【內容提要】

　　根(gen)據刑(xing)法(fa)規(gui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)，“挪(nuo)(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)歸個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)”是挪(nuo)(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)罪(zui)(zui)(zui)的(de)(de)(de)必備構(gou)成要(yao)(yao)件。2002年《全國(guo)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)民(min)(min)代表大會(hui)常務委員會(hui)關于(yu)〈中華人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)民(min)(min)共和國(guo)刑(xing)法(fa)〉第(di)三百八十(shi)四條第(di)一(yi)(yi)(yi)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)的(de)(de)(de)解(jie)釋》（以(yi)下(xia)簡(jian)(jian)稱《解(jie)釋》）明確(que)，“有下(xia)列(lie)情形之(zhi)一(yi)(yi)(yi)的(de)(de)(de)，屬于(yu)挪(nuo)(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)‘歸個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)’：（一(yi)(yi)(yi)）將(jiang)(jiang)公(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)供(gong)本(ben)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)、親友或(huo)者(zhe)其他自然人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)的(de)(de)(de)；（二）以(yi)個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)名義(yi)將(jiang)(jiang)公(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)供(gong)其他單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)使(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)的(de)(de)(de)；（三）個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)決(jue)(jue)定(ding)(ding)(ding)以(yi)單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)名義(yi)將(jiang)(jiang)公(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)供(gong)其他單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)使(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)，謀(mou)取(qu)個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)利(li)(li)益(yi)(yi)的(de)(de)(de)。”實(shi)(shi)踐(jian)中，對于(yu)單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)負(fu)責(ze)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)將(jiang)(jiang)公(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)挪(nuo)(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)給(gei)“一(yi)(yi)(yi)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)公(gong)司”使(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)，有證據證實(shi)(shi)“一(yi)(yi)(yi)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)公(gong)司”不(bu)具有獨立法(fa)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)格的(de)(de)(de)，不(bu)應認定(ding)(ding)(ding)為(wei)挪(nuo)(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)供(gong)其他單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)使(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)，而應認定(ding)(ding)(ding)為(wei)挪(nuo)(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)供(gong)自然人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)。最高人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)民(min)(min)法(fa)院《全國(guo)法(fa)院審(shen)理(li)經濟犯罪(zui)(zui)(zui)案件工(gong)作座(zuo)談會(hui)紀要(yao)(yao)》（以(yi)下(xia)簡(jian)(jian)稱《紀要(yao)(yao)》）規(gui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)，“經單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)領導集體研究決(jue)(jue)定(ding)(ding)(ding)將(jiang)(jiang)公(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)給(gei)個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)，或(huo)者(zhe)單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)負(fu)責(ze)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)為(wei)了(le)單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)的(de)(de)(de)利(li)(li)益(yi)(yi)，決(jue)(jue)定(ding)(ding)(ding)將(jiang)(jiang)公(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)給(gei)個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)的(de)(de)(de)，不(bu)以(yi)挪(nuo)(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)罪(zui)(zui)(zui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)罪(zui)(zui)(zui)處罰(fa)”。對于(yu)單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)“集體研究決(jue)(jue)定(ding)(ding)(ding)”將(jiang)(jiang)公(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)出借(jie)給(gei)個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)的(de)(de)(de)，要(yao)(yao)從實(shi)(shi)質上判(pan)斷系集體決(jue)(jue)定(ding)(ding)(ding)還(huan)是單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)負(fu)責(ze)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)決(jue)(jue)定(ding)(ding)(ding)。對于(yu)單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)負(fu)責(ze)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)決(jue)(jue)定(ding)(ding)(ding)將(jiang)(jiang)公(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)出借(jie)給(gei)個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)，如果并非為(wei)了(le)單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)利(li)(li)益(yi)(yi)，或(huo)者(zhe)為(wei)單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)謀(mou)利(li)(li)的(de)(de)(de)同時還(huan)存在謀(mou)取(qu)個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)利(li)(li)益(yi)(yi)的(de)(de)(de)，就不(bu)符合《紀要(yao)(yao)》規(gui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)的(de)(de)(de)“不(bu)以(yi)挪(nuo)(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)罪(zui)(zui)(zui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)罪(zui)(zui)(zui)處罰(fa)”的(de)(de)(de)情形，應當以(yi)挪(nuo)(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)罪(zui)(zui)(zui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)罪(zui)(zui)(zui)處罰(fa)。

