【內容提要】

　　銀行(xing)營銷(xiao)費(fei)(fei)用一般是指(zhi)銀行(xing)在(zai)總行(xing)預算范(fan)圍內因開(kai)(kai)展營銷(xiao)活(huo)動(dong)所(suo)(suo)產生的(de)(de)(de)(de)各項費(fei)(fei)用，主要用于業務宣傳、拓(tuo)展業務、客(ke)戶(hu)維(wei)護等開(kai)(kai)支。有觀(guan)點(dian)認為，銀行(xing)營銷(xiao)費(fei)(fei)用系根(gen)據銀行(xing)工(gong)作人員(yuan)的(de)(de)(de)(de)個(ge)人業績分配，在(zai)營銷(xiao)費(fei)(fei)用報銷(xiao)額度(du)(du)未使用完畢的(de)(de)(de)(de)情況下，剩余部分應當作為個(ge)人為銀行(xing)所(suo)(suo)做業績的(de)(de)(de)(de)獎勵，虛報或(huo)套取營銷(xiao)費(fei)(fei)用并不違(wei)(wei)紀(ji)違(wei)(wei)法。筆者認為，套取銀行(xing)營銷(xiao)費(fei)(fei)用的(de)(de)(de)(de)行(xing)為，本質上是一種套取公款的(de)(de)(de)(de)行(xing)為，紀(ji)檢監(jian)察機關應加大對此類行(xing)為的(de)(de)(de)(de)查處(chu)力度(du)(du)，堅持主客(ke)觀(guan)相一致(zhi)原則(ze)，結合(he)所(suo)(suo)套取公款的(de)(de)(de)(de)用途及去(qu)向(xiang)，準(zhun)確認定(ding)行(xing)為人違(wei)(wei)紀(ji)違(wei)(wei)法行(xing)為的(de)(de)(de)(de)性(xing)質。

　　【基本案情】

　　王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)，中(zhong)共(gong)黨員(yuan)(yuan)，A國有銀行(xing)B區支行(xing)原行(xing)長。根據A銀行(xing)規定(ding)，各支行(xing)可以按(an)照不(bu)高于員(yuan)(yuan)工(gong)(gong)本(ben)人(ren)經營業(ye)績(ji)3%的(de)(de)比例，為(wei)銀行(xing)員(yuan)(yuan)工(gong)(gong)報銷(xiao)拓展(zhan)業(ye)務、維(wei)護客(ke)戶等營銷(xiao)費(fei)用(yong)(yong)(yong)；同時規定(ding)，營銷(xiao)費(fei)用(yong)(yong)(yong)報銷(xiao)應當(dang)真實合規，不(bu)得將(jiang)營銷(xiao)費(fei)用(yong)(yong)(yong)作為(wei)薪(xin)酬發放給(gei)(gei)員(yuan)(yuan)工(gong)(gong)個(ge)人(ren)。因B區支行(xing)員(yuan)(yuan)工(gong)(gong)實際報銷(xiao)的(de)(de)客(ke)戶營銷(xiao)費(fei)用(yong)(yong)(yong)未用(yong)(yong)(yong)足該行(xing)經營業(ye)績(ji)3%比例的(de)(de)額度，2015年至2024年2月，王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)先(xian)后(hou)(hou)指使從事理財產品營銷(xiao)工(gong)(gong)作的(de)(de)銀行(xing)員(yuan)(yuan)工(gong)(gong)李某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)（中(zhong)共(gong)黨員(yuan)(yuan)）購(gou)買消(xiao)費(fei)卡(ka)(ka)共(gong)計600萬元，購(gou)卡(ka)(ka)費(fei)用(yong)(yong)(yong)由(you)王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)簽批后(hou)(hou)在(zai)該行(xing)營銷(xiao)費(fei)用(yong)(yong)(yong)額度內報銷(xiao)。購(gou)卡(ka)(ka)后(hou)(hou)，李某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)未將(jiang)所購(gou)消(xiao)費(fei)卡(ka)(ka)用(yong)(yong)(yong)于維(wei)護客(ke)戶關系，而是根據王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)要求，將(jiang)所購(gou)消(xiao)費(fei)卡(ka)(ka)以8.5折的(de)(de)價格出(chu)售給(gei)(gei)社會上的(de)(de)“黃(huang)牛(niu)”，得款(kuan)510萬元均交給(gei)(gei)王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)。王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)將(jiang)該款(kuan)用(yong)(yong)(yong)于個(ge)人(ren)家庭(ting)開支。李某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)對該款(kuan)交給(gei)(gei)王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)后(hou)(hou)的(de)(de)實際用(yong)(yong)(yong)途不(bu)知(zhi)情(qing)。

