作者：卢华富 毛灵见     2016-12-28

对《关于〈中华人民共和国刑法〉第九十三条第二款的解释》相关规定的解读

注：本文已获浙江省律师协会刑事专业委员会评比一等奖

摘要：“刑法的平等适用”是刑法的基本原则，村委会等基层组织人员涉及土地征收补偿费用的性质认定问题主要是村委会等基层组织人员的主体身份的确定问题，同样的行为因不同的身份认定将导致完全不同的刑法适用。村委会等基层组织人员本身并非国家工作人员，但2000年全国人大常委会作出的《关于<中华人民共和国刑法>第九十三条第二款的解释》中将村委会基层组织人员存在协助人民政府从事包括“土地征用补偿费用管理”等七种情形时以国家工作人员论。国家工作人员以从事国家公务为基本特征，土地征收补偿费用包括土地补偿费、安置补助费及地上附着物和青苗补助费等三项费用，而该三项费用分别归属于不同的主体并对应不同的管理要求，村委会等基层组织人员对该三项费用的管理既可能为协助政府的国家公务事项也可能是村集体的自治行为，具体的认定应结合国家公务的特点及国家工作人员的基本特征等因素综合予以确定。

关键词：  土地征收   基层组织   国家工作人员   挪用   侵占

全国人大常委会在2000年作出的《关于<中华人民共和国刑法>第九十三条第二款的解释》（以下简称《解释》）中规定，“村民委员会等村基层组织人员协助人民政府从事下列行政管理工作，属于刑法第九十三条第二款规定的‘其他依照法律从事公务的人员’：……（四）土地征用补偿费用的管理；……村民委员会等村基层组织人员从事前款规定的公务，利用职务上的便利，非法占有公共财物、挪用公款、索取他人财物或者非法收受他人财物，构成犯罪的，适用刑法第三百八十二条和第三百八十三条贪污罪、第三百八十四条挪用公款罪、第三百八十五条和第三百八十六条受贿罪的规定。”该《解释》虽然明确村委会等基层组织人员在协助人民政府进行“土地征用补偿费用的管理”为《刑法》第九十三条第二款的“其他依照法律从事公务的人员”，即刑法上的国家工作人员，但其毕竟还只是一种类型化的规定，在具体的适用过程中导致对同样犯罪行为却存在着不同的法律适用。

《解释》对村委会等基层组织人员在“土地征收补偿费用的管理”过程中以“国家工作人员”论的前提是“协助人民政府从事行政管理工作”，而村委会等基层组织基本定位是自我管理、自我教育、自我服务的群众性自治组织，在土地征收补偿费用的管理过程中从事自治事务和“协助人民政府从事行政管理工作”在某种程度上是交织在一起的。如何区分在“土地征收补偿费用的管理”过程中何者属于村委会的自治范围，何者属于“协助政府从事行政管理事务”，对于该问题的不同认识，将导致对在“土地征收补偿费用的管理”过程中涉及侵占、挪用的犯罪产生完全不同的定性和刑罚。本文试图从对国家工作人员本身的理解为切入点，并结合村委会等基层组织的性质以及土地征收补偿的费用的特点，厘清村委会等基层组织人员对土地征收费用管理的行为性质，明确其主体身份——即刑法上的国家工作人员还是一般的犯罪主体，进而对涉及土地征收补偿费用犯罪的性质认定提出笔者的理解，以期对促进相关立法的完善和司法实践的统一有所助益。

一、村委会等基层组织人员的主体身份

对村委会等基层组织人员涉及土地征收补偿费用的犯罪的认定，首先的一个争议就是其在土地征收补偿费用犯罪过程中的主体身份的如何认定问题，即应当认定为《刑法》第九十三条第二款规定的“其他依照法律规定的从事公务的人员”的国家工作人员的特殊主体，还是只是一般的犯罪主体。

（一）国家工作人员的内涵与特征

《刑法》第九十三条规定：“国家工作人员是指国家机关中从事公务的人员，国有公司、企业、事业单位、人民团体中从事公务的人员和国家机关、国有公司、企业、事业单位委派到非国有公司、企业、事业单位、社会团体从事公务的人员，以及其他依照法律从事公务的人员，以国家工作人员论”。从这一规定可以看出，认定为国家工作人员的前提必须是从事公务的人员，目前通行的观点也是将从事公务作为认定国家工作人员的基础。因此，笔者也赞同将“从事公务”作为认定国家工作人员本质特征的观点。

公务本身并非法律概念，按一般对公务的理解，其包括国家公务和集体公务，但刑法中的公务必须符合“公共性”的要求，并且是以公权力为依据。因为无论从刑法保护的公权力出发，还是从所要打击的公务行为考虑，都有必要对刑罚的发动作出一定的限制，这种限制符合刑罚的谦抑性。因此，尽管“公务”从一般意义上可以理解为包括国家公务和集体公务，但刑法上的公务应仅限于国家公务。国家公务的内容并非一成不变，随着经济体制改革和政治体制改革的日益深化，国家——社会——市场三元模式逐渐形成，先前本属于国家公务范畴的事项现在更多地通过大量非赢利性组织（即第三部门）得以实施，如律师协会、会计师协会等各类行业自治组织的职责里就已开始代替了一部分原属国家公务范畴的事务，并以非政府组织的身份承担着整个行业的自治与自律，而这部分社会领域并不存在传统意义上那种由国家强制力做后盾的公权力因素的涉及。因此，笔者认为公务应当具备如下的特点：一是具有管理性，即对公共事务进行管理。这里的公共事务比较广泛，既可以是国家事务，也可以是社会事务和集体事务，其范围涉及政治、经济、文化、军事、文体、卫生、科技以及同社会秩序有关的各种事务的管理；二是具有公共性的要求，以国家公权力即这种活动是代表国家而进行的。它是一种关涉国家公权力的行为，而不是代表某个人、某个集体、团体的行为，是国家权力的具体实现。

仅以是否从事国家公务来认定是否为国家工作人员是不完整的，还必须兼顾考虑其是否具有国家工作人员的编制身份特点。虽然从事国家公务是国家工作人员的职务核心所在，也正因为有公务的行使才让我们得以感知公权力的具体存在，才使国家公权的威严和效力得以彰显，而良好的国家权力又是我们人类现阶段维系整个社会有序和安全的基本保障。因此，对任何关涉损害国家权力的犯罪刑法都有必要予以特殊的打击，对于直接具体行使国家公权力的国家工作人员自然也有必要以特殊的主体予以专门规束。但是随着整个社会公民意识、个体主体意识的增强，保障基本人权逐渐成为我们政府和社会普遍共识的今天，以国家利益为表征的国家权力并不绝对为至高的利益，以国家利益（而且很多时候国家利益又是抽象和模糊的）作为压制基本人权的理由也并不绝然充分。因此，将国家工作人员予以特别规束不仅是因为其行使着代表国家公权力的公务，还在于其本身所具有的身份特征，这种身份使其享有着一般主体难以享受到的稳定的工资福利待遇——这种待遇使得国家工作人员在整个社会层级中足以确保享有中产者特有的稳定和安逸，以及某种程度的社会荣耀——尽管其工作内容本身在一般人看来似乎并无特别之处。所以，刑法对其职务的廉洁性作了比一般主体更为苛严的要求，这与其所享有的待遇也是一致的。

因此，《刑法》第九十三条所涵括的几种国家工作人员或以国家工作人员论的情形，除要求必须是从事国家公务的条件之外，均还需要求其具有相应国家人事编制以及享有以国家财产为支撑的工资福利的条件，即本身就具有国家工作人员的身份。

（二）村委会等基层组织人员与国家工作人员的比较

根据《宪法》和《村民委员会组织法》的规定，村民委员会是村集体组织行使自我管理、自我教育、自我服务的基层群众性自治组织，负责办理本村的公共事务和公益事业，调解民间纠纷，协助维护社会治安，向政府反映村民的意见、要求和提出建议。我们将村委会行使上述职能理解为公务是没有障碍的，但这里的公务显然并非我们刑法意义上的国家工作人员所指向的公务，并不具有与国家权力直接的关联性及国家代表性，其只是村集体组织成员为实现自我管理的一种组织设置。相比于《刑法》第九十三条所列明的几种国家工作人员享有以国家财产为支撑的固定的工资福利待遇而言，村委会等基层组织人员其本职还只是农民，村委会的工作仅是一种兼职或者是附带的事务，甚至在很多情况下，尤其是一些偏远地区的村落，其村委会的组成人员甚至根本没有工资待遇，更不要谈像国家工作人员那样接受其履职前的职务培训与考核。对于这样的主体，如果我们在刑法上要求其与享有固定的工资福利及定期的考核培训的国家工作人员相同对待，这恰恰不是平等适用刑法原则的贯彻和体现，而是一种严重的背离。因此，村委会等基层组织人员的性质同通常理解的国家工作人员之间存在本质的差异。

