行為(wei)(wei)。該罪本質上體現為(wei)(wei)權錢(qian)交(jiao)易關(guan)系，保(bao)護的(de)法(fa)益主(zhu)(zhu)要是國(guo)家(jia)工(gong)作人(ren)(ren)員職(zhi)(zhi)務(wu)行為(wei)(wei)的(de)不可(ke)收買(mai)性(xing)(xing)，即國(guo)家(jia)工(gong)作人(ren)(ren)員職(zhi)(zhi)務(wu)行為(wei)(wei)與財物(wu)的(de)不可(ke)交(jiao)換(huan)性(xing)(xing)；而貪污罪侵犯的(de)客體主(zhu)(zhu)要包括公共(gong)(gong)財產(chan)所有權以及國(guo)家(jia)工(gong)作人(ren)(ren)員的(de)職(zhi)(zhi)務(wu)廉潔(jie)性(xing)(xing)。因此(ci)，在認定此(ci)類案件性(xing)(xing)質時，財物(wu)的(de)性(xing)(xing)質是否(fou)為(wei)(wei)單(dan)位的(de)公共(gong)(gong)財物(wu)，也(ye)是區分受(shou)(shou)賄罪和(he)貪污罪的(de)關(guan)鍵。

　　本案(an)中(zhong)，掛靠管理(li)費50萬元存于(yu)袁某個人掌控(kong)(kong)的單位(wei)(wei)對(dui)(dui)公賬戶，該(gai)賬戶不(bu)受A公司財(cai)(cai)務管理(li)，對(dui)(dui)此能否認定(ding)為單位(wei)(wei)控(kong)(kong)制的財(cai)(cai)物(wu)(wu)，存在兩種(zhong)觀(guan)點(dian)。一種(zhong)觀(guan)點(dian)認為，公共財(cai)(cai)物(wu)(wu)應是(shi)單位(wei)(wei)實際(ji)取(qu)得的財(cai)(cai)物(wu)(wu)，尚未取(qu)得的財(cai)(cai)物(wu)(wu)不(bu)能認定(ding)為公共財(cai)(cai)物(wu)(wu)；另一種(zhong)觀(guan)點(dian)認為，貪污的對(dui)(dui)象即(ji)公共財(cai)(cai)物(wu)(wu)，既包(bao)括(kuo)單位(wei)(wei)實際(ji)控(kong)(kong)制的財(cai)(cai)物(wu)(wu)，也(ye)包(bao)括(kuo)單位(wei)(wei)應當(dang)取(qu)得卻尚未取(qu)得的財(cai)(cai)物(wu)(wu)。

　　筆(bi)者(zhe)(zhe)同意第二種(zhong)觀點。對(dui)(dui)于財(cai)物(wu)(wu)所(suo)(suo)有(you)(you)權(quan)(quan)屬明確、應(ying)(ying)當上交(jiao)單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)財(cai)物(wu)(wu)，雖然單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)尚未取(qu)得(de)實際控制(zhi)權(quan)(quan)，但行(xing)為(wei)人(ren)將其擅自占(zhan)為(wei)己(ji)有(you)(you)，不(bu)僅損(sun)害(hai)職(zhi)務廉潔性，還侵害(hai)了單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)財(cai)產(chan)(chan)權(quan)(quan)益，單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)應(ying)(ying)當取(qu)得(de)卻尚未取(qu)得(de)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)財(cai)物(wu)(wu)也系(xi)公共財(cai)物(wu)(wu)。比如(ru)(ru)，根據刑(xing)法第三百九十四條規定(ding)(ding)(ding)，國(guo)家(jia)工作人(ren)員在國(guo)內公務活(huo)動(dong)或者(zhe)(zhe)對(dui)(dui)外交(jiao)往(wang)中(zhong)(zhong)接(jie)(jie)(jie)受禮物(wu)(wu)，依照國(guo)家(jia)規定(ding)(ding)(ding)應(ying)(ying)當交(jiao)公而不(bu)交(jiao)公，數額較大的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)，應(ying)(ying)當認定(ding)(ding)(ding)為(wei)貪污(wu)(wu)罪(zui)。又如(ru)(ru)，根據公安部經濟犯罪(zui)偵查局《關(guan)(guan)于對(dui)(dui)挪用(yong)資(zi)金(jin)罪(zui)有(you)(you)關(guan)(guan)問(wen)題請示的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)答(da)復》，對(dui)(dui)于在經濟往(wang)來中(zhong)(zhong)所(suo)(suo)涉及的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)暫(zan)收、預收、暫(zan)存其他單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)或個人(ren)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)款項、物(wu)(wu)品，或者(zhe)(zhe)對(dui)(dui)方支付的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)貨款、交(jiao)付的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)貨物(wu)(wu)等，如(ru)(ru)接(jie)(jie)(jie)收人(ren)已(yi)以單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)名義履行(xing)接(jie)(jie)(jie)收手(shou)續的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)，所(suo)(suo)接(jie)(jie)(jie)收的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)財(cai)、物(wu)(wu)應(ying)(ying)視為(wei)該單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)資(zi)產(chan)(chan)。再(zai)如(ru)(ru)，實踐中(zhong)(zhong)，國(guo)家(jia)機關(guan)(guan)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)財(cai)會(hui)人(ren)員收款不(bu)入賬占(zhan)為(wei)己(ji)有(you)(you)，執(zhi)法人(ren)員將罰沒款不(bu)入賬占(zhan)為(wei)己(ji)有(you)(you)，均應(ying)(ying)認定(ding)(ding)(ding)為(wei)貪污(wu)(wu)。故貪污(wu)(wu)罪(zui)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)犯罪(zui)對(dui)(dui)象(xiang)還應(ying)(ying)包括單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)應(ying)(ying)當取(qu)得(de)卻尚未取(qu)得(de)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)財(cai)物(wu)(wu)。