　　【分歧意見】

　　本案中(zhong)，對王某(mou)、李某(mou)的行為(wei)性(xing)質應(ying)如何認定，有(you)以下(xia)三種意(yi)見：

　　第一種意(yi)見認(ren)(ren)為(wei)：銀(yin)行員工在(zai)(zai)不超(chao)過營銷(xiao)費用規定額度(du)的(de)情況下虛報或套取營銷(xiao)費用以增加個人(ren)收入，在(zai)(zai)各銀(yin)行比較常見，是銀(yin)行業“潛規則(ze)”。為(wei)體現刑法的(de)謙(qian)抑性原則(ze)，對(dui)(dui)(dui)王某(mou)和李(li)某(mou)的(de)行為(wei)都(dou)不宜認(ren)(ren)定為(wei)犯(fan)罪，建議對(dui)(dui)(dui)王某(mou)以違反廉潔紀律追究(jiu)(jiu)紀律責任(ren)，對(dui)(dui)(dui)李(li)某(mou)以違反國家財經紀律追究(jiu)(jiu)紀律責任(ren)。

　　第二(er)種(zhong)意見認為：王(wang)某(mou)身(shen)為國有(you)銀行(xing)管理(li)人員(yuan)，利用(yong)職務便(bian)利，套取營銷費(fei)(fei)用(yong)占為己有(you)，其(qi)行(xing)為符合貪(tan)污(wu)(wu)罪(zui)的構成特征，應以貪(tan)污(wu)(wu)罪(zui)追(zhui)究(jiu)(jiu)其(qi)刑事責(ze)任；李(li)某(mou)身(shen)為國有(you)銀行(xing)工(gong)作人員(yuan)，根據王(wang)某(mou)要求購買消費(fei)(fei)卡并出售(shou)套現，協助王(wang)某(mou)完成貪(tan)污(wu)(wu)行(xing)為，應以貪(tan)污(wu)(wu)罪(zui)共犯追(zhui)究(jiu)(jiu)其(qi)刑事責(ze)任。

　　第三種意見認為(wei)(wei)：王(wang)(wang)某(mou)身(shen)為(wei)(wei)國(guo)有(you)銀行(xing)管理人(ren)員(yuan)，利(li)(li)用職(zhi)務便(bian)利(li)(li)，套取營(ying)銷費用占為(wei)(wei)己有(you)，其(qi)(qi)行(xing)為(wei)(wei)符合(he)貪(tan)(tan)污(wu)罪的構(gou)成(cheng)特征，應以貪(tan)(tan)污(wu)罪追究(jiu)(jiu)其(qi)(qi)刑事(shi)責(ze)(ze)任；李(li)某(mou)雖然根據(ju)王(wang)(wang)某(mou)要(yao)求購(gou)買(mai)消費卡(ka)并出售(shou)套現，但其(qi)(qi)對王(wang)(wang)某(mou)將所(suo)套取公款(kuan)占為(wei)(wei)己有(you)的情況并不明知(zhi)，與王(wang)(wang)某(mou)不具有(you)共同貪(tan)(tan)污(wu)的主觀故(gu)意，不宜以貪(tan)(tan)污(wu)罪共犯追究(jiu)(jiu)其(qi)(qi)刑事(shi)責(ze)(ze)任，建議對李(li)某(mou)以違反國(guo)家財(cai)經紀律追究(jiu)(jiu)紀律責(ze)(ze)任。

