论文部分内容阅读
2014年7月7目,南宁中院对此案进行了公开宣判。宣判后,笔者就案件审理过程中的几个问题,采访了该案审判长陈景光。笔者:在案件审理当中,辩护人提出公司内部员工的借款,是一种借贷,有别于非法吸收公众存款,这部分金额是否应当从犯罪总额中扣减出来?陈景光:纵观本案,案件中非法筹集的资金有两个部分。第一部分是通过购油返利得来的钱;第二部分来自员工的集资款。对于前一部分,被告人通过向社会公开宣传的方式,利用高额返利的形式向不特定的人群吸收公众存款,应当构成非法吸收公众存款罪。但是对于第二部分是否构成非法吸收公众存款罪控辩双方存在分歧。
July 2014 7 orders, Nanning Intermediate People’s Court made a public judgment on the case. After the sentencing, the author interviewed the case presiding judge Chen Jinguang on several issues in the process of hearing the case. Author: In the trial of the case, the defender proposed borrowing company employees, is a loan, unlike illegal deposits from the public, this part of the amount should be deducted from the total crime? Chen Jingguang: Throughout the case, the case of illegal The money raised has two parts. The first part is through the purchase of oil rebates from the money; the second part from the staff’s fund-raising. For the first part, if the accused uses the form of high rebates to absorb public deposits with unspecified people through publicity to the public, it should constitute the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits. However, there are differences between the prosecution and the defense whether the second part constitutes a crime of illegally absorbing public deposits.