　　【基本案情】

　　王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)，A市B區C鄉黨委(wei)書記。王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)擔任C鄉黨委(wei)書記期(qi)間，與私營(ying)企(qi)業主(zhu)李某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)結識，日常交往關系密切。2016年(nian)，李某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)為解決公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)資(zi)金(jin)周(zhou)轉困難，在得知(zhi)C鄉所屬集體企(qi)業甲(jia)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)拆遷補償(chang)(chang)款(kuan)(kuan)即將(jiang)撥付后，找到(dao)王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)借款(kuan)(kuan)，并提出擬按(an)年(nian)利(li)(li)率(lv)8%向(xiang)甲(jia)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)支付利(li)(li)息。王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)同(tong)意(yi)出借公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)。2016年(nian)6月(yue)至(zhi)(zhi)12月(yue)，王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)利(li)(li)用職(zhi)務(wu)便利(li)(li)，安排甲(jia)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)經(jing)理陳(chen)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)向(xiang)鄉黨委(wei)申請(qing)撥付拆遷補償(chang)(chang)款(kuan)(kuan)，并在錢(qian)款(kuan)(kuan)到(dao)賬(zhang)后，先后三次將(jiang)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)共計2500萬元出借給李某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)名下乙(yi)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)（系“一(yi)人公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)”，只有李某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)為唯一(yi)股東(dong)）使用。在此過程中(zhong)，甲(jia)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)與乙(yi)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)簽訂了書面借款(kuan)(kuan)協議，約定還款(kuan)(kuan)期(qi)限(xian)一(yi)年(nian)、年(nian)利(li)(li)率(lv)8%。后因(yin)乙(yi)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)經(jing)營(ying)管(guan)理不善，截至(zhi)(zhi)2020年(nian)王(wang)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)案發，尚有公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)2200萬元未予歸還。

　　經(jing)查，2017年(nian)，王(wang)某讓李(li)某幫(bang)其兒子王(wang)某某找工作(zuo)，李(li)某安排王(wang)某某入職本人(ren)實際(ji)控制的丙公(gong)司(si)。2017年(nian)至(zhi)2019年(nian)，王(wang)某某未(wei)實際(ji)到丙公(gong)司(si)工作(zuo)，每(mei)月領(ling)取(qu)工資8000余元。

　　甲公(gong)司(si)資金由鄉集(ji)體資產監督(du)管(guan)理委(wei)(wei)員(yuan)會(hui)(hui)（主任由鄉黨(dang)(dang)委(wei)(wei)書(shu)記(ji)王某兼任）管(guan)理，根據C鄉黨(dang)(dang)委(wei)(wei)及甲公(gong)司(si)“三(san)重一大(da)”事(shi)項決(jue)策(ce)制度(du)規定(ding)，甲公(gong)司(si)出借公(gong)款事(shi)宜應由甲公(gong)司(si)黨(dang)(dang)支(zhi)部委(wei)(wei)員(yuan)會(hui)(hui)集(ji)體研(yan)究(jiu)(jiu)，并(bing)報(bao)C鄉黨(dang)(dang)委(wei)(wei)決(jue)定(ding)。在案C鄉黨(dang)(dang)委(wei)(wei)、甲公(gong)司(si)的(de)(de)會(hui)(hui)議紀要均(jun)顯示曾(ceng)研(yan)究(jiu)(jiu)決(jue)定(ding)上述(shu)(shu)出借公(gong)款事(shi)項。但經查，甲公(gong)司(si)系按照王某的(de)(de)指(zhi)示開會(hui)(hui)研(yan)究(jiu)(jiu)；經詢問時(shi)任C鄉黨(dang)(dang)委(wei)(wei)其(qi)他班(ban)子成(cheng)員(yuan)發(fa)現，長期以來(lai)，該鄉黨(dang)(dang)委(wei)(wei)領導班(ban)子集(ji)體研(yan)究(jiu)(jiu)決(jue)定(ding)“三(san)重一大(da)”事(shi)項的(de)(de)制度(du)形同虛設，王某作(zuo)為單(dan)位“一把手”經常(chang)搞“一言堂(tang)”決(jue)策(ce)、違規拍板重大(da)事(shi)項，上述(shu)(shu)出借公(gong)款事(shi)宜亦未提交班(ban)子會(hui)(hui)議集(ji)體研(yan)究(jiu)(jiu)，僅在班(ban)子會(hui)(hui)議上予以“通報(bao)”，其(qi)他班(ban)子成(cheng)員(yuan)未發(fa)表(biao)“同意”或“不(bu)(bu)同意”的(de)(de)意見(jian)。另外，調查發(fa)現乙(yi)公(gong)司(si)財務管(guan)理不(bu)(bu)規范(fan)，賬目(mu)不(bu)(bu)清，公(gong)司(si)賬戶與(yu)(yu)李(li)某個人(ren)銀行(xing)賬戶混(hun)用，部分業務往來(lai)款系通過李(li)某用于(yu)日(ri)常(chang)消費的(de)(de)個人(ren)銀行(xing)卡收(shou)支(zhi)，公(gong)司(si)財產與(yu)(yu)李(li)某個人(ren)財產混(hun)同。

　　【分歧意見】

　　本案中(zhong)，對于王某的(de)行為如何定(ding)性，存在三種不同意見。

　　第一種意(yi)見認為(wei)：王(wang)(wang)某(mou)的行為(wei)不構成犯罪(zui)。鄉(xiang)(xiang)屬集體企業(ye)甲(jia)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司將公(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)出借給乙公(gong)(gong)(gong)司一事(shi)，系(xi)經C鄉(xiang)(xiang)黨(dang)委及甲(jia)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司集體研究(jiu)決定，且雙方約定借款(kuan)利息歸甲(jia)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司，屬于(yu)單位(wei)之間(jian)的公(gong)(gong)(gong)對(dui)公(gong)(gong)(gong)行為(wei)，非(fei)王(wang)(wang)某(mou)的個(ge)人行為(wei)，不應追究(jiu)王(wang)(wang)某(mou)個(ge)人的刑(xing)事(shi)責(ze)任。