　　【意見分析】

　　本案中，筆者同意(yi)第三種意(yi)見，具體分析如下。

　　一、王某的行為(wei)符合貪污罪的構成特征，應以貪污罪追(zhui)究其刑(xing)事責任

　　首先，營(ying)銷(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)費(fei)用是國有銀(yin)(yin)(yin)行(xing)的公款。營(ying)銷(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)費(fei)用系銀(yin)(yin)(yin)行(xing)總行(xing)以各分支機構的經營(ying)規模、利息(xi)收入(ru)等(deng)作(zuo)為標準核(he)定(ding)下發的預算費(fei)用；各分支機構再(zai)以營(ying)銷(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)團隊員(yuan)(yuan)工(gong)(gong)的個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)業(ye)績(ji)等(deng)作(zuo)為參考依據(ju)(ju)，分配(pei)相應的營(ying)銷(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)費(fei)用報(bao)銷(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)額(e)度(du)(du)(du)。關于國家(jia)出資銀(yin)(yin)(yin)行(xing)營(ying)銷(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)費(fei)用的性(xing)(xing)質，有觀點認(ren)為，營(ying)銷(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)費(fei)用系根據(ju)(ju)銀(yin)(yin)(yin)行(xing)工(gong)(gong)作(zuo)人(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)(yuan)的個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)業(ye)績(ji)分配(pei)，在(zai)營(ying)銷(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)額(e)度(du)(du)(du)未使用完畢的情況下，剩余部分應當(dang)作(zuo)為個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)為銀(yin)(yin)(yin)行(xing)所做業(ye)績(ji)的獎(jiang)勵，視為個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)財物(wu)由個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)繼續(xu)支配(pei)、使用。實踐中，有個(ge)(ge)別(bie)銀(yin)(yin)(yin)行(xing)領導和財務(wu)人(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)(yuan)對(dui)工(gong)(gong)作(zuo)人(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)(yuan)報(bao)銷(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)的營(ying)銷(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)費(fei)用開(kai)支真實性(xing)(xing)、票據(ju)(ju)形(xing)式(shi)合規性(xing)(xing)均未作(zuo)實質性(xing)(xing)審核(he)，只要報(bao)銷(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)數額(e)未超出規定(ding)的額(e)度(du)(du)(du)均予以報(bao)銷(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)，上(shang)述行(xing)為在(zai)一定(ding)程度(du)(du)(du)上(shang)助長了銀(yin)(yin)(yin)行(xing)業(ye)內部有些員(yuan)(yuan)工(gong)(gong)把未超出規定(ding)報(bao)銷(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)額(e)度(du)(du)(du)的營(ying)銷(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)費(fei)用視為個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)應得收入(ru)的錯誤認(ren)識。

　　筆者認(ren)為(wei)(wei)，銀(yin)行(xing)員(yuan)工(gong)(gong)根據個(ge)人經營(ying)業(ye)績(ji)，雖有(you)(you)使(shi)用相應額度(du)營(ying)銷(xiao)(xiao)費(fei)(fei)用的(de)權限(xian)，但用途必(bi)須限(xian)定在(zai)“為(wei)(wei)公(gong)(gong)支出”的(de)框架之(zhi)內(nei)。銀(yin)行(xing)國家工(gong)(gong)作人員(yuan)按照規定使(shi)用營(ying)銷(xiao)(xiao)費(fei)(fei)用時屬(shu)于(yu)一種“公(gong)(gong)務行(xing)為(wei)(wei)”，不(bu)(bu)能因與個(ge)人業(ye)績(ji)掛鉤而視(shi)為(wei)(wei)個(ge)人財物隨意占(zhan)有(you)(you)、處分。正是由于(yu)營(ying)銷(xiao)(xiao)費(fei)(fei)用具有(you)(you)“取(qu)之(zhi)于(yu)公(gong)(gong)，用之(zhi)于(yu)公(gong)(gong)”的(de)屬(shu)性，各(ge)大商業(ye)銀(yin)行(xing)均明(ming)確規定，營(ying)銷(xiao)(xiao)費(fei)(fei)用必(bi)須實報(bao)實銷(xiao)(xiao)，不(bu)(bu)得套取(qu)作為(wei)(wei)福(fu)利性收入。營(ying)銷(xiao)(xiao)費(fei)(fei)用的(de)額度(du)雖然(ran)與營(ying)銷(xiao)(xiao)業(ye)績(ji)掛鉤，且額度(du)按月(yue)或按季度(du)核定，但當年度(du)未使(shi)用完畢(bi)的(de)部(bu)(bu)分會作清零處理(li)，少用營(ying)銷(xiao)(xiao)費(fei)(fei)用并不(bu)(bu)會獲得獎勵，因此(ci)，營(ying)銷(xiao)(xiao)費(fei)(fei)用額度(du)在(zai)未依規使(shi)用完畢(bi)的(de)情況下，仍(reng)系公(gong)(gong)共(gong)財產，并不(bu)(bu)歸員(yuan)工(gong)(gong)個(ge)人所有(you)(you)。本案中(zhong)，A銀(yin)行(xing)的(de)內(nei)部(bu)(bu)管(guan)理(li)文(wen)件也明(ming)確了營(ying)銷(xiao)(xiao)費(fei)(fei)用的(de)公(gong)(gong)款性質，即只能用于(yu)拓展業(ye)務、維護客戶(hu)等公(gong)(gong)務開支，不(bu)(bu)得作為(wei)(wei)員(yuan)工(gong)(gong)薪(xin)酬(chou)發(fa)放給(gei)員(yuan)工(gong)(gong)個(ge)人。綜(zong)上，營(ying)銷(xiao)(xiao)費(fei)(fei)用屬(shu)于(yu)公(gong)(gong)共(gong)財物，即使(shi)在(zai)報(bao)銷(xiao)(xiao)額度(du)未使(shi)用完畢(bi)的(de)情況下，也不(bu)(bu)得套取(qu)作為(wei)(wei)個(ge)人收入。