　　就(jiu)本案而言，雖(sui)然掛靠(kao)(kao)管(guan)理費(fei)(fei)實際由袁(yuan)某掌控的單位對公(gong)(gong)(gong)賬戶收取，但該掛靠(kao)(kao)管(guan)理費(fei)(fei)是(shi)袁(yuan)某擅自出借A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司資質，并以A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司名義所得，屬(shu)于(yu)應當歸屬(shu)于(yu)A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司的公(gong)(gong)(gong)共(gong)財物(wu)。同時，B公(gong)(gong)(gong)司主(zhu)觀上沒有給(gei)予袁(yuan)某好處費(fei)(fei)的行賄(hui)意圖，僅僅是(shi)支付(fu)A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司掛靠(kao)(kao)管(guan)理費(fei)(fei)，故袁(yuan)某不構成(cheng)受賄(hui)罪。

　　三、掛(gua)靠(kao)管理(li)費雖然系違法(fa)所得，但仍(reng)可以(yi)成為貪污罪(zui)的犯罪(zui)對象

　　掛靠(kao)(kao)管理(li)費是掛靠(kao)(kao)人(ren)(ren)(ren)借用(yong)被(bei)掛靠(kao)(kao)單位資(zi)(zi)(zi)質所支(zhi)付的(de)(de)對(dui)價(jia)。根(gen)據(ju)《中(zhong)華人(ren)(ren)(ren)民(min)共(gong)和國建(jian)(jian)筑(zhu)(zhu)法(fa)(fa)(fa)》第(di)二(er)十(shi)六條(tiao)第(di)二(er)款(kuan)規(gui)定(ding)(ding)，禁止建(jian)(jian)筑(zhu)(zhu)施工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)企(qi)(qi)業(ye)超(chao)越本企(qi)(qi)業(ye)資(zi)(zi)(zi)質等級許可的(de)(de)業(ye)務范圍或者(zhe)以任何(he)形式(shi)用(yong)其他(ta)建(jian)(jian)筑(zhu)(zhu)施工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)企(qi)(qi)業(ye)的(de)(de)名(ming)義承(cheng)(cheng)攬工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)程(cheng)(cheng)。禁止建(jian)(jian)筑(zhu)(zhu)施工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)企(qi)(qi)業(ye)以任何(he)形式(shi)允許其他(ta)單位或者(zhe)個(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)使用(yong)本企(qi)(qi)業(ye)的(de)(de)資(zi)(zi)(zi)質證書(shu)、營業(ye)執照，以本企(qi)(qi)業(ye)的(de)(de)名(ming)義承(cheng)(cheng)攬工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)程(cheng)(cheng)。《最高(gao)人(ren)(ren)(ren)民(min)法(fa)(fa)(fa)院關(guan)于審理(li)建(jian)(jian)設(she)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)程(cheng)(cheng)施工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)合(he)(he)同糾紛(fen)案件適用(yong)法(fa)(fa)(fa)律(lv)問題的(de)(de)解釋（一(yi)(yi)）》第(di)一(yi)(yi)條(tiao)規(gui)定(ding)(ding)，建(jian)(jian)設(she)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)程(cheng)(cheng)施工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)合(he)(he)同具有(you)下(xia)列情形之一(yi)(yi)的(de)(de)，應(ying)當依(yi)據(ju)民(min)法(fa)(fa)(fa)典(dian)第(di)一(yi)(yi)百五十(shi)三(san)條(tiao)第(di)一(yi)(yi)款(kuan)的(de)(de)規(gui)定(ding)(ding)，認定(ding)(ding)無(wu)效：（一(yi)(yi)）承(cheng)(cheng)包人(ren)(ren)(ren)未(wei)取得建(jian)(jian)筑(zhu)(zhu)業(ye)企(qi)(qi)業(ye)資(zi)(zi)(zi)質或者(zhe)超(chao)越資(zi)(zi)(zi)質等級的(de)(de)；（二(er)）沒(mei)有(you)資(zi)(zi)(zi)質的(de)(de)實際施工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)人(ren)(ren)(ren)借用(yong)有(you)資(zi)(zi)(zi)質的(de)(de)建(jian)(jian)筑(zhu)(zhu)施工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)企(qi)(qi)業(ye)名(ming)義的(de)(de)；（三(san)）建(jian)(jian)設(she)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)程(cheng)(cheng)必須(xu)進行招標(biao)而未(wei)招標(biao)或者(zhe)中(zhong)標(biao)無(wu)效的(de)(de)。承(cheng)(cheng)包人(ren)(ren)(ren)因轉包、違(wei)(wei)法(fa)(fa)(fa)分包建(jian)(jian)設(she)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)程(cheng)(cheng)與他(ta)人(ren)(ren)(ren)簽訂(ding)的(de)(de)建(jian)(jian)設(she)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)程(cheng)(cheng)施工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)合(he)(he)同，應(ying)當依(yi)據(ju)民(min)法(fa)(fa)(fa)典(dian)第(di)一(yi)(yi)百五十(shi)三(san)條(tiao)第(di)一(yi)(yi)款(kuan)及第(di)七百九十(shi)一(yi)(yi)條(tiao)第(di)二(er)款(kuan)、第(di)三(san)款(kuan)的(de)(de)規(gui)定(ding)(ding)，認定(ding)(ding)無(wu)效。故袁(yuan)某擅自以單位名(ming)義與他(ta)人(ren)(ren)(ren)簽訂(ding)的(de)(de)掛靠(kao)(kao)協議，違(wei)(wei)反了法(fa)(fa)(fa)律(lv)法(fa)(fa)(fa)規(gui)的(de)(de)強制性規(gui)定(ding)(ding)，應(ying)屬(shu)無(wu)效。