当然，我们这里的农村基层组织并不仅指村民委员会，还包括村党支部、村经联社、经济合作社、农工商联合企业、治保会、妇联、团支部、民兵排、村民小组和各种协会等，因为在实践中，这些基层组织的人员与村民委员会的组成人员常常是混淆或者重叠的，均在村民的自我管理中行使一定的职责，尤其是村党支部，作为中国共产党在农村的基层组织，与村委会共同行使着村民的自治管理职责。因此，本文所指的村委会等基层组织人员还包括如上组织的组成人员。

（三）村委会等基层组织人员认定为国家工作人员的可能性

按照如上对于国家工作人员的理解，村委会等基层组织人员与国家工作人员之间似乎并无关联性，但由于乡镇人民政府属于我国最低层级的行政机关，其行政管理工作直接面对广大的村民，加上受其本身行政资源的限制以及农村事务的复杂性，其很多的行政管理工作不得不在村委会等基层组织的协助下而开展，如《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于<中华人民共和国刑法>第九十三条第二款的解释》中所列举的“从事救灾、抢险、防汛、优抚、扶贫、移民、救济款物的管理，社会捐助公益事业款物的管理，国有土地的经营和管理，土地征收补偿费用的管理，代征、代缴税款，有关计划生育、户籍、征兵工作”等情形，这在一般情况下都属国家公务的范畴，具有管理性和国家权力关联性的特征。因此，如果仅以是否从事国家公务来作为认定国家工作人员的标准的话，那么，村委会等基层组织人员存在符合《解释》所确定的“协助人民政府从事行政管理工作”的七种情形时，认定为《刑法》第九十三条第二款规定的“其他依照法律从事公务的人员”并没有问题，而且该解释本身就具有立法的效力。因此，这为村委会等基层组织人员成为国家工作人员提供了事实上和法律上的可能性。

但是由于村委会等基层组织人员本身并不被列入国家工作人员编制，不享有国家财政支持的工资福利待遇，其行为与《刑法》第九十三条第二款所列明的三种情形中国家工作人员所实施的行为相比，其在接受委托协助政府管理过程中的贪腐行为也并不直接造成对整个国家吏治廉洁形象的破坏，对于国家公权力的损害较之于在编的国家工作人员而言显然要轻微的多。当然，从实证法的角度，笔者也无意否定《解释》所确定对认定村委会等基层组织人员认定为国家工作人员的规定，但由于国家工作人员在刑法上是属于特殊主体，在定罪和量刑上较之于一般的主体要更为苛严，根据刑法的刑罚谦抑性，在认定村委会等基层组织人员从事《解释》所确定的七种情形时，至少应当予以从严把握。

二、涉及土地征收补偿费用犯罪的具体认定

从上述的分析中可知，村委会等基层组织人员其本身并非国家工作人员，但因协助人民政府履行国家公务而成就其国家工作人员的身份，下文中主要从其在土地征收费用管理的整个过程中的性质来展开对其涉及土地征收补偿费用的犯罪性质认定。

（一）土地征收补偿费用管理的性质——国家公务或集体公务

根据我国《宪法》、《物权法》及《土地管理法》的规定，国家为了公共利益需要，可以对集体土地进行征用或征收并给予补偿。因此，对于土地被征收者的补偿本身就是国家征收土地过程中一个必不可少的环节，在对被征地者实施具体补偿的过程中对征地补偿费用的管理自然也是国家公务的应有内容之一。村委会等基层组织协助人民政府进行土地征收补偿费用的管理的行为，因为政府的管理和村委会的协助性工作共同构成土地征收补偿的整体，其主导行为是政府的国家公务行为，村委会等基层组织是协助实施的亦是国家公务的内容，故村委会等基层组织的行为也体现了国家的代表性，也应当认定为国家公务行为。

但是土地征收补偿费用是一个集合概念，根据《土地管理法》的规定，土地征收补偿费用包括土地补偿费、安置补助费、地上附着物和青苗补助费。同时《土地管理法实施条例》规定，土地补偿费归农村经济组织所有；地上附着物和青苗的补偿费归地上附着物和青苗的所有者所有。征地的安置补助费必须专款专用，不得挪作他用。需要安置的人员由农村集体经济组织安置的，安置补助费支付给集体经济组织，由农村集体经济组织管理和使用；由其他单位安置的，安置补助费支付给安置单位；不需要统一安置的，安置补助费发放给被安置人员个人或者征得被安置人员同意后用于支付被安置人员的保险费用。市、县和乡（镇）人民政府应加强对安置补助费使用情况的监督。由此可看出这三项费用的性质并非全然一致，土地补偿费受偿者直接为农村经济组织，安置补助费因不同的安置方式归属也不同，而地上附作物和青苗补助费则直接为所有者所有。同时，《物权法》第五十九条第二款规定,对于土地征收补偿费等费用的使用和分配由本集体的成员经法定程序决定。因此，土地征收补偿费等费用的使用和分配本身也是村集体自决的事项。故村委会等基层组织对“土地征收补偿费用的管理”并非全然为国家公务行为，还应当结合国家公务的特征及管理行为本身的性质，来确定村委会等基层组织人员在管理和使用土地补偿费用过程中的行为是否符合《解释》规定的“协助人民政府”对“土地征用补偿费用的管理”。

（二）具体的罪名认定

根据最高人民检察院的《关于贯彻执行全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于〈中华人民共和国刑法〉第九十三条第二款的解释的通知》规定，“村民委员会等村基层组织人员协助人民政府从事《解释》所规定的行政管理工作中发生的利用职务上的便利，非法占有公共财物、挪用公款、索取他人财物或者非法收受他人财物，构成犯罪的案件，应直接受理，分别适用刑法第三百八十二条、第三百八十三条、第三百八十四条和第三百八十五条、第三百八十六条的规定，以涉嫌贪污罪、挪用公款罪、受贿罪立案侦查。”因此，笔者也主要对土地征收补偿费用管理过程中涉嫌贪污罪、挪用公款罪、受贿罪的认定予以探讨；同时为更清晰的呈现涉及土地征收的犯罪脉络，笔者先对涉及的各项费用予以类型化剖述。

1.涉及土地补偿费的犯罪

对于土地补偿费部分，因为《土地管理法实施条例》明确规定土地补偿费为农村经济组织所有，因此，该款项自进入村集体账户之后，其所有权就应由原先国家所有转变为村集体所有。当然，由于土地补偿费的获得是伴随着村集体赖以支撑的土地的丧失为代价，这意味着土地对村民的保障性功能的削弱，因此，很多地方对于土地补偿费的管理和使用也作了较为严格的限制，正如《浙江省人民政府关于加强和改进土地征收工作的通知》中指出的：“……土地补偿费属农村集体经济组织所有，乡镇等其他任何单位不得截留或变相截留。土地补偿费的数额、分配和参加基本生活保障的对象要纳入村务公开的内容。土地补偿费要纳入公积金管理，实行专款专用，用于被征地农民参保、发展生产、公益性建设，不得平分到户，也不得列为集体经济债务清欠资金……”尽管该规定对土地征收补偿费用的管理和使用作了特殊的要求，但是我们从中也可以看出对于该费用的管理和使用还是村集体组织自治范围内的事项，虽然也涉及管理性的事务，但这并不是代表国家而行使的，不具有国家公权力的关联性。因此，笔者认为，村委会等基层组织对于土地补偿费的管理应认定是村集体公务的范畴。

但在司法实践中，有些法院认为，在村集体对土地征收补偿费用未进行提留之前，对土地征收补偿费用的管理均应认定为协助人民政府的行政管理的公务行为。笔者认为依该规定并不合理，扩大了国家公务的范围。因为土地补偿费一旦进入村集体帐户之后，其就已经完成了性质的转变，至于提留与否和提留多少这应都是村集体组织自决的事项，这里明显已是集体资金了，而且与国家公务行为指向的对象——公款，也明显不符的，这对本身欠缺国家编制身份的村委会等基层组织人员来说是不公平的，也背离了刑法的罪行法定原则。

因此，在村委会等基层组织人员涉及土地征收补偿费的管理过程中，如果土地征收补偿费尚未打入村集体帐户的，其在协助政府确定补偿费过程中涉嫌利用职务上的便利，非法占有公共财物、挪用公款、索取他人财物或者非法收受他人财物的，且符合其他犯罪构成条件的，则应当认定为贪污罪、挪用公款罪或受贿罪。但这种情况实际上是极少发生的，因为在政府确定土地征收补偿方案后，土地补偿资金直接就打入了村集体帐户，除了专门负责补偿费拨付的政府官员之外，中间很少有村委会等基层人员有接触的机会。因此，在土地补偿费管理过程中涉及犯罪的，主要涉嫌构成职务侵占罪、非国家工作人员受贿罪、挪用资金罪。

2.涉及安置补助费的犯罪

对于涉及安置补助费犯罪性质的认定，则相对较为复杂。《土地管理法实施条例》虽然规定土地征收的安置补助费必须用于村民的安置，且安置也是国家在土地征收后对被征地农民的应有义务，如若是由政府负责组织实施，那认定为国家公务自然没有问题。但实践中政府只负责相应的安置方案的确定和安置补助费用的拨付，政府在确定安置方案时或选择由农村集体经济组织负责安置，或由其他单位安置，或不需统一安置的安置补助费用直接发放于被安置个人或征得被安置人员同意用于支付保险费用。若是确定由其他单位负责安置的，安置补助费一般由政府直接支付于安置单位，也就不涉及村委会等基层组织人员对安置补助费的管理问题，因此，以下主要就涉及由集体经济组织负责安置及安置补助费直接发放于被安置个人的情形进行分析。