　　其(qi)次，王(wang)某(mou)(mou)侵吞營(ying)銷(xiao)費用(yong)(yong)的(de)(de)行(xing)為(wei)本質(zhi)是貪(tan)污公(gong)(gong)款的(de)(de)行(xing)為(wei)。本案中(zhong)，王(wang)某(mou)(mou)系(xi)國(guo)有銀行(xing)管理人(ren)員，具有國(guo)家工(gong)作(zuo)人(ren)員身份；王(wang)某(mou)(mou)明(ming)知營(ying)銷(xiao)費用(yong)(yong)應(ying)當實(shi)報實(shi)銷(xiao)，仍利用(yong)(yong)職務(wu)便利，指使下屬李某(mou)(mou)購(gou)買(mai)消(xiao)費卡共(gong)計600萬元，購(gou)卡費用(yong)(yong)由其(qi)簽(qian)批后在(zai)該行(xing)營(ying)銷(xiao)費用(yong)(yong)額度內報銷(xiao)，并將消(xiao)費卡變賣所得予以侵吞，其(qi)行(xing)為(wei)已構成貪(tan)污罪(zui)，應(ying)適用(yong)(yong)《中(zhong)華人(ren)民共(gong)和國(guo)刑法》第三百八十二條之規定追究其(qi)刑事責任。在(zai)貪(tan)污數額的(de)(de)認定上(shang)，應(ying)以A銀行(xing)公(gong)(gong)款的(de)(de)實(shi)際損(sun)失數額600萬元來認定；對王(wang)某(mou)(mou)指使李某(mou)(mou)出(chu)售消(xiao)費卡的(de)(de)折扣(kou)損(sun)耗90萬元，應(ying)作(zuo)為(wei)王(wang)某(mou)(mou)實(shi)現貪(tan)污行(xing)為(wei)的(de)(de)犯(fan)罪(zui)成本，不予從(cong)認定的(de)(de)犯(fan)罪(zui)數額中(zhong)扣(kou)除。