　　第二種意見認為(wei)：王某的行(xing)為(wei)構成(cheng)濫(lan)用(yong)(yong)職權(quan)罪。王某將(jiang)甲(jia)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)公(gong)(gong)(gong)款出(chu)借給乙(yi)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)，約(yue)定借款利息歸屬為(wei)甲(jia)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)，系為(wei)了(le)單位利益而出(chu)借公(gong)(gong)(gong)款，不應以挪用(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)款罪論處，但由于違反議事(shi)規則個人拍板(ban)決定出(chu)借事(shi)宜，屬于濫(lan)用(yong)(yong)職權(quan)，截至案發(fa)前尚(shang)有公(gong)(gong)(gong)款2200萬元(yuan)未收回，造成(cheng)公(gong)(gong)(gong)共(gong)財產重(zhong)大損失，應當認定其構成(cheng)濫(lan)用(yong)(yong)職權(quan)罪。

　　第三種意見認(ren)為：王某的(de)(de)行為構成(cheng)挪(nuo)用公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款罪(zui)。本(ben)案中，公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款的(de)(de)出借(jie)對象(xiang)乙公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)只有(you)李某唯一股東(dong)且(qie)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)財產(chan)與股東(dong)財產(chan)混同，法人(ren)(ren)人(ren)(ren)格已喪失，應(ying)認(ren)定為“將公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款供(gong)本(ben)人(ren)(ren)、親(qin)友(you)或者(zhe)其(qi)他(ta)自然人(ren)(ren)使用”的(de)(de)“挪(nuo)用公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款歸(gui)個人(ren)(ren)使用”情形(xing)。王某作為單位(wei)“一把手”，借(jie)集體決策之名(ming)出借(jie)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款，且(qie)存在為其(qi)兒子安(an)排(pai)“掛名(ming)領(ling)薪”的(de)(de)事實(shi)，客觀(guan)上實(shi)際謀取了個人(ren)(ren)利(li)益，應(ying)當以(yi)挪(nuo)用公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款罪(zui)論處。

　　【意見評析】

　　本案中，筆(bi)者(zhe)同意第三種意見(jian)。理由如下：

　　一、王某出借甲公司(si)公款給乙公司(si)使用(yong)應(ying)認定為挪用(yong)公款供自然人使用(yong)

　　按照(zhao)我國刑法(fa)第(di)三百八十(shi)四條之規定，國家(jia)工(gong)作人(ren)員利(li)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)職務上的(de)(de)便利(li)，挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)歸個人(ren)使用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)，進(jin)行(xing)非法(fa)活(huo)動的(de)(de)，或者(zhe)挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)數(shu)(shu)額(e)較(jiao)大(da)、進(jin)行(xing)營利(li)活(huo)動的(de)(de)，或者(zhe)挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)數(shu)(shu)額(e)較(jiao)大(da)、超(chao)過三個月(yue)未(wei)還的(de)(de)，是挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)罪(zui)。本案(an)中，王(wang)某將鄉屬(shu)集體企業(ye)甲公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)的(de)(de)大(da)額(e)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)出借給乙公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)，明(ming)知(zhi)李(li)某用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)于公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)經營使用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)，能(neng)夠認定挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)進(jin)行(xing)營利(li)活(huo)動。能(neng)否認定其行(xing)為構成挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)罪(zui)，關(guan)鍵要(yao)看王(wang)某是否屬(shu)于“挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)歸個人(ren)使用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)”。