　　司法(fa)實踐中，對于(yu)掛(gua)(gua)靠(kao)管理費(fei)大多按照“原(yuan)地停留”的(de)(de)(de)原(yuan)則予(yu)以處理，即(ji)已(yi)經完(wan)成(cheng)給(gei)(gei)付(fu)的(de)(de)(de)，給(gei)(gei)付(fu)一方(fang)不(bu)得要(yao)求返還(huan)，尚(shang)未(wei)給(gei)(gei)付(fu)的(de)(de)(de)，因合同無效不(bu)得要(yao)求給(gei)(gei)付(fu)。按照該(gai)(gai)原(yuan)則，對于(yu)B公(gong)司已(yi)經支付(fu)的(de)(de)(de)掛(gua)(gua)靠(kao)管理費(fei)，A公(gong)司可以獲得。但出(chu)借建筑資質收取(qu)(qu)掛(gua)(gua)靠(kao)管理費(fei)的(de)(de)(de)行為(wei)(wei)，會(hui)嚴重擾亂(luan)建筑市場秩序，影響建筑行業(ye)健康發展，A公(gong)司即(ji)使獲得掛(gua)(gua)靠(kao)管理費(fei)，亦違反了(le)法(fa)律規(gui)定。有(you)觀點認為(wei)(wei)，對于(yu)單(dan)位違法(fa)收取(qu)(qu)的(de)(de)(de)財物(wu)，不(bu)具有(you)合法(fa)性，單(dan)位不(bu)能(neng)享(xiang)有(you)所有(you)權，不(bu)應(ying)認定為(wei)(wei)單(dan)位的(de)(de)(de)公(gong)共財物(wu)，行為(wei)(wei)人利(li)用職務(wu)上的(de)(de)(de)便利(li)將其(qi)占為(wei)(wei)己有(you)，未(wei)侵犯單(dan)位合法(fa)權益(yi)，不(bu)構(gou)成(cheng)貪(tan)污罪(zui)。筆者不(bu)贊同該(gai)(gai)觀點，理由如下。

　　首先(xian)，從(cong)刑(xing)法(fa)(fa)保(bao)護(hu)的(de)財產(chan)權益方面看。刑(xing)法(fa)(fa)承擔著維護(hu)社會秩序的(de)基本功能，雖(sui)然民法(fa)(fa)、行政法(fa)(fa)等法(fa)(fa)律法(fa)(fa)規規定了財產(chan)權益，但(dan)與(yu)其相(xiang)比(bi)，刑(xing)法(fa)(fa)具有相(xiang)對(dui)獨立(li)性(xing)，其更多強調財產(chan)的(de)經(jing)濟價(jia)值屬(shu)(shu)性(xing)，即雖(sui)然占有的(de)相(xiang)關財物(wu)不(bu)受(shou)法(fa)(fa)律保(bao)護(hu)或者屬(shu)(shu)于(yu)法(fa)(fa)律明(ming)文禁止，但(dan)只(zhi)要該財物(wu)具有一定經(jing)濟價(jia)值，且不(bu)違背刑(xing)法(fa)(fa)保(bao)護(hu)精(jing)神，仍然可以成(cheng)為財產(chan)犯罪的(de)對(dui)象。