（1）由村集体负责安置的情形。

《土地管理法实施条例》第二十六规定，需要安置的人员由村集体经济组织安置的，安置补助费用直接支付于村集体经济组织，由农村集体经济组织管理和使用。这里的安置补助费用管理和使用属于国家公务还是村集体公务，或者说是协助人民政府的管理行为还是村集体的自治行为？对此，有观点认为：安置补助费费是由省级以上人民政府确定的，必须专款专用，村集体经济组织只有管理权和使用权，不具有所有权，在发放到村民之前只能按照安置基金来对待，属于公款；而且村集体对安置补助费的管理和使用是在政府监督之下进行的，因此其行为应属于协助人民政府的管理行为。但是笔者认为，《土地管理法实施条例》中之所以未如同规定土地补偿费一样明确规定安置补助费为集体所有，是因为安置补助费并不必然为村集体组织所有，还存在直接支付于其他安置单位或直接支付给被安置个人或作被安置主体的保险费用等情形。但若是由村集体负责安置的，安置补助费拨付村集体组织后，村集体作为独立存在的法律主体，只要是将该费用用于安置的，其完全有权对该费用进行自主的管理和使用，即便是作为一项安置基金，笔者认为也不应当认定为国家公款。

正如由其他单位负责安置而直接将安置款支付于其他单位一样，其他负责安置的单位对收到的安置补助费是否也不具所有权，那显然是不成立的，既然由其负责进行安置，那当然该费用应由其所有，对于由村集体经济组织安置的也是同样道理。而且政府也只是对该费用的管理和使用进行相应的监督，并不实质性的干涉该费用的使用。这从国土资源部颁发的《关于完善征地补偿安置制度的指导意见》（国土资发[2004]238号）中也可以得到相同的观点，其中规定：“征地补偿安置方案经市、县人民政府批准后，应按法律规定的时限向被征地农村集体经济组织拨付征地补偿安置补助费用。当地国土资源部门应配合农业、民政等有关部门对被征地集体经济组织内部征地补偿安置补助费用的分配和使用情况进行监督”。至于村集体组织如何确保安置的有效进行及安置补助费的安全性，则应是如何完善村集体的决策程序和监督机制的问题。因此，笔者认为，政府在确定安置方案并拨付安置补助费之后便已完成了其行使国家公务的使命，村委会对于安置补助费用的管理和使用则应当是村集体自治范围内的事项，在由村集体组织负责安置的过程中，村委会等基层组织人员涉及安置补助费用犯罪的，应当按一般的犯罪主体对待。

（2）安置补助费直接发放于被安置个人或支付被安置个人保险费用的情形。

按照《土地管理法实施条例》的规定，不需要统一安置的，安置补助费发放给被安置人员或者征得被安置人员同意后用于支付被安置人员的保险费用。具体包括两种情形：一是补偿方案确定时就明确将安置补助费发放于需安置人员的情形，二是需安置人员放弃统一安置，要求村集体支付安置补助费的情形。对于第一种情形，由于安置方案中就已明确了安置补助费直接归属于被安置个人，此时的安置与被安置的主体直接为政府与被安置个人，该费用与村集体组织并无直接关联，但实践中可能通过村委会等基层组织负责具体的安置补助费发放，这种情形下村委会等基层组织对于安置补助费用的管理是协助政府的一种行为，故应认定为国家公务行为，在此过程中实施的涉及安置补助费用的犯罪应以国家工作人员认定。对于第二种情形，笔者认为，虽然安置补助费最终归属于被安置个人了，但此时关于安置补助费的主体双方只是村集体经济组织和被安置个人，是安置方案明确为集体经济组织负责安置后被安置个人的自主行为，并不涉及村委会等基层组织的国家代表性问题，也不影响村集体负责安置及该过程中对安置补助费管理的村集体公务行为的性质。

此外，还存在另外一种情形，由于需安置人员主要是针对耕地被征收的情况下而存在的，但实践中被征收的土地并非全然为耕地，还包括村未利用地、工矿土地等非耕地土地，而按照《土地管理法》及各省市的具体规定，在征收非耕地土地的情况下是仍需支付安置补助费的，这就导致现实中出现村集体获得安置补助费后却根本不存在安置的问题。那么如何处置这部分费用，或者如何看待这部分费用，对于这笔费用的管理属于协助政府的国家公务行为还是集体公务行为。笔者认为，既然不存在安置的问题，其也就失去了安置补助费本有的意义，但由于这些非耕地土地通常都为集体所有且又不存在具体的安置补助费受支付个体，故该笔费用自然也应为村集体所有，至于如何使用及管理也应是村集体的自治事项，村委会等基层组织人员涉及该费用犯罪的，应以一般犯罪主体对待。

3、涉及地上附着物和青苗补助费的犯罪

对于涉及地上附着物和青苗补助费部分，从地上附着物和青苗补助费的性质来看，它是国家对地上附着物和青苗所有者因土地征收而造成地上附着物和青苗损失而进行的直接补偿，双方的主体直接为国家和地上附着物和青苗的所有者，村委会等基层组织在涉及该费用的管理和发放时只是协助政府，其过程直接体现着国家的代表性，并不涉及村集体的自治问题。因此，在将地上附着物和青苗补助费发放到村民手中之前，应当认定为协助人民政府从事行政管理的公务行为，在地上附着物和青苗补助费打入村集体帐户而未发放到村民手中前的这段时间，村委会等基层组织人员涉嫌利用职务上的便利，非法占有公共财物、挪用公款、索取他人财物或者非法收受他人财物的，且符合其他犯罪构成条件的，则应当认定为贪污罪、挪用公款罪或受贿罪，并不存在职务侵占罪、非国家人员受贿罪或挪用资金罪的情形。

以上是对涉及土地征收补偿各项费用犯罪的类型化模型分析，现实之中由于土地征收补偿各项目费用一般都是通过转账一齐打入村集体账户的，且由于村集体往往只有一个基本账户，不仅各项目的土地征收补偿费用存在混同，而且还同村集体原有的其他集体资金存在混同的问题。从而导致相关犯罪指向款项常常也是杂合一起的，可能既涉及土地补偿费的犯罪，也涉及安置补助费和地上附作物和青苗补助费甚至村原有集体资金的犯罪，这就面临如果以上两项费用或者三项费用均有涉及时应如何认定犯罪性质的问题。具体的司法实践中，有些法院以犯罪行为人实施犯罪时的主观状态作为区分侵占、挪用上述的具体款项，如果有证据证明是明确指向土地征收补偿费用的，那么就以涉及相关土地征收补偿费用的犯罪来认定，否则就以涉及相关的集体资金的犯罪进行认定。这一做法符合刑法上在认定犯罪时的主客观一致的要求，而且在无法证明犯罪具体指向款项的情况下推定为侵害较轻的法益，符合刑法谦抑性的要求。

因此，笔者认为，在具体认定涉及土地征收补偿费用犯罪过程中无法区分涉及具体的哪项费用时，如果所涉及的数额属于较轻法益的金额范围之内的，那么应以侵犯较轻法益的情形来认定。就具体而言，在土地补偿费用打入村集体组织之后，涉及上述费用侵占、挪用的，如果无法区分是具体哪部分款项，且挪用的金额可以涵括在土地补偿费范围内的，那么就应当认定为只涉及对土地征收补偿费的侵占或挪用，倘若有超出部分的，则按另外所涉及的费用情形进行认定。

三、结语

《刑法》第九十三条关于国家工作人员范围的规定以及《解释》本身的合理性暂不予评论，从实证法的角度来说，毕竟实在法才是一切法律思维的起点，已制定且尚还生效的法律都理应予以执行和遵守。因此，笔者无意于否定村委会等基层组织人员在其协助人民政府从事国家公务的过程中以“国家工作人员”论的规定，但是由于《解释》条文本身的抽象性，虽然《解释》对村委会等基层组织人员在何种情形下应认定为国家工作人员已作了类型化的规定，但这依然无法消除刑事司法实践中对于该问题的争议，尤其像本文所主要探讨的涉及“土地征收补偿费用的管理”过程中犯罪性质认定问题，由于对国家公务以及土地征收补偿费用管理的性质有不同的认识，导致了具体司法实践过程中罪名的认定和刑罚的适用均存在不同做法，这不仅侵害刑法被适用者享有的“刑法平等适用”的权利，而且这本身也是对刑法的统一性和严肃性的莫大侵害。因此，笔者希望通过此文的探讨，以便有助于引起有关立法部门的注意并进而完善相关的立法以及统一具体的司法适用。