　　從《解釋》規定(ding)(ding)(ding)的(de)屬于(yu)挪(nuo)(nuo)用公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)歸(gui)(gui)個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)用的(de)三種情(qing)形看，挪(nuo)(nuo)用公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)的(de)使(shi)(shi)用對(dui)象(xiang)(xiang)可(ke)(ke)以(yi)是(shi)自(zi)然(ran)人(ren)(ren)(ren)也可(ke)(ke)以(yi)是(shi)單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)，根據公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)使(shi)(shi)用對(dui)象(xiang)(xiang)不(bu)同，認(ren)定(ding)(ding)(ding)“挪(nuo)(nuo)用公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)歸(gui)(gui)個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)用”的(de)條件(jian)也不(bu)盡相(xiang)同，這主要是(shi)基于(yu)二者社(she)會危(wei)險(xian)程度不(bu)同而做的(de)區分(fen)。挪(nuo)(nuo)用公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)罪(zui)的(de)行為(wei)(wei)本質是(shi)“公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)私用”，擅(shan)自(zi)將(jiang)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)脫離單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)的(de)管(guan)理與控制。在將(jiang)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)供(gong)自(zi)然(ran)人(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)用的(de)情(qing)形下(xia)，公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)流向(xiang)是(shi)單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)到自(zi)然(ran)人(ren)(ren)(ren)，直觀體現了“公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)私用”的(de)性質，能(neng)夠認(ren)定(ding)(ding)(ding)“挪(nuo)(nuo)用公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)歸(gui)(gui)個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)用”。而在將(jiang)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)供(gong)其他單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)使(shi)(shi)用的(de)情(qing)形下(xia)，公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)流向(xiang)為(wei)(wei)單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)到單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)，若認(ren)定(ding)(ding)(ding)“挪(nuo)(nuo)用公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)歸(gui)(gui)個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)用”，必須得滿足“以(yi)個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)名義”或者“個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)決(jue)定(ding)(ding)(ding)以(yi)單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)名義+謀取個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)利益”的(de)條件(jian)，否則根據罪(zui)刑法定(ding)(ding)(ding)原則，則不(bu)能(neng)認(ren)定(ding)(ding)(ding)構成(cheng)挪(nuo)(nuo)用公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)犯罪(zui)。因此，判(pan)斷(duan)“挪(nuo)(nuo)用公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)歸(gui)(gui)個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)(shi)用”，首先(xian)要界定(ding)(ding)(ding)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)使(shi)(shi)用對(dui)象(xiang)(xiang)是(shi)自(zi)然(ran)人(ren)(ren)(ren)還是(shi)單(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)。

　　本(ben)案中，公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)使(shi)用(yong)(yong)對(dui)象乙(yi)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)為只有(you)一(yi)(yi)個股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)的(de)(de)(de)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)，即“一(yi)(yi)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)”。從形式(shi)上看，“一(yi)(yi)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)”是(shi)具(ju)有(you)獨立(li)法(fa)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)格(ge)的(de)(de)(de)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)，屬于(yu)(yu)刑法(fa)意義上的(de)(de)(de)“單位”，國(guo)家工作人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)供(gong)(gong)“一(yi)(yi)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)”使(shi)用(yong)(yong)，原則(ze)上屬于(yu)(yu)挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)供(gong)(gong)其他單位使(shi)用(yong)(yong)。然而(er)實(shi)踐中，由(you)(you)于(yu)(yu)“一(yi)(yi)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)”全部股(gu)(gu)份或出資由(you)(you)唯(wei)一(yi)(yi)股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)控(kong)制，容易與(yu)股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)財產出現(xian)財產混(hun)同，并因此喪失法(fa)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)格(ge)的(de)(de)(de)獨立(li)性。對(dui)于(yu)(yu)“一(yi)(yi)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)”，我國(guo)《公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)法(fa)》規定了公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)財產混(hun)同情形下法(fa)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)格(ge)否認(ren)的(de)(de)(de)舉證(zheng)(zheng)責(ze)任倒(dao)置制度。《公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)法(fa)》第(di)二十(shi)三(san)條第(di)三(san)款(kuan)(kuan)明(ming)確規定，“只有(you)一(yi)(yi)個股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)的(de)(de)(de)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)，股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)不(bu)能證(zheng)(zheng)明(ming)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)財產獨立(li)于(yu)(yu)股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)自(zi)己的(de)(de)(de)財產的(de)(de)(de)，應當對(dui)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)債務承擔連帶責(ze)任”。也就是(shi)說，有(you)證(zheng)(zheng)據證(zheng)(zheng)明(ming)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)與(yu)股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)財產出現(xian)混(hun)同的(de)(de)(de)，或者無法(fa)證(zheng)(zheng)實(shi)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)與(yu)股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)財產相互獨立(li)的(de)(de)(de)，該“一(yi)(yi)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)”的(de)(de)(de)獨立(li)法(fa)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)格(ge)喪失，公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)格(ge)與(yu)股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)格(ge)混(hun)同。在(zai)這種情形下，挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)給(gei)“一(yi)(yi)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)”使(shi)用(yong)(yong)，相當于(yu)(yu)給(gei)唯(wei)一(yi)(yi)股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)本(ben)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)用(yong)(yong)，應認(ren)定挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)供(gong)(gong)自(zi)然人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使(shi)用(yong)(yong)。

　　本案中，乙公(gong)司(si)的公(gong)司(si)財產與股東李某(mou)個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)財產混(hun)同(tong)(tong)，已經(jing)不具備獨立的法人(ren)(ren)人(ren)(ren)格，王某(mou)將(jiang)公(gong)款(kuan)借給乙公(gong)司(si)使用(yong)，實(shi)質上等(deng)同(tong)(tong)于(yu)借給李某(mou)本人(ren)(ren)，其行為屬(shu)于(yu)《解釋》中“將(jiang)公(gong)款(kuan)供本人(ren)(ren)、親(qin)友或(huo)者其他自(zi)然人(ren)(ren)使用(yong)”情形，屬(shu)于(yu)“挪用(yong)公(gong)款(kuan)歸個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)使用(yong)”。

　　二、王(wang)某出借單位公款實質(zhi)上屬于“個人決定(ding)”