　　實踐中需要注意的(de)(de)是，并不是所有(you)(you)套(tao)取(qu)營(ying)銷費(fei)(fei)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)的(de)(de)行(xing)為(wei)(wei)都構成貪污(wu)罪，還(huan)應該(gai)查(cha)清所套(tao)取(qu)公款的(de)(de)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)途(tu)和去向(xiang)，以(yi)(yi)準(zhun)確認(ren)定(ding)(ding)違(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)紀違(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)法行(xing)為(wei)(wei)性質。如(ru)果被(bei)(bei)審(shen)查(cha)調(diao)查(cha)人(ren)(ren)(ren)將(jiang)(jiang)所套(tao)取(qu)的(de)(de)營(ying)銷費(fei)(fei)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)占為(wei)(wei)己有(you)(you)或在特定(ding)(ding)的(de)(de)小(xiao)范圍內私分(fen)(fen)，則(ze)(ze)其(qi)行(xing)為(wei)(wei)可能(neng)涉嫌貪污(wu)犯罪；如(ru)果被(bei)(bei)審(shen)查(cha)調(diao)查(cha)人(ren)(ren)(ren)將(jiang)(jiang)所套(tao)取(qu)的(de)(de)營(ying)銷費(fei)(fei)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)以(yi)(yi)單位(wei)名義集體私分(fen)(fen)給個人(ren)(ren)(ren)，則(ze)(ze)其(qi)行(xing)為(wei)(wei)可能(neng)涉嫌私分(fen)(fen)國有(you)(you)資產(chan)罪；如(ru)果被(bei)(bei)審(shen)查(cha)調(diao)查(cha)人(ren)(ren)(ren)將(jiang)(jiang)所套(tao)取(qu)的(de)(de)營(ying)銷費(fei)(fei)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)于單位(wei)超標準(zhun)接待(dai)、違(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)規(gui)吃喝、違(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)規(gui)送禮等，則(ze)(ze)其(qi)行(xing)為(wei)(wei)違(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)反了中央八項規(gui)定(ding)(ding)精神和廉(lian)潔紀律。如(ru)果被(bei)(bei)審(shen)查(cha)調(diao)查(cha)人(ren)(ren)(ren)將(jiang)(jiang)所套(tao)取(qu)的(de)(de)營(ying)銷費(fei)(fei)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)于私設“小(xiao)金(jin)庫(ku)(ku)”，則(ze)(ze)將(jiang)(jiang)私設“小(xiao)金(jin)庫(ku)(ku)”的(de)(de)行(xing)為(wei)(wei)整體評價為(wei)(wei)違(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)反國家財經(jing)紀律，其(qi)中，被(bei)(bei)審(shen)查(cha)調(diao)查(cha)人(ren)(ren)(ren)將(jiang)(jiang)“小(xiao)金(jin)庫(ku)(ku)”部分(fen)(fen)資金(jin)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)于違(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)紀違(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)法甚至犯罪的(de)(de)，則(ze)(ze)應根(gen)據“小(xiao)金(jin)庫(ku)(ku)”資金(jin)的(de)(de)具體用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)途(tu)，認(ren)定(ding)(ding)被(bei)(bei)審(shen)查(cha)調(diao)查(cha)人(ren)(ren)(ren)的(de)(de)行(xing)為(wei)(wei)同(tong)時構成相應的(de)(de)違(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)紀錯(cuo)誤或者犯罪。

　　二、李某(mou)與王(wang)某(mou)不具有共同貪污的故(gu)意，對(dui)李某(mou)應(ying)以違反國家財經紀律追(zhui)究紀律責任

　　首先，具有(you)(you)共(gong)同(tong)(tong)的(de)(de)(de)(de)犯(fan)罪(zui)故(gu)意是構(gou)成(cheng)共(gong)犯(fan)的(de)(de)(de)(de)前(qian)提。根據《中華人民共(gong)和國刑法》第二(er)十(shi)五條規定，共(gong)同(tong)(tong)犯(fan)罪(zui)是指二(er)人以上共(gong)同(tong)(tong)故(gu)意犯(fan)罪(zui)。這(zhe)就意味著共(gong)同(tong)(tong)犯(fan)罪(zui)的(de)(de)(de)(de)所有(you)(you)參與者都必須有(you)(you)共(gong)同(tong)(tong)的(de)(de)(de)(de)犯(fan)罪(zui)故(gu)意，即他(ta)們都明(ming)白自己的(de)(de)(de)(de)行(xing)為(wei)及行(xing)為(wei)的(de)(de)(de)(de)后果(guo)，并且希望或放任這(zhe)種后果(guo)發生。從本案來看，李(li)(li)(li)某雖然(ran)(ran)協(xie)助王(wang)某實施(shi)了套(tao)取(qu)(qu)營銷(xiao)費(fei)用(yong)的(de)(de)(de)(de)行(xing)為(wei)，但王(wang)某并未就套(tao)取(qu)(qu)公(gong)(gong)款的(de)(de)(de)(de)用(yong)途與李(li)(li)(li)某進行(xing)溝通，李(li)(li)(li)某個人亦(yi)未從套(tao)取(qu)(qu)的(de)(de)(de)(de)公(gong)(gong)款中分得利(li)益，不能推定李(li)(li)(li)某明(ming)知(zhi)或應當(dang)明(ming)知(zhi)套(tao)取(qu)(qu)的(de)(de)(de)(de)公(gong)(gong)款被王(wang)某占為(wei)己有(you)(you)。如前(qian)所述(shu)，單純的(de)(de)(de)(de)套(tao)取(qu)(qu)營銷(xiao)費(fei)用(yong)并不必然(ran)(ran)構(gou)成(cheng)貪(tan)污，在沒有(you)(you)證(zheng)據證(zheng)明(ming)李(li)(li)(li)某明(ming)知(zhi)王(wang)某將公(gong)(gong)款占為(wei)己有(you)(you)的(de)(de)(de)(de)情況(kuang)下，不宜機械認定李(li)(li)(li)某根據王(wang)某要求購買(mai)消(xiao)費(fei)卡并予以出(chu)售套(tao)現的(de)(de)(de)(de)行(xing)為(wei)系(xi)幫助王(wang)某貪(tan)污，不宜認定李(li)(li)(li)某系(xi)王(wang)某貪(tan)污犯(fan)罪(zui)的(de)(de)(de)(de)共(gong)犯(fan)。