　　其(qi)(qi)(qi)次，從保(bao)護(hu)(hu)(hu)占(zhan)有的(de)角度看。非法(fa)(fa)財(cai)(cai)物之“非法(fa)(fa)”，只(zhi)是相(xiang)對于財(cai)(cai)物的(de)合(he)法(fa)(fa)所(suo)有人而(er)言，其(qi)(qi)(qi)最終將(jiang)返(fan)還合(he)法(fa)(fa)所(suo)有人，行為(wei)人利(li)用職(zhi)務便利(li)將(jiang)其(qi)(qi)(qi)占(zhan)為(wei)己有，必(bi)然會(hui)侵(qin)(qin)犯(fan)公私財(cai)(cai)產所(suo)有權。同時，刑法(fa)(fa)規定(ding)的(de)財(cai)(cai)產類(lei)犯(fan)罪(zui)不(bu)僅是為(wei)保(bao)護(hu)(hu)(hu)財(cai)(cai)產所(suo)有權不(bu)受侵(qin)(qin)犯(fan)，還為(wei)保(bao)護(hu)(hu)(hu)其(qi)(qi)(qi)非經合(he)法(fa)(fa)程序不(bu)可改變的(de)占(zhan)有狀態。如根據“兩高”《辦理盜(dao)竊刑事案件適用法(fa)(fa)律若干問題的(de)解釋》第一條(tiao)規定(ding)，盜(dao)竊毒品等違禁(jin)品，應當按(an)照(zhao)盜(dao)竊罪(zui)處理的(de)，根據情節輕重(zhong)量刑。

　　再次，從維護(hu)職(zhi)務廉(lian)(lian)潔性(xing)方面(mian)看。貪污罪(zui)客體不(bu)僅(jin)包括公共財(cai)(cai)物(wu)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)所(suo)有權，還包括國家機關、國有企業事業單位(wei)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)正常活動以及(ji)國家工作人員(yuan)(yuan)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)職(zhi)務廉(lian)(lian)潔性(xing)。在行(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)人利用職(zhi)務便利侵占單位(wei)財(cai)(cai)物(wu)時，不(bu)能(neng)(neng)以單位(wei)獲得(de)財(cai)(cai)物(wu)行(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)不(bu)具有合法(fa)(fa)(fa)性(xing)，就(jiu)肯定(ding)(ding)行(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)人侵占財(cai)(cai)產的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)正當性(xing)。判斷的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)側(ce)重點應是，國家工作人員(yuan)(yuan)對單位(wei)控(kong)制(zhi)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)財(cai)(cai)物(wu)沒有所(suo)有權，其(qi)利用職(zhi)務便利將其(qi)占為(wei)(wei)(wei)己有，侵犯了(le)職(zhi)務廉(lian)(lian)潔性(xing)。故(gu)不(bu)能(neng)(neng)以單位(wei)獲得(de)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)財(cai)(cai)物(wu)違反了(le)國家有關法(fa)(fa)(fa)律規(gui)定(ding)(ding)為(wei)(wei)(wei)由(you)，就(jiu)不(bu)認為(wei)(wei)(wei)其(qi)系刑法(fa)(fa)(fa)保護(hu)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)對象(xiang)。本案中，袁某收(shou)取掛靠管理費的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)行(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)雖然違反了(le)相關法(fa)(fa)(fa)律規(gui)定(ding)(ding)，但其(qi)侵犯了(le)A公司的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)財(cai)(cai)產權益(yi)，該財(cai)(cai)產權益(yi)受刑法(fa)(fa)(fa)保護(hu)，可(ke)以成為(wei)(wei)(wei)貪污罪(zui)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)犯罪(zui)對象(xiang)。

　　綜(zong)上，袁(yuan)某(mou)違反法律規定，擅自(zi)出(chu)借(jie)A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司資質(zhi)并以A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司名(ming)義收受的掛靠管理(li)費，屬于A公(gong)(gong)(gong)司的公(gong)(gong)(gong)共財物(wu)，袁(yuan)某(mou)利用職務之(zhi)便，將其占為己(ji)有，構(gou)成貪污罪。

　　（作者 萬平 單(dan)位：重(zhong)慶市長壽(shou)區紀(ji)委(wei)監委(wei)）