　　根據《紀(ji)要》規定，“經(jing)單位領導(dao)集體研究(jiu)決定將公款給個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)使用(yong)，或者單位負責人(ren)(ren)為(wei)了單位的(de)利益，決定將公款給個(ge)(ge)人(ren)(ren)使用(yong)的(de)，不以挪(nuo)用(yong)公款罪定罪處(chu)罰(fa)。上述行為(wei)致使單位遭受重大損(sun)失，構(gou)成其他犯(fan)罪的(de)，依照刑法的(de)有關規定對責任人(ren)(ren)員定罪處(chu)罰(fa)”。

　　這(zhe)條規(gui)定(ding)(ding)明確了(le)(le)，雖然將公(gong)(gong)(gong)款給個(ge)(ge)人(ren)使用，但如果是(shi)經單(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)領(ling)導(dao)集(ji)體研(yan)究(jiu)決(jue)定(ding)(ding)的(de)(de)(de)，或(huo)是(shi)單(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)負(fu)責(ze)人(ren)為(wei)了(le)(le)單(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)的(de)(de)(de)利益決(jue)定(ding)(ding)的(de)(de)(de)，相(xiang)關挪(nuo)(nuo)用行(xing)為(wei)不以挪(nuo)(nuo)用公(gong)(gong)(gong)款罪定(ding)(ding)罪處罰，換言(yan)之，這(zhe)是(shi)認(ren)定(ding)(ding)構成(cheng)(cheng)挪(nuo)(nuo)用公(gong)(gong)(gong)款罪的(de)(de)(de)兩個(ge)(ge)阻卻事由。究(jiu)其原因(yin)，從意(yi)志形成(cheng)(cheng)角度看(kan)，經單(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)領(ling)導(dao)集(ji)體研(yan)究(jiu)決(jue)定(ding)(ding)的(de)(de)(de)，或(huo)者單(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)負(fu)責(ze)人(ren)為(wei)了(le)(le)單(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)的(de)(de)(de)利益決(jue)定(ding)(ding)的(de)(de)(de)，均是(shi)代表(biao)單(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)形成(cheng)(cheng)的(de)(de)(de)意(yi)思(si)表(biao)示，體現了(le)(le)單(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)意(yi)志，在這(zhe)種意(yi)志支配下(xia)實施將公(gong)(gong)(gong)款給個(ge)(ge)人(ren)使用，屬于“公(gong)(gong)(gong)款公(gong)(gong)(gong)用”，不能認(ren)定(ding)(ding)為(wei)個(ge)(ge)人(ren)挪(nuo)(nuo)用行(xing)為(wei)，因(yin)此不以挪(nuo)(nuo)用公(gong)(gong)(gong)款罪論處。

　　對于是(shi)(shi)“經單位(wei)領導(dao)(dao)集體(ti)研(yan)究(jiu)決(jue)(jue)定(ding)(ding)”，還是(shi)(shi)單位(wei)負責人(ren)(ren)個人(ren)(ren)決(jue)(jue)定(ding)(ding)，不能只看形式，要(yao)從實(shi)質上把握。實(shi)踐中，有的雖然在形式上履行了單位(wei)集體(ti)決(jue)(jue)策(ce)程序，但實(shi)質上是(shi)(shi)由少(shao)數個人(ren)(ren)主導(dao)(dao)和(he)決(jue)(jue)定(ding)(ding)。比如，單位(wei)“一把手(shou)”獨斷專(zhuan)行、架空班子、“一言堂”決(jue)(jue)策(ce)，未讓其他(ta)班子成員發表(biao)意(yi)見(jian)，或(huo)者通(tong)過提前打(da)招呼等(deng)方式授意(yi)其他(ta)班子成員不要(yao)提反對意(yi)見(jian)，或(huo)者故意(yi)隱瞞事實(shi)真相、誘導(dao)(dao)班子成員做出集體(ti)決(jue)(jue)策(ce)等(deng)。這些(xie)都是(shi)(shi)為違規個人(ren)(ren)決(jue)(jue)定(ding)(ding)披上了集體(ti)決(jue)(jue)策(ce)的合法外衣，體(ti)現的是(shi)(shi)變相的個人(ren)(ren)意(yi)志，本(ben)質上屬于“個人(ren)(ren)決(jue)(jue)定(ding)(ding)”，不能認定(ding)(ding)為“經單位(wei)領導(dao)(dao)集體(ti)研(yan)究(jiu)決(jue)(jue)定(ding)(ding)”。