　　其(qi)(qi)次(ci)，李某的(de)(de)(de)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)違(wei)反(fan)了(le)國(guo)家財經紀(ji)(ji)律。李某雖然對(dui)王某貪污公(gong)款(kuan)的(de)(de)(de)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)不明知(zhi)，但(dan)其(qi)(qi)作為(wei)(wei)銀(yin)(yin)行(xing)(xing)工(gong)(gong)作人員(yuan)，根據(ju)(ju)王某的(de)(de)(de)要求用營銷費(fei)用購(gou)買(mai)了(le)消(xiao)費(fei)卡又打折出售(shou)，其(qi)(qi)對(dui)所購(gou)消(xiao)費(fei)卡沒(mei)有按規定(ding)用于客戶營銷是(shi)明知(zhi)的(de)(de)(de)，對(dui)套取公(gong)款(kuan)的(de)(de)(de)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)是(shi)積極實(shi)施的(de)(de)(de)，其(qi)(qi)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)違(wei)反(fan)了(le)國(guo)家財經紀(ji)(ji)律，應(ying)適用《中(zhong)國(guo)共(gong)(gong)產黨(dang)(dang)紀(ji)(ji)律處分(fen)條(tiao)例》第(di)(di)三十條(tiao)第(di)(di)二款(kuan)紀(ji)(ji)法(fa)銜接(jie)條(tiao)款(kuan)追究其(qi)(qi)黨(dang)(dang)紀(ji)(ji)責任(ren)。這(zhe)里需(xu)要注意的(de)(de)(de)是(shi)，鑒于李某系B區支(zhi)行(xing)(xing)從事理財產品營銷的(de)(de)(de)普通員(yuan)工(gong)(gong)，其(qi)(qi)未(wei)在(zai)銀(yin)(yin)行(xing)(xing)中(zhong)履行(xing)(xing)組織(zhi)、領(ling)導、管理和監督等(deng)(deng)職(zhi)(zhi)責，不屬于《中(zhong)華人民(min)共(gong)(gong)和國(guo)監察法(fa)》第(di)(di)十五條(tiao)第(di)(di)三項所稱“國(guo)有企業管理人員(yuan)”，不具(ju)有公(gong)職(zhi)(zhi)人員(yuan)身份，不適用政務處分(fen)。本案中(zhong)，如果給予(yu)李某撤銷黨(dang)(dang)內職(zhi)(zhi)務以上的(de)(de)(de)黨(dang)(dang)紀(ji)(ji)重(zhong)處分(fen)，則根據(ju)(ju)處分(fen)匹配規則，應(ying)由其(qi)(qi)所在(zai)銀(yin)(yin)行(xing)(xing)根據(ju)(ju)本單位(wei)《員(yuan)工(gong)(gong)手(shou)冊》等(deng)(deng)內部規章制度給予(yu)李某相應(ying)的(de)(de)(de)處分(fen)或(huo)降低待(dai)遇、解除合同等(deng)(deng)處理。

　　三、對違紀違法行為的(de)認(ren)定和處理，應當(dang)堅持主客觀相一(yi)致原則(ze)

　　主(zhu)(zhu)客(ke)觀(guan)相(xiang)一致(zhi)原(yuan)則是對(dui)違(wei)(wei)紀(ji)違(wei)(wei)法(fa)行為認定和處(chu)理的基礎性(xing)原(yuan)則，強(qiang)調在對(dui)違(wei)(wei)紀(ji)違(wei)(wei)法(fa)行為定性(xing)處(chu)理時(shi)，必須(xu)同時(shi)考慮被審(shen)查調查人(ren)主(zhu)(zhu)觀(guan)心態與(yu)客(ke)觀(guan)行為，既要反對(dui)只看(kan)(kan)客(ke)觀(guan)危害(hai)而不問(wen)主(zhu)(zhu)觀(guan)罪(zui)(zui)過的客(ke)觀(guan)歸(gui)錯，也(ye)要反對(dui)只看(kan)(kan)主(zhu)(zhu)觀(guan)罪(zui)(zui)過而不管客(ke)觀(guan)危害(hai)的主(zhu)(zhu)觀(guan)歸(gui)錯。

　　本(ben)案中(zhong)，王(wang)(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)身為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)國有銀行(xing)(xing)B區支行(xing)(xing)行(xing)(xing)長，利用(yong)職務便利，指(zhi)(zhi)使(shi)下屬員工套(tao)取公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)并用(yong)于其(qi)(qi)(qi)個人(ren)家庭(ting)開(kai)支，主觀(guan)(guan)上(shang)(shang)具(ju)有非法占有公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)的故意，客觀(guan)(guan)上(shang)(shang)實(shi)施了(le)套(tao)取公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)并將(jiang)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)用(yong)于個人(ren)家庭(ting)開(kai)支的行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)，其(qi)(qi)(qi)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)已(yi)構成(cheng)貪污(wu)罪(zui)(zui)。李(li)某(mou)(mou)(mou)在(zai)王(wang)(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)貪污(wu)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)的過(guo)程中(zhong)，雖(sui)然按照王(wang)(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)要求完(wan)成(cheng)了(le)用(yong)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)購買消費(fei)卡并出售套(tao)現的行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)，但(dan)王(wang)(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)并未明確告知其(qi)(qi)(qi)套(tao)取公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)的目的及(ji)用(yong)途(tu)，李(li)某(mou)(mou)(mou)主觀(guan)(guan)上(shang)(shang)并沒有伙同(tong)王(wang)(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)共同(tong)完(wan)成(cheng)貪污(wu)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)的故意，不(bu)宜認定(ding)李(li)某(mou)(mou)(mou)的行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)構成(cheng)貪污(wu)罪(zui)(zui)。李(li)某(mou)(mou)(mou)雖(sui)然是根(gen)據(ju)領(ling)導王(wang)(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)的指(zhi)(zhi)令實(shi)施違(wei)紀(ji)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)，但(dan)其(qi)(qi)(qi)明知王(wang)(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)的指(zhi)(zhi)令違(wei)反(fan)了(le)本(ben)單位“營銷費(fei)用(yong)報銷應當真(zhen)實(shi)合規”的相(xiang)關規定(ding)卻未向王(wang)(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)提(ti)出異(yi)議，其(qi)(qi)(qi)主觀(guan)(guan)上(shang)(shang)存在(zai)過(guo)錯(cuo)，客觀(guan)(guan)上(shang)(shang)其(qi)(qi)(qi)經(jing)手套(tao)取的公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)高達600萬元，數額巨(ju)大，故不(bu)宜因(yin)其(qi)(qi)(qi)系根(gen)據(ju)領(ling)導指(zhi)(zhi)令行(xing)(xing)事而免除其(qi)(qi)(qi)紀(ji)律(lv)責任，而應根(gen)據(ju)其(qi)(qi)(qi)主觀(guan)(guan)過(guo)錯(cuo)程度及(ji)客觀(guan)(guan)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)后(hou)果認定(ding)其(qi)(qi)(qi)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)違(wei)反(fan)了(le)國家財經(jing)紀(ji)律(lv)并給予相(xiang)應的紀(ji)律(lv)處分。（作(zuo)者：蔡雙英）