注释：

[1]笔者认为，解释中使用的“征用”应理解为“征收”之意，因为征用并不涉及土地所有权的变更问题，其结果只是被征用者土地使用权短期丧失，并不涉及土地补偿费、安置补助费等费用支付和管理。而且《土地管理法》中主要也指土地征收情况下的土地补偿费用计算和管理的问题，这从《宪法修正案》（四）、《物权法》等相关法律法规中也可得到相应的印证。故本文也主要采“征收”之意来对其进行展开论述。

[1]如果认为是属于村委会自治范围内涉及侵占或挪用的，则仅涉嫌构成职务侵占罪和挪用资金罪，如果认为是属于“协助人民政府从事行政管理工作”的则涉嫌构成贪污罪和挪用公款罪。而这将导致完全不同的刑罚后果，如同样的挪用行为，若认定为挪用公款罪的，其基本的量刑幅度为5年以下有期徒刑，其中具有加重情节的量刑幅度内最高更是达至无期徒刑；而挪用资金罪的基本量刑幅度则仅为3年以下有期徒刑或者拘役，加重情节的量刑幅度也只是3至10年有期徒刑，显然两者不可同日而语。

[1]关于村委会等基层组织人员是否属于国家工作人员的问题，目前主要有三种观点：一是否定说，认为村委会等基层组织并非一级政权组织，其人员不应列入国家工作人员范围；二是肯定说，持该观点者认为，村委会等基层组织人员虽不属于一级政权组织人员，但依照《村委会组织法》经群众选举产生，同时又受各级政府的委托从事大量的行政事务，代表一定的政府形象，必须从严管理；三是折衷说，持该说者认为，从事公务是国家工作人员的本质特征，这种公务仅限于国家公务，集体公务不在此中，但村委会等基层组织接受政府委托从事计划生育管理等国家事务时，属于从事国家公务，应当认定为国家工作人员。祥见赵秉志主编的《中国刑法典型案例研究——贪污贿赂与渎职犯罪》（第五卷），北京大学出版社2008年出版，第60页。

[1]赵秉志、于志刚、孙勤：《论国家工作人员范围的界定》，《法律科学》，1999年第5期,第118页。

[1]康诚：《论刑法中的“公务”》，《现代法学》，2008年第7期,第87页。

[1]林杰坤：《论国家工作人员的法律认定》，《中山大学报论丛》，2002第4期,第11页。

[1]《最高人民法院关于办理违反公司法受贿、侵占、挪用等刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第四条第二款规定：“《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于惩治违反公司法的犯罪的决定》第十二条所说的国家工作人员，是指在国有公司、企业或者其他公司、企业中行使管理职权，并具有国家工作人员身份的人员，包括受国有公司、国有企业委派或者聘请，作为国有公司、国有企业代表，在中外合资、合作、股份制公司、企业中，行使管理职权，并具有国家工作人员身份的人员。”这里也强调了国家工作人员身份特征的要求。

[1]《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于<中华人民共和国刑法>第九十三条第二款的解释释义》.卫东网：http://www.weidong.gov.cn/ReadNews.asp?NewsID=12178 (2009年4月9日访问)。

[1]从《最高人民法院关于审理涉及农村土地承包纠纷案件适用法律问题的解释》(法释[2005]6号) 的第二十四条规定中也可以得出相同的观点，其中规定“村集体经济组织或者村民委员会、村民小组，可以依照法律规定的民主议定程序，决定在本集体经济组织内部分配已经收到的土地补偿费。征地补偿安置方案确定时已经具有本集体经济组织成员资格的人，请求支付相应份额的，应予支持”。显然最高院也视土地征收补偿费的管理为村集体的自治事务的。

[1]浙江省高院、浙江省检察院、浙江省公安厅联合发布的《关于村委会等基层组织人员利用职权实施犯罪适用法律若干问题的解答》指出：“土地征收补偿费用发放到村，村集体尚未提留前，村基层组织人员对土地征收补偿费用的侵吞、挪用行为，应认定为贪污或挪用公款罪。土地征收补偿费发放到村，村集体提留后，村基层组织人员侵吞、挪用应当发放给农户的资金，以贪污或挪用公款罪认定；侵吞村提留的资金，以职务侵占罪或挪用资金罪认定。”显然这里是将“村集体提留“作为划分”国家公务和集体公务的界点。

[1]土地补偿费未提留之前若涉及被挪用和贪污的，其涉及的影响面确实较为大，但这是如何加强对土地征收补偿款的监管及完善村集体的决策程序的问题，并非刑法所能关涉，而且这也完全可以作为量刑过程中的一个情节来予考虑，但对于其行为本身的定性则绝对是不允许超越刑法规定之外的，否则这是对刑法本身的一种伤害。

[1]何伟亚、朱伟春：《村干部贪污土地补偿费的是与非》天涯法律网

http://www.hicourt.gov.cn/theory/artilce_list.asp?id=4636&l_class=6 2009年4月11日访问。

[1]《浙江省土地管理实施办法》第三十条第二款：“需用地单位安排就业的，可以采用以下方式：（１）符合用地单位用工要求的，由用地单位优先招用；（２）委托劳动就业服务机构安排就业；（３）其他方式。安置补助费付给安排就业的单位。对自谋职业的，安置补助费付给本人。需安排就业的人数，按被征用耕地面积与原劳均耕地之比计算，其农业户口按省的有关规定转为非农业户口。”由此可知，若由其他单位负责安置的，安置补助费直接支付于负责安置的单位的。

[1]《最高人民法院关于审理涉及农村土地承包纠纷案件适用法律问题的解释》第二十三条规定：“承包地被依法征收，放弃统一安置的家庭承包方，请求发包方给付已经收到的安置补助费的，应予支持。”

[1]浙江省高院、浙江省检察院、浙江省公安厅联合发布的《关于村委会等基层组织人员利用职权实施犯罪适用法律若干问题的解答》：“有证据证实行为人主观意图明确指向土地补偿费用的，侵吞、挪用的资金在土地征用补偿费用数额内的，以贪污、挪用公款罪认定；超过的部分认定为职务侵占罪、挪用资金罪。没有证据能够证实行为人主观意图指向土地补偿费用的，以职务侵占或挪用资金罪认定；超过村集体资金、属于土地征用补偿费用的部分，以贪污罪或挪用公款罪认定。”

参考文献：

1、贝卡里亚著、黄凤译：《论犯罪与刑罚》,中国大百科全书出版社2003版

2、曲新久、陈兴良、张明楷等编著：《刑法学》，中国政法大学出版社2008版

3、高铭瑄、马克昌主编：《刑法学》，高等教育出版社/北京大学出版社2004版

3、赵秉志、于志刚、孙勤：《论国家工作人员范围的的界定》，《法律科学》，1999年第5期

4、林杰坤：《论国家工作人员的法律认定》，《中山大学报论丛》2002年第4期

4、康诚：《论刑法中的“公务”》，《现代法学》2008年第7期

5、马庆炜、张冬霞：《对刑法93条中“从事公务”的理解——兼论“公家工作人员”的立法完善》，《中国公安大学报》，2005年第5期

6、最高人民法院刑一庭、刑二庭主编：《刑事审判参考》(2005年第一集.总第42集），法律出版社2005版

7、赵秉志主编：《中国刑法典案例研究——贪污贿赂与渎职犯罪》（第五卷），北京大学出版社2008版

5、《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于<中华人民共和国刑法>第九十三条第二款的解释释义》卫东网：http://www.weidong.gov.cn/ReadNews.asp?NewsID=12178 (2009年4月9日访问)

6、何伟亚、朱伟春：《村干部贪污土地补偿费的是与非》天涯法律网

http://www.hicourt.gov.cn/theory/artilce_list.asp?id=4636&l_class=6 (2009年4月11日访问)

7、张建兵：《挪用、贪污土地征收补偿款罪名的认定》，《中国审计》，2007年第23期

Author: Lu Huafu, Mao Ling See December 28, 2016

Interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Interpretation of the Second Paragraph of Article 93 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China

Note: This article has won the first prize of the Criminal Professional Committee of Zhejiang Lawyers Association

Abstract: "Equal application of criminal law" is the basic principle of criminal law. The nature determination of compensation fees for land expropriation by village committees and other grassroots organizations is mainly the determination of the subject identity of village committees and other grassroots organizations. The same behavior will lead to completely different application of criminal law due to different identity determination. The staff of village committees and other grass-roots organizations are not state functionaries themselves, but in the Interpretation of the Second Paragraph of Article 93 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China issued by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in 2000, the staff of village committees and other grass-roots organizations who assist the people's government in seven situations, including "management of land acquisition compensation fees", are regarded as state functionaries. The basic feature of the state staff is to be engaged in public affairs. The compensation fees for land acquisition include land compensation fees, resettlement subsidies, and subsidies for attachments and young crops on the ground. These three fees belong to different subjects and correspond to different management requirements. The management of the three fees by the village committee and other grassroots organizations may be either to assist the government in public affairs or to the autonomy of the village collective, The specific identification should be determined in combination with the characteristics of national public service and the basic characteristics of national staff.