　　本案(an)中，表面上看，鄉屬集體企業甲(jia)(jia)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)作為(wei)出(chu)(chu)(chu)借(jie)(jie)方與乙公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)簽(qian)訂書面借(jie)(jie)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)協議，借(jie)(jie)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)、還款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)都以甲(jia)(jia)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)的名義進(jin)行，在(zai)(zai)案(an)C鄉黨(dang)(dang)委(wei)、甲(jia)(jia)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)的會(hui)議紀要均顯(xian)示(shi)曾研(yan)究(jiu)(jiu)(jiu)(jiu)上述(shu)出(chu)(chu)(chu)借(jie)(jie)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)項(xiang)，似乎(hu)屬于(yu)“經單(dan)位(wei)(wei)領導(dao)集體研(yan)究(jiu)(jiu)(jiu)(jiu)決(jue)(jue)(jue)定”出(chu)(chu)(chu)借(jie)(jie)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)。然而(er)，從決(jue)(jue)(jue)策程序看，甲(jia)(jia)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)出(chu)(chu)(chu)借(jie)(jie)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)宜的決(jue)(jue)(jue)策權(quan)在(zai)(zai)鄉黨(dang)(dang)委(wei)。甲(jia)(jia)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)的會(hui)議紀要雖(sui)(sui)然顯(xian)示(shi)曾研(yan)究(jiu)(jiu)(jiu)(jiu)上述(shu)出(chu)(chu)(chu)借(jie)(jie)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)項(xiang)，但實(shi)際(ji)上是(shi)按照王某的指示(shi)而(er)為(wei)，體現的是(shi)王某的意志；鄉黨(dang)(dang)委(wei)會(hui)議紀要雖(sui)(sui)然也(ye)顯(xian)示(shi)對此(ci)事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)進(jin)行了(le)研(yan)究(jiu)(jiu)(jiu)(jiu)，但鑒于(yu)該鄉黨(dang)(dang)委(wei)領導(dao)班(ban)子集體研(yan)究(jiu)(jiu)(jiu)(jiu)決(jue)(jue)(jue)定“三重一大”事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)項(xiang)的制度形(xing)同虛(xu)設(she)，王某對出(chu)(chu)(chu)借(jie)(jie)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)宜違(wei)規“拍板”，僅在(zai)(zai)班(ban)子會(hui)上通報有關(guan)情況(kuang)，未讓其他班(ban)子成員(yuan)發表意見，實(shi)質(zhi)上違(wei)反了(le)單(dan)位(wei)(wei)議事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)規則。根據(ju)《紀要》規定，“個人(ren)(ren)決(jue)(jue)(jue)定”既包(bao)括行為(wei)人(ren)(ren)在(zai)(zai)職(zhi)(zhi)權(quan)范圍內(nei)決(jue)(jue)(jue)定，也(ye)包(bao)括超(chao)越職(zhi)(zhi)權(quan)范圍決(jue)(jue)(jue)定。因此(ci)，甲(jia)(jia)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)出(chu)(chu)(chu)借(jie)(jie)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)宜不能認(ren)定為(wei)“經單(dan)位(wei)(wei)領導(dao)集體研(yan)究(jiu)(jiu)(jiu)(jiu)決(jue)(jue)(jue)定”，而(er)是(shi)屬于(yu)單(dan)位(wei)(wei)負責人(ren)(ren)決(jue)(jue)(jue)定將公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)(kuan)給個人(ren)(ren)使用(yong)。

　　三、王(wang)某出借單(dan)位(wei)公款(kuan)并(bing)非全部為了(le)單(dan)位(wei)利(li)益(yi)，實際(ji)上謀取了(le)個人利(li)益(yi)

　　如(ru)前(qian)所述，按照《紀(ji)要(yao)》相關(guan)規定(ding)(ding)，單(dan)(dan)(dan)位(wei)負責(ze)(ze)人為了單(dan)(dan)(dan)位(wei)的(de)(de)(de)(de)利益(yi)，決定(ding)(ding)將公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)給(gei)個人使用(yong)(yong)的(de)(de)(de)(de)，不(bu)以挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)罪(zui)定(ding)(ding)罪(zui)處罰(fa)。因此，對(dui)于單(dan)(dan)(dan)位(wei)負責(ze)(ze)人決定(ding)(ding)挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)給(gei)個人使用(yong)(yong)的(de)(de)(de)(de)情形，判斷是(shi)否構成挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)罪(zui)，關(guan)鍵(jian)要(yao)看是(shi)否“為了單(dan)(dan)(dan)位(wei)的(de)(de)(de)(de)利益(yi)”。從字面(mian)意思理解，“為了單(dan)(dan)(dan)位(wei)的(de)(de)(de)(de)利益(yi)”，強(qiang)調(diao)的(de)(de)(de)(de)是(shi)主觀(guan)(guan)目的(de)(de)(de)(de)，而非客(ke)觀(guan)(guan)結果(guo)。單(dan)(dan)(dan)位(wei)負責(ze)(ze)人決定(ding)(ding)將公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)給(gei)個人使用(yong)(yong)，如(ru)果(guo)主觀(guan)(guan)目的(de)(de)(de)(de)完全是(shi)為了單(dan)(dan)(dan)位(wei)利益(yi)，即使客(ke)觀(guan)(guan)上利益(yi)沒(mei)有兌現，也(ye)不(bu)以挪(nuo)用(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)罪(zui)論處。

　　具體(ti)到單(dan)(dan)位負(fu)責人(ren)決定出(chu)借(jie)公款(kuan)(kuan)而言，判斷(duan)是否(fou)系(xi)為了單(dan)(dan)位利(li)益，要從單(dan)(dan)位視角出(chu)發，綜(zong)合(he)(he)出(chu)借(jie)公款(kuan)(kuan)的(de)起因(yin)、借(jie)款(kuan)(kuan)時單(dan)(dan)位是否(fou)有出(chu)借(jie)公款(kuan)(kuan)需(xu)求、款(kuan)(kuan)項出(chu)借(jie)風險情況(kuang)、出(chu)借(jie)利(li)益歸屬(shu)及大小、單(dan)(dan)位負(fu)責人(ren)對單(dan)(dan)位款(kuan)(kuan)項出(chu)借(jie)條件的(de)主觀認知等方面進行綜(zong)合(he)(he)判斷(duan)。

　　實(shi)(shi)(shi)踐(jian)中，國家(jia)工作(zuo)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員出(chu)借(jie)單(dan)位公款(kuan)，有(you)時(shi)(shi)往(wang)往(wang)是謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)取(qu)(qu)單(dan)位利(li)(li)(li)(li)益(yi)(yi)和謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)取(qu)(qu)個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)利(li)(li)(li)(li)益(yi)(yi)相互交織并存(cun)(cun)。根據《紀(ji)要(yao)》規定(ding)，“謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)取(qu)(qu)個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)利(li)(li)(li)(li)益(yi)(yi)”，“既包(bao)括行為(wei)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)與使用(yong)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)事先約定(ding)謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)取(qu)(qu)個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)利(li)(li)(li)(li)益(yi)(yi)實(shi)(shi)(shi)際尚未獲取(qu)(qu)的(de)情(qing)況(kuang)，也包(bao)括雖(sui)未事先約定(ding)但實(shi)(shi)(shi)際已獲取(qu)(qu)了(le)個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)利(li)(li)(li)(li)益(yi)(yi)的(de)情(qing)況(kuang)。其中的(de)‘個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)利(li)(li)(li)(li)益(yi)(yi)’，既包(bao)括不(bu)正當利(li)(li)(li)(li)益(yi)(yi)，也包(bao)括正當利(li)(li)(li)(li)益(yi)(yi)；既包(bao)括財產性利(li)(li)(li)(li)益(yi)(yi)，也包(bao)括非財產性利(li)(li)(li)(li)益(yi)(yi)，但這種非財產性利(li)(li)(li)(li)益(yi)(yi)應當是具(ju)體的(de)實(shi)(shi)(shi)際利(li)(li)(li)(li)益(yi)(yi)，如(ru)升學、就業等”。此時(shi)(shi)，只要(yao)存(cun)(cun)在(zai)謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)取(qu)(qu)個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)利(li)(li)(li)(li)益(yi)(yi)情(qing)形，將公款(kuan)出(chu)借(jie)給(gei)個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使用(yong)的(de)行為(wei)就已經(jing)有(you)了(le)“公款(kuan)私用(yong)”的(de)性質(zhi)，能夠認(ren)定(ding)“挪用(yong)公款(kuan)歸個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使用(yong)”。因(yin)此，如(ru)果單(dan)位負責人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)決定(ding)將公款(kuan)出(chu)借(jie)給(gei)個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)使用(yong)，主觀(guan)上系(xi)為(wei)了(le)個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)利(li)(li)(li)(li)益(yi)(yi)或者客觀(guan)上存(cun)(cun)在(zai)謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)取(qu)(qu)個人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)利(li)(li)(li)(li)益(yi)(yi)事實(shi)(shi)(shi)的(de)，應以(yi)(yi)挪用(yong)公款(kuan)罪(zui)定(ding)罪(zui)處罰，即使同時(shi)(shi)還存(cun)(cun)在(zai)為(wei)單(dan)位謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)利(li)(li)(li)(li)的(de)情(qing)況(kuang)，也不(bu)能成為(wei)認(ren)定(ding)挪用(yong)公款(kuan)罪(zui)的(de)阻(zu)卻事由，只是可以(yi)(yi)作(zuo)為(wei)量(liang)刑情(qing)節(jie)予以(yi)(yi)考慮。

　　本案中，甲公(gong)(gong)(gong)司向(xiang)乙公(gong)(gong)(gong)司出(chu)借款項的(de)(de)起(qi)因是李(li)某(mou)為(wei)(wei)解決公(gong)(gong)(gong)司資金周轉困難(nan)，向(xiang)王某(mou)個(ge)人(ren)提(ti)起(qi)，C鄉黨委(wei)及(ji)甲公(gong)(gong)(gong)司起(qi)初并無出(chu)借公(gong)(gong)(gong)款的(de)(de)需求(qiu)和事由，出(chu)借錢(qian)款來源系甲公(gong)(gong)(gong)司按照王某(mou)的(de)(de)指示(shi)向(xiang)鄉黨委(wei)申(shen)請撥(bo)付的(de)(de)拆遷補償款，后出(chu)借給李(li)某(mou)用于乙公(gong)(gong)(gong)司經營(ying)使用。在(zai)(zai)此過程中，王某(mou)拍板決定(ding)出(chu)借甲公(gong)(gong)(gong)司公(gong)(gong)(gong)款，明確(que)利息歸(gui)屬為(wei)(wei)甲公(gong)(gong)(gong)司，看似有為(wei)(wei)單位謀利的(de)(de)考(kao)慮，但由于其(qi)兒子在(zai)(zai)李(li)某(mou)實(shi)際控制(zhi)的(de)(de)丙公(gong)(gong)(gong)司“掛名領薪”，客觀(guan)上(shang)存在(zai)(zai)謀取個(ge)人(ren)利益的(de)(de)事實(shi)。