Key words: land expropriation, grassroots organization, national staff, misappropriation and occupation

The Interpretation of the Second Paragraph of Article 93 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Interpretation) made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in 2000 stipulates that, "The villagers' committees and other village grassroots organizations who assist the people's government in the following administrative work are 'other persons who are engaged in public affairs in accordance with the law' as stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 93 of the Criminal Law:...... (4) Management of compensation fees for land acquisition Where a member of a village committee or other grass-roots organization of a village engages in the public service prescribed in the preceding paragraph and, taking advantage of his position, illegally occupies public property, misappropriates public funds, extorts property from others or illegally accepts property from others, which constitutes a crime, the provisions of Articles 382 and 3813 of the Criminal Law on the crime of embezzlement, 384 on the crime of misappropriating public funds, 385 and 386 on the crime of accepting bribes shall apply. " Although the Interpretation clearly defines that the village committees and other grassroots organizations' personnel assisting the people's government in the "management of land acquisition compensation fees" as "other personnel engaged in public service in accordance with the law" in the second paragraph of Article 93 of the Criminal Law, that is, the state functionaries in the criminal law, after all, it is still a kind of typed provision, which leads to different legal applications to the same criminal acts in the specific application process.

According to the Interpretation, the premise of the "national staff" theory in the process of "management of compensation fees for land acquisition" by the village committee and other grassroots organizations is to "assist the people's government in administrative work", while the basic orientation of the village committee and other grassroots organizations is self-management, self-education and self-service mass autonomous organizations, To some extent, it is intertwined to engage in autonomous affairs and "assist the people's government in administrative work" in the management of land acquisition compensation fees. How to distinguish which belongs to the autonomy scope of the village committee and which belongs to "assisting the government to engage in administrative affairs" in the process of "management of land acquisition compensation fees"? Different understandings of this issue will lead to completely different characterization and penalties for crimes involving embezzlement and misappropriation in the process of "management of land acquisition compensation fees". This article attempts to clarify the nature of the behavior of village committees and other grass-roots organizations in the management of land expropriation fees, and clarify their subject identity - that is, the state staff in the criminal law is still a general criminal subject - from the understanding of the state staff itself as the entry point, and in combination with the nature of village committees and other grass-roots organizations and the characteristics of land expropriation compensation fees, And then put forward the author's understanding of the nature of the crime involving land expropriation compensation fees, in order to help promote the perfection of relevant legislation and the unification of judicial practice.

1、 Main body identity of village committees and other grassroots organizations

For the identification of the crime of village committees and other grass-roots organizations involving land expropriation compensation fees, the first dispute is how to identify their subject identity in the process of the crime of land expropriation compensation fees, that is, whether they should be identified as the special subject of the state functionaries who are "other persons engaged in public affairs according to the law" as stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 93 of the Criminal Law, or just a general criminal subject.

（1） Connotation and characteristics of national staff

Article 93 of the Criminal Law stipulates that "State functionaries refer to those who are engaged in public service in State organs, those who are engaged in public service in state-owned companies, enterprises, institutions and people's organizations, and those who are assigned by State organs, state-owned companies, enterprises and institutions to non-state-owned companies, enterprises, institutions and social organizations to engage in public service, as well as other personnel who are engaged in public service in accordance with the law.". It can be seen from this provision that the premise of identifying as a national staff member must be those engaged in public affairs, and the current prevailing view is also to take the engagement of public affairs as the basis for identifying national staff members. Therefore, the author also agrees with the view that "engaging in public service" is regarded as the essential characteristic of state functionaries.

Public service itself is not a legal concept. According to the general understanding of public service, it includes national public service and collective public service. However, public service in criminal law must meet the requirements of "publicity" and be based on public power. Because whether from the public power protected by the criminal law or from the consideration of the official acts to be attacked, it is necessary to make certain restrictions on the launch of punishment, which is consistent with the modesty of punishment. Therefore, although "public service" can be understood as including national public service and collective public service in a general sense, public service in criminal law should be limited to national public service. The content of national public service is not unchangeable. With the deepening of economic and political system reform, the state society market ternary model has gradually formed. Previously, matters that originally belonged to the category of national public service are now more implemented through a large number of non-profit organizations (i.e. the third sector), such as the Bar Association The accountancy association and other various industrial autonomous organizations have begun to take the place of some affairs originally belonging to the national public service category in their duties, and assume the autonomy and self-discipline of the whole industry as non-governmental organizations. However, this part of the social field does not involve the public power factors that are traditionally backed by the national coercive force. Therefore, the author believes that public affairs should have the following characteristics: First, it is managerial, that is, it manages public affairs. The public affairs here are relatively extensive, which can be national affairs, social affairs and collective affairs. Their scope involves the management of politics, economy, culture, military, sports, health, science and technology, and various affairs related to social order; The second is the requirement of publicity, which means that such activities are carried out on behalf of the state with the public power of the state. It is an act related to the public power of the state, not an act on behalf of an individual, a collective, or a group. It is the concrete realization of state power.

It is not complete to determine whether they are national staff only by whether they are engaged in national public service, and they must also consider whether they have the characteristics of the staffing status of national staff. Although engaging in public affairs is the core of the duties of national staff, it is precisely because of the exercise of public affairs that we can perceive the specific existence of public power, so that the dignity and effectiveness of national public power can be demonstrated, and good national power is the basic guarantee for maintaining the order and security of the entire society at this stage of our mankind. Therefore, it is necessary to give special punishment to any criminal law related to the damage to the state power, and it is also necessary to regulate the state functionaries who directly and specifically exercise the state power with special subjects. However, with the enhancement of the whole society's civic consciousness and individual subject consciousness, the protection of basic human rights has gradually become the common understanding of our government and society today. The national power represented by the national interest is not absolutely the supreme interest, and the reason for suppressing basic human rights based on the national interest (and often the national interest is abstract and vague) is not absolutely sufficient. Therefore, the special regulation of state functionaries is not only because they exercise official duties representing the public power of the state, but also because of their own identity characteristics, which makes them enjoy stable wages and benefits that are difficult for general subjects to enjoy - such treatment enables state functionaries to ensure the stability and comfort of the middle class in the whole social hierarchy, And a certain degree of social honor - although its work content itself seems to be nothing special to ordinary people. Therefore, the criminal law has made more stringent requirements on the integrity of their posts than the general subject, which is consistent with the treatment they enjoy.

Therefore, in addition to the requirements for engaging in national public service, the conditions for several state functionaries included in Article 93 of the Criminal Law, or in the case of state functionaries, also require that they have the corresponding national personnel establishment and enjoy the conditions for the employment benefits supported by the state property, that is, they themselves have the status of state functionaries.

（2） Comparison between the staff of village committees and other grass-roots organizations and the national staff

According to the Constitution and the Organic Law of Villagers' Committees, villagers' committees are grass-roots mass autonomous organizations where village collective organizations exercise self-management, self-education and self service. They are responsible for handling public affairs and public welfare undertakings in the village, mediating civil disputes, assisting in maintaining public order, and reflecting villagers' opinions, requirements and suggestions to the government. We understand that there is no obstacle for the village committee to perform the above functions as official duties, but the official duties here are obviously not the official duties pointed out by the state staff in the sense of our criminal law, and do not have a direct connection with the state power and national representation. It is just an organizational setting for village collective organization members to achieve self-management. Compared with several state functionaries listed in Article 93 of the Criminal Law who enjoy fixed wages and benefits supported by state property, members of village committees and other grass-roots organizations are still farmers. The work of village committees is only a part-time job or an incidental affair. In many cases, especially in villages in remote areas, members of village committees do not even have wages, Not to mention receiving job training and assessment before performing their duties like national staff. For such subjects, if we require them to be treated the same as the state functionaries who enjoy fixed wages and benefits and regular assessment and training in criminal law, this is not the implementation and embodiment of the principle of equal application of criminal law, but a serious deviation. Therefore, there is an essential difference between the nature of the staff of village committees and other grass-roots organizations and the national staff as commonly understood.

Of course, the rural grass-roots organizations here do not only refer to the villagers' committees, but also include the village party branches, village economic cooperatives, economic cooperatives, agricultural and industrial joint enterprises, management and insurance associations, women's federations, league branches, militia platoons, villagers' groups and various associations. Because in practice, the personnel of these grass-roots organizations are often confused or overlapped with the members of the villagers' committees, and all exercise certain responsibilities in the villagers' self-management, In particular, the village party branch, as the grass-roots organization of the Communist Party of China in the countryside, and the village committee jointly exercise the villagers' autonomous management responsibilities. Therefore, the village committees and other grassroots organizations referred to in this paper also include the members of the above organizations.

（3） The possibility of the village committee and other grass-roots organization personnel being identified as national staff

According to the above understanding of the state staff, there seems to be no correlation between the village committees and other grassroots organizations and the state staff. However, because the township people's governments belong to the lowest level of administrative organs in China, their administrative work is directly facing the vast number of villagers, coupled with the restrictions of their own administrative resources and the complexity of rural affairs, Many of its administrative work has to be carried out with the assistance of village committees and other grass-roots organizations, As listed in the Interpretation of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on the Second Paragraph of Article 93 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, "management of funds and materials for disaster relief, emergency rescue, flood control, preferential treatment, poverty alleviation, migration and relief, management of funds and materials donated by the public welfare, operation and management of state-owned land, management of compensation fees for land collection, collection and payment of taxes on behalf, family planning, household registration and conscription" In general, it belongs to the category of national public service, with the characteristics of management and relevance of national power. Therefore, if only whether to engage in public service is taken as the standard for identifying national staff, then there is no problem for the village committee and other grass-roots organization personnel to be identified as "other personnel engaged in public service in accordance with the law" according to the second paragraph of Article 93 of the Criminal Law when they meet the seven situations of "assisting the people's government to engage in administrative work" defined in the Interpretation, And the interpretation itself has the effect of legislation. Therefore, it provides the possibility in fact and in law for village committees and other grass-roots organizations to become national staff.

However, because the personnel of village committees and other grass-roots organizations themselves are not included in the national staff establishment and do not enjoy the salary and welfare benefits supported by the state finance, their behavior is compared with the behavior of the national staff in the three situations listed in the second paragraph of Article 93 of the Criminal Law, and their corruption behavior in the process of accepting the entrustment to assist the government in management does not directly cause damage to the image of integrity of the whole country's officials, The damage to the public power of the state is obviously much less than that of the national staff on the payroll. Of course, from the perspective of empirical law, the author also has no intention to deny the provisions of the Interpretation on the identification of village committees and other grass-roots organizations as state functionaries. However, because the state functionaries are special subjects in the criminal law, they are more strict in conviction and sentencing than the general subjects. According to the modest nature of criminal punishment, when determining that village committees and other grass-roots organizations are engaged in the seven situations identified in the Interpretation, At least it should be strictly controlled.

2、 Specific Identification of Crimes Involving Compensation Fees for Land Expropriation

From the above analysis, it can be seen that village committees and other grassroots organizations are not national staff themselves, but they have achieved their status as national staff by assisting the people's government to perform national duties. The following section will mainly identify the criminal nature of land expropriation compensation fees from their nature in the whole process of land expropriation fee management.

（1） The Nature of the Management of Compensation Fees for Land Expropriation -- State or Collective Public Affairs

According to the provisions of the Constitution, the Property Law and the Land Management Law of our country, the state can expropriate or expropriate collective land and give compensation for the need of public interests. Therefore, the compensation for the land expropriated is an essential link in the process of national land acquisition, and the management of land acquisition compensation fees in the process of implementing specific compensation for the land expropriated is naturally one of the due contents of national official business. The village committee and other grass-roots organizations assist the people's government in the management of land acquisition compensation fees. Because the government's management and the village committee's assistance work together constitute the whole of land acquisition compensation, its leading behavior is the government's public service behavior. The village committee and other grass-roots organizations are also assisting in the implementation of the national public service, so the behavior of the village committee and other grass-roots organizations also reflects the representativeness of the country, It should also be recognized as a state official act.

However, land acquisition compensation fees are a collective concept. According to the provisions of the Land Management Law, land acquisition compensation fees include land compensation fees, resettlement subsidies, land attachments and young crops subsidies. At the same time, the Regulations on the Implementation of the Land Management Law stipulates that the land compensation fees shall be owned by rural economic organizations; The compensation fees for the ground attachments and young crops shall belong to the owners of the ground attachments and young crops. The resettlement subsidy for land requisition must be used for a specific purpose and may not be used for other purposes. If the persons who need to be resettled are resettled by rural collective economic organizations, the resettlement subsidies shall be paid to the collective economic organizations, which shall manage and use them; In case of resettlement by other units, resettlement subsidies shall be paid to the resettlement units; If there is no need for unified resettlement, the resettlement subsidy shall be paid to the individual resettled or used to pay the insurance expenses of the resettled after obtaining the consent of the resettled. The municipal, county and township (town) people's governments shall strengthen supervision over the use of resettlement subsidies. It can be seen from this that the nature of these three costs is not completely consistent. The land compensation fee payee is directly a rural economic organization. The resettlement subsidy belongs to different resettlement methods, while the subsidy for land attached crops and young crops is directly owned by the owner. At the same time, the second paragraph of Article 59 of the Property Law stipulates that the use and distribution of land expropriation compensation fees and other fees shall be decided by the members of the collective through legal procedures. Therefore, the use and distribution of land acquisition compensation fees and other fees is also a matter of village collective self-determination. Therefore, the "management of land acquisition compensation fees" by village committees and other grass-roots organizations is not entirely a state official act. It should also be determined whether the behavior of village committees and other grass-roots organizations in the process of managing and using land compensation fees conforms to the "assisting the people's government" in the "management of land acquisition compensation fees" specified in the Interpretation, in combination with the characteristics of the state official business and the nature of the management behavior itself.

（2） Specific conviction

According to the Circular of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Implementing the Interpretation of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on the Second Paragraph of Article 93 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, "Villagers' committees and other village grassroots organizations assist the people's government in the interpretation" The cases of illegal possession of public property, misappropriation of public funds, extortion of property from others, or illegal receipt of property from others, which constitute crimes, shall be directly accepted, and the provisions of Articles 382, 383, 384, 385, and 386 of the Criminal Law shall apply respectively The crime of accepting bribes is put on file for investigation. " Therefore, the author also mainly discusses the identification of suspected corruption, misappropriation of public funds, and bribery in the process of land acquisition compensation cost management; At the same time, in order to more clearly present the criminal context involving land expropriation, the author first gives a typological analysis of the costs involved.

1. Crimes involving land compensation

As for the part of land compensation fees, since the Regulations on the Implementation of the Land Management Law clearly stipulates that the land compensation fees are owned by rural economic organizations, the ownership of the funds has changed from the original state ownership to the village collective ownership since they were entered into the village collective account. Of course, since the acquisition of land compensation is accompanied by the loss of the land on which the village collective relies, which means that the land has weakened the security function for the villagers, many places have also made strict restrictions on the management and use of land compensation, As pointed out in the Notice of Zhejiang Provincial People's Government on Strengthening and Improving Land Acquisition: "...... The land compensation fee is owned by the rural collective economic organization, and no other unit such as towns and villages may withhold or withhold in disguised form. The amount, distribution and objects participating in the basic living security of the land compensation fee should be included in the content of the village affairs disclosure. The land compensation fee should be included in the management of the public accumulation fund, which should be used exclusively for the purpose of participating in the insurance, development of production, and public welfare construction of land requisitioned farmers. It should not be divided equally among households, nor should it be listed as a collective economic debt Clearing up the arrears... "Although the provision has special requirements for the management and use of land acquisition compensation fees, we can also see from it that the management and use of the fees is still within the scope of village collective organization autonomy. Although it also involves administrative matters, it is not exercised on behalf of the state, and does not have the relevance of national public power. Therefore, the author believes that the management of land compensation fees by village committees and other grass-roots organizations should be recognized as the category of village collective public affairs.

However, in judicial practice, some courts believe that the management of land acquisition compensation fees should be recognized as an official act to assist the people's government in administrative management before the village collective has withheld the land acquisition compensation fees. The author believes that the provision is unreasonable and expands the scope of national public service. Because once the land compensation fee is entered into the village collective account, it has completed the transformation of its nature. As for whether to retain and how much to retain, it should be a matter of self-determination for the village collective organization. It is obviously collective funds here, and it is also obviously inconsistent with the target of the state's official acts - public funds, which is unfair to the village committee and other grassroots organization personnel who lack the identity of the state, It also deviates from the principle of legality in criminal law.

Therefore, in the management process of village committees and other grassroots organizations involved in land expropriation compensation, if the land expropriation compensation has not been paid into the village collective account, they are suspected of taking advantage of their positions to illegally occupy public property, misappropriate public funds, ask for other people's property or illegally accept other people's property in the process of assisting the government to determine the compensation, and they meet other conditions for constituting a crime, they should be identified as corruption crimes Crime of misappropriating public funds or accepting bribes. However, this rarely happens, because after the government has determined the compensation plan for land acquisition, the land compensation funds are directly transferred into the village collective account. Except for the government officials who are specially responsible for the allocation of compensation fees, there are few opportunities for village committees and other grass-roots personnel to contact. Therefore, if crimes are involved in the management of land compensation fees, they are mainly suspected to constitute the crime of duty embezzlement, the crime of accepting bribes by non state staff, and the crime of misappropriating funds.

2. Crimes involving resettlement subsidies

The identification of the criminal nature of resettlement subsidies is relatively complicated. Although the Regulations on the Implementation of the Land Management Law stipulates that the resettlement subsidy for land acquisition must be used for the resettlement of villagers, and the resettlement is also the due obligation of the state to the farmers whose land has been expropriated. If the government is responsible for organizing the implementation, it will be deemed that there is no problem with the state's official business. However, in practice, the government is only responsible for the determination of the corresponding resettlement plan and the allocation of resettlement subsidies. When determining the resettlement plan, the government either chooses the rural collective economic organization to be responsible for the resettlement, or other units to be responsible for the resettlement, or the resettlement subsidies that do not require unified resettlement are directly distributed to the resettled individuals or used to pay the insurance costs with the consent of the resettled people. If it is determined that other units are responsible for resettlement, the resettlement subsidies are generally paid by the government directly to the resettlement units, which does not involve the management of resettlement subsidies by village committees and other grassroots organizations. Therefore, the following mainly analyzes the situation where the collective economic organizations are responsible for resettlement and the resettlement subsidies are directly distributed to the resettled individuals.

(1) The village collective is responsible for resettlement.

According to Article 26 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Land Management Law, if the persons to be resettled are to be resettled by the village collective economic organization, the resettlement subsidies will be paid directly to the village collective economic organization and managed and used by the rural collective economic organization. The management and use of resettlement subsidies here belong to the state's official business or the village collective's official business, or the management act of assisting the people's government or the autonomy act of the village collective? In this regard, some people hold the view that resettlement subsidies are determined by the people's government at or above the provincial level and must be used for specific purposes. Village collective economic organizations only have the right to manage and use them, and do not have ownership. Before they are distributed to villagers, they can only be treated as resettlement funds, which belong to public funds; Moreover, the management and use of resettlement subsidies by village collectives are under the supervision of the government, so their behavior should belong to the management behavior of assisting the people's government. However, the author believes that the reason why the Regulations on the Implementation of the Land Management Law does not explicitly stipulate that resettlement subsidies are collectively owned as land compensation fees is that resettlement subsidies are not necessarily owned by village collective organizations, and there are also insurance fees that are directly paid to other resettlement units, or directly paid to the resettled individuals or as the resettled subject. However, if the village collective is responsible for resettlement, after the resettlement subsidy is allocated to the village collective organization, the village collective, as an independent legal subject, has the right to independently manage and use the cost as long as it is used for resettlement. Even as a resettlement fund, the author believes that it should not be recognized as national public funds.

Just as other units are responsible for resettlement and directly pay the resettlement funds to other units, it is obviously untenable whether other units responsible for resettlement have no ownership of the resettlement subsidies received. Since they are responsible for resettlement, of course, the cost should belong to them, and the same is true for resettlement by village collective economic organizations. In addition, the government only supervises the management and use of the cost, and does not substantially interfere with the use of the cost. The same view can be obtained from the Guiding Opinions on Improving the Land Requisition Compensation and Resettlement System (GTZF [2004] No. 238) issued by the Ministry of Land and Resources, It stipulates that "after the land acquisition compensation and resettlement scheme is approved by the municipal and county people's governments, the land acquisition compensation and resettlement subsidies shall be allocated to the rural collective economic organizations with land acquisition within the time limit prescribed by law. The local land and resources departments shall cooperate with the relevant departments such as agriculture and civil affairs to supervise the distribution and use of the land acquisition compensation and resettlement subsidies within the collective economic organizations with land acquisition". As for how the village collective organizations ensure the effective implementation of resettlement and the security of resettlement subsidies, it should be how to improve the decision-making procedures and supervision mechanism of the village collective. Therefore, the author believes that the government has completed its mission of exercising national official duties after determining the resettlement plan and allocating resettlement subsidies. The management and use of resettlement subsidies by the village committee should be within the scope of village collective autonomy. In the process of the village collective organization being responsible for the resettlement, the village committee and other grass-roots organization personnel involved in the resettlement subsidy crime should be treated as ordinary criminal subjects.

(2) The resettlement subsidies are directly paid to the resettled individuals or the insurance premiums of the resettled individuals are paid.

According to the provisions of the Regulations on the Implementation of the Land Management Law, if there is no need for unified resettlement, resettlement subsidies shall be paid to the resettled persons or used to pay the insurance expenses of the resettled persons after obtaining their consent. Specifically, there are two situations: first, when the compensation scheme is determined, the resettlement subsidy will be paid to the people to be resettled; second, the people to be resettled will give up the unified resettlement and require the village collective to pay the resettlement subsidy. For the first case, as the resettlement plan has made it clear that the resettlement subsidies directly belong to the resettled individuals, the main body of resettlement and resettlement at this time is the government and the resettled individuals, and the costs are not directly related to the village collective organizations, but in practice, the village committee and other grass-roots organizations may be responsible for the specific resettlement subsidies, In this case, the management of resettlement subsidies by village committees and other grass-roots organizations is an act of assisting the government, so it should be recognized as a state official act. Crimes involving resettlement subsidies committed in this process should be recognized by state staff. For the second case, the author believes that although the resettlement subsidy ultimately belongs to the resettled individual, the main parties of the resettlement subsidy at this time are only the village collective economic organization and the resettled individual, which is the independent behavior of the resettled individual after the resettlement plan clearly states that the collective economic organization is responsible for resettlement, and does not involve the national representation of village committees and other grass-roots organizations, It also does not affect the nature of the village collective's official behavior of the village collective responsible for resettlement and the management of resettlement subsidies in this process.

In addition, there is another situation, because the resettlement personnel mainly exist when the cultivated land is expropriated, but the land expropriated in practice is not all cultivated land, but also includes the unused land of villages, industrial and mining land and other non cultivated land. According to the Land Management Law and the specific provisions of each province and city, the resettlement subsidy is still required to be paid when the non cultivated land is expropriated, This leads to the fact that there is no resettlement problem after the village collective receives resettlement subsidies. Then how to deal with this part of expenses, or how to view this part of expenses, and whether the management of this part of expenses belongs to the national public service act of assisting the government or the collective public service act. The author believes that since there is no resettlement problem, it will lose the original significance of the resettlement subsidy. But since these non cultivated land are usually collectively owned and there is no specific individual to be paid for the resettlement subsidy, the cost should also be owned by the village collective. As for how to use and manage the cost, it should also be a matter of autonomy for the village collective. The village committee and other grassroots organizations involved in the cost crime, It should be treated as a general subject of crime.

3. Crimes involving ground attachments and subsidies for young crops

For the part involving the subsidies for aboveground attachments and young crops, from the nature of the subsidies for aboveground attachments and young crops, it is the direct compensation of the state for the losses of aboveground attachments and young crops caused by land expropriation. The main body of both parties is directly the state and the owners of aboveground attachments and young crops. The village committee and other grass-roots organizations only assist the government in the management and distribution of the fees, Its process directly reflects the representativeness of the country, and does not involve the autonomy of the village collective. Therefore, before the above ground attachments and crop subsidies are distributed to the villagers, they should be recognized as assisting the people's government in the public administration. During the period before the above ground attachments and crop subsidies are transferred to the village collective account but not distributed to the villagers, the village committee and other grassroots organizations are suspected of taking advantage of their positions to illegally occupy public property, misappropriate public funds Those who ask for or illegally accept the property of others, and meet the constitutive requirements of other crimes, shall be identified as the crime of corruption, misappropriation of public funds or bribery, and there is no crime of official embezzlement, bribery of non-state personnel or misappropriation of funds.

The above is a typological model analysis of crimes involving various expenses of land expropriation compensation. In reality, because the expenses of various items of land expropriation compensation are generally transferred to the village collective account, and because the village collective often has only one basic account, there is confusion not only between the land expropriation compensation expenses of various items, but also with other original collective funds of the village collective. As a result, the money directed by related crimes is often mixed together, which may involve not only the crime of land compensation, but also the crime of resettlement subsidies, subsidies for crops and young crops attached to the land, and even the original collective funds of the village. This will face the problem of how to determine the criminal nature if the above two or three expenses are involved. In specific judicial practice, some courts use the subjective state of the perpetrator when committing a crime to distinguish the appropriation and misappropriation of the above specific funds. If there is evidence to prove that it clearly points to the compensation fees for land expropriation, it will be identified as a crime involving the compensation fees for land expropriation, otherwise it will be identified as a crime involving the relevant collective funds. This practice is in line with the requirements of the criminal law for the consistency of subjective and objective in the determination of crimes, and is presumed to infringe on lesser legal interests when it cannot be proved that the crime specifically points to money, which is in line with the requirements of the criminal law for modesty.

Therefore, the author believes that when it is impossible to distinguish which specific fees are involved in the specific determination of the crime involving compensation fees for land expropriation, if the amount involved falls within the scope of the amount of the lighter legal interests, then it should be determined in the case of infringement of the lighter legal interests. To be specific, after the land compensation fees are paid to the village collective organizations, if the above fees are involved in embezzlement and misappropriation, if it is impossible to distinguish which part of the money is involved, and the amount of misappropriation can be included in the scope of land compensation fees, then it should be identified as only involved in the embezzlement or misappropriation of land expropriation compensation fees. If there is an excess part, it should be identified according to the other fees involved.

3、 Conclusion

The provisions of Article 93 of the Criminal Law on the scope of state functionaries and the rationality of the Interpretation itself will not be commented for the time being. From the perspective of positive law, after all, positive law is the starting point of all legal thinking. Laws that have been formulated and are still in force should be implemented and observed. Therefore, the author has no intention to deny the provision that village committees and other grassroots organization personnel use the theory of "national staff" in the process of assisting the people's government to engage in national public affairs. However, due to the abstract nature of the provisions of the Interpretation, although the Interpretation has made typological provisions on the circumstances under which village committees and other grassroots organization personnel should be recognized as national staff, However, this still cannot eliminate the dispute over this issue in criminal justice practice, especially the problem of determining the nature of crime in the process of "management of land acquisition compensation fees", which is mainly discussed in this paper. Due to different understanding of the nature of state affairs and the management of land acquisition compensation fees, there are different practices in the identification of charges and the application of penalties in specific judicial practice, This not only infringes the right of "equal application of criminal law" enjoyed by those who apply criminal law, but also greatly infringes the unity and seriousness of criminal law. Therefore, the author hopes that through the discussion of this article, it will help to attract the attention of the relevant legislative departments and further improve the relevant legislation and unify the specific judicial application.

Notes:

[1] The author believes that the "expropriation" used in the interpretation should be understood as "expropriation", because the expropriation does not involve the change of land ownership, and the result is only the short-term loss of the land use right of the expropriated, and does not involve the payment and management of land compensation fees, resettlement subsidies and other fees. Moreover, the Land Management Law mainly refers to the calculation and management of land compensation fees in the case of land acquisition, which can also be confirmed by the Constitution Amendment (IV), Property Law and other relevant laws and regulations. Therefore, this article also mainly uses the meaning of "expropriation" to discuss it.

[1] If it is considered to be within the autonomy scope of the village committee and involved in embezzlement or misappropriation, it is only suspected to constitute the crime of job embezzlement and misappropriation of funds. If it is considered to be "assisting the people's government in administrative work", it is suspected to constitute the crime of corruption and misappropriation of public funds. This will lead to completely different criminal consequences. If the same act of misappropriation is identified as the crime of misappropriation of public funds, its basic sentencing range is not more than five years of fixed-term imprisonment, of which the maximum sentencing range with aggravating circumstances is life imprisonment; The basic sentencing range of the crime of misappropriation of funds is only three years or less of fixed-term imprisonment or criminal detention, and the sentencing range of aggravating circumstances is only three to 10 years of fixed-term imprisonment, obviously the two cannot be compared.

[1] At present, there are three main views on whether the personnel of grass-roots organizations such as village committees belong to the national staff: first, the negative view that the grass-roots organizations such as village committees are not level one political power organizations and their personnel should not be included in the scope of national staff; The second is to affirm that those who hold this view believe that although the members of the village committee and other grass-roots organizations do not belong to the first level political power organization, they are elected by the masses in accordance with the Organic Law of the Village Committee, and are entrusted by governments at all levels to engage in a large number of administrative affairs, representing a certain government image, and must be strictly managed; The third is the compromise theory. Those who hold this view believe that engaging in public affairs is the essential feature of national staff. This kind of public affairs is limited to national public affairs, not collective public affairs. However, when village committees and other grass-roots organizations are entrusted by the government to engage in national affairs such as family planning management, they are engaged in national public affairs and should be recognized as national staff. See Zhao Bingzhi's Typical Case Study of Chinese Criminal Law - Corruption, Bribery and Dereliction of Duty (Volume V), Peking University Press, 2008, page 60.

[1] Zhao Bingzhi, Yu Zhigang, Sun Qin: On the Definition of the Scope of State Personnel, Legal Science, 1999, Issue 5, page 118.

[1] Kang Cheng: On "Public Affairs" in Criminal Law, Modern Law, No. 7, 2008, page 87.

[1] Lin Jiekun: On the Legal Identification of State Personnel, Sun Yat sen University Newspaper Series, 2002, Issue 4, Page 11.

[1] The second paragraph of Article 4 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Bribery, Embezzlement and Misappropriation in Violation of the Company Law stipulates that "the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Punishing Crimes in Violation of the Company Law" Article 12 "State functionaries" mentioned in Article 12 refer to those who exercise management functions and powers in state-owned companies, enterprises or other companies and enterprises and have the status of state functionaries, including those who are appointed or hired by state-owned companies or enterprises to exercise management functions and powers as representatives of state-owned companies and enterprises in Sino foreign joint ventures, cooperatives, joint-stock companies and enterprises and have the status of state functionaries. " This also emphasizes the requirements for the identity characteristics of national staff.

[1] Interpretation of Paragraph 2 of Article 93 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. Weidong: http://www.weidong.gov.cn/ReadNews.asp?NewsID=12178 (Accessed on April 9, 2009).

[1] The same view can be drawn from the provisions of Article 24 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Rural Land Contract Disputes (Fa Shi [2005] No. 6), It stipulates that "the village collective economic organization or the villagers' committee or the villagers' group may, in accordance with the democratic negotiation procedure prescribed by law, decide to distribute the land compensation fees received within the collective economic organization. Those who have been qualified as members of the collective economic organization when the land requisition compensation and resettlement plan is determined shall be supported if they request to pay the corresponding share". Obviously, the Supreme Court also regards the management of land expropriation compensation fees as an autonomous affair of the village collective.

[1] Zhejiang Provincial High Court, Zhejiang Provincial Procuratorate The Answers to Several Questions about the Law Applicable to the Villagers' Committees and Other Grass roots Organizations Who Use Their Power to Commit Crimes jointly issued by the Zhejiang Provincial Public Security Department pointed out that: "The embezzlement and misappropriation of land expropriation compensation fees by village grassroots organization personnel shall be deemed as the crime of embezzlement or misappropriation of public funds before the village collective has withheld the land expropriation compensation fees. After the land expropriation compensation fees are distributed to the village and the village collective has withheld them, the village grassroots organization personnel embezzle and misappropriate the funds that should be distributed to farmers, which shall be identified as the crime of embezzlement or misappropriation of public funds; misappropriation of the funds withheld by the village, which shall be identified as the crime of official misappropriation or misappropriation Determination of capital crime. " It is obvious that this is the boundary point to divide the national public service and the collective public service.

[1] Before the land compensation fee is withheld, if it involves misappropriation and corruption, its impact is indeed relatively large, but this is how to strengthen the supervision of land expropriation compensation and improve the decision-making process of village collectives, which is not related to the criminal law, and it can also be considered as a plot in the sentencing process, but the characterization of its behavior is absolutely not allowed to go beyond the provisions of the criminal law, Otherwise, it is an injury to the criminal law itself.

[1] He Weiya, Zhu Weichun: The Right and Wrong of Village Cadres' Compensation for Corruption of Land

http://www.hicourt.gov.cn/theory/artilce_list.asp?id=4636&l_class=6 Accessed on April 11, 2009.

[1] The second paragraph of Article 30 of the Measures for the Implementation of Land Administration in Zhejiang Province: "If a land user needs to arrange employment, the following methods can be used: (1) if the land user meets the employment requirements of the land user, the land user will have priority in employment; (2) entrust a labor employment service agency to arrange employment; (3) Other methods. The resettlement subsidy is paid to the unit that arranges employment. For those who seek employment on their own, resettlement subsidies shall be paid to them. The number of people to be employed shall be calculated according to the ratio of the area of cultivated land requisitioned to the average cultivated land of the original labor, and their agricultural household registration shall be transferred to non-agricultural household registration according to the relevant provincial regulations. " It can be seen that if other units are responsible for resettlement, resettlement subsidies will be paid directly to the units responsible for resettlement.

[1] Article 23 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Rural Land Contract Disputes stipulates that "the family contractors who have expropriated the contracted land according to law and abandoned the unified resettlement shall be supported if they request the employer to pay the resettlement subsidies they have received."

[1] Zhejiang Provincial High Court, Zhejiang Provincial Procuratorate The Public Security Department of Zhejiang Province jointly issued the Answers to Several Questions on the Law Applicable to the Villagers' Committees and Other Grass roots Organizations Who Use Their Power to Commit Crimes: "If there is evidence to prove that the subjective intention of the perpetrator clearly points to the land compensation fees, if the funds misappropriated or misappropriated are within the amount of the land requisition compensation fees, it shall be determined as the crime of embezzlement or misappropriation of public funds; if the excess part is determined as the crime of official misappropriation or misappropriation of funds. If there is no evidence to prove that the subjective intention of the perpetrator points to the land compensation fees, it shall be determined as the crime of official misappropriation or misappropriation of funds; if the amount exceeds the village collective funds, it belongs to the crime of land requisition The part of the compensation shall be determined as the crime of embezzlement or misappropriation of public funds. "

References:

1. On Crime and Punishment, written by Beccaria and translated by Huang Feng, Encyclopedia of China Press, 2003

2. Criminal Law, written by Qu Xinjiu, Chen Xingliang, Zhang Mingkai, etc., China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2008

3. Gao Mingxuan and Mark Chang: Criminal Law, Higher Education Press/Peking University Press, 2004

3. Zhao Bingzhi, Yu Zhigang, Sun Qin: On the Definition of the Scope of State Personnel, Legal Science, 1999, Issue 5

4. Lin Jiekun: On the Legal Identification of State Personnel, Sun Yat sen University Journal Series, 2002, Issue 4

4. Kang Cheng: On "Public Affairs" in Criminal Law, Modern Law, 2008, Issue 7

5. Ma Qingwei, Zhang Dongxia: Understanding of "Engaging in Public Affairs" in Article 93 of the Criminal Law -- Also on the Legislative Improvement of "Public Workers", China Public Security University News, 2005, Issue 5

6. Chief