　　綜上(shang)，王某作為(wei)單(dan)位負(fu)責(ze)人(ren)決(jue)定(ding)出(chu)借公款(kuan)(kuan)給個人(ren)使用，實(shi)際上(shang)謀取了(le)個人(ren)利益(yi)，并非(fei)全部為(wei)了(le)單(dan)位利益(yi)，應以挪用公款(kuan)(kuan)罪論處，其關于(yu)借款(kuan)(kuan)利息歸單(dan)位的約定(ding)不影響(xiang)案件定(ding)性。

　　另外(wai)，王(wang)某(mou)通(tong)過違反議事規(gui)則(ze)個人決定(ding)(ding)的(de)手段挪(nuo)(nuo)(nuo)用(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)2500萬元供乙公(gong)(gong)司使(shi)用(yong)(yong)，因乙公(gong)(gong)司經營(ying)不(bu)(bu)善，至(zhi)案發(fa)尚有2200萬元未予退還，其行(xing)(xing)為(wei)伴隨著濫用(yong)(yong)職(zhi)權，客觀上(shang)造(zao)(zao)成(cheng)(cheng)了公(gong)(gong)共財產重大損失，從(cong)形式看同(tong)時符合(he)濫用(yong)(yong)職(zhi)權罪(zui)(zui)構成(cheng)(cheng)要件(jian)。鑒于系(xi)同(tong)一行(xing)(xing)為(wei)觸(chu)犯(fan)(fan)兩種罪(zui)(zui)名，成(cheng)(cheng)立挪(nuo)(nuo)(nuo)用(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)罪(zui)(zui)和濫用(yong)(yong)職(zhi)權罪(zui)(zui)想象競合(he)犯(fan)(fan)，應(ying)(ying)從(cong)一重處斷。根(gen)據“兩高(gao)(gao)”《關于辦(ban)理貪污賄賂(lu)刑(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)事案件(jian)適用(yong)(yong)法律若干問(wen)(wen)題的(de)解釋》第(di)(di)六(liu)條(tiao)(tiao)規(gui)定(ding)(ding)，挪(nuo)(nuo)(nuo)用(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)進行(xing)(xing)營(ying)利活動，數(shu)額在五(wu)百(bai)萬元以上(shang)的(de)，應(ying)(ying)當認定(ding)(ding)為(wei)刑(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)法第(di)(di)三百(bai)八(ba)(ba)十(shi)四條(tiao)(tiao)第(di)(di)一款(kuan)(kuan)規(gui)定(ding)(ding)的(de)“數(shu)額巨大”，王(wang)某(mou)挪(nuo)(nuo)(nuo)用(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)符合(he)刑(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)法第(di)(di)三百(bai)八(ba)(ba)十(shi)四條(tiao)(tiao)“挪(nuo)(nuo)(nuo)用(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)數(shu)額巨大不(bu)(bu)退還的(de)”之情(qing)形，法定(ding)(ding)刑(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)十(shi)年以上(shang)有期(qi)徒(tu)刑(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)或者無期(qi)徒(tu)刑(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)。根(gen)據“兩高(gao)(gao)”《關于辦(ban)理瀆職(zhi)刑(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)事案件(jian)適用(yong)(yong)法律若干問(wen)(wen)題的(de)解釋（一） 》第(di)(di)一條(tiao)(tiao)規(gui)定(ding)(ding)，造(zao)(zao)成(cheng)(cheng)經濟損失150萬元以上(shang)的(de)，應(ying)(ying)當認定(ding)(ding)為(wei)刑(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)法第(di)(di)三百(bai)九十(shi)七(qi)條(tiao)(tiao)規(gui)定(ding)(ding)的(de)“情(qing)節特(te)別嚴重”，王(wang)某(mou)濫用(yong)(yong)職(zhi)權行(xing)(xing)為(wei)符合(he)刑(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)法第(di)(di)三百(bai)九十(shi)七(qi)條(tiao)(tiao)規(gui)定(ding)(ding)的(de)“情(qing)節特(te)別嚴重”，法定(ding)(ding)刑(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)三年以上(shang)七(qi)年以下有期(qi)徒(tu)刑(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)。由此可(ke)見，針對(dui)王(wang)某(mou)的(de)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)，挪(nuo)(nuo)(nuo)用(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)罪(zui)(zui)的(de)處罰更重，故應(ying)(ying)以挪(nuo)(nuo)(nuo)用(yong)(yong)公(gong)(gong)款(kuan)(kuan)罪(zui)(zui)定(ding)(ding)罪(zui)(zui)處罰。

　　（王宇靖 作(zuo)者單(dan)位：北京市(shi)朝(chao)陽區紀委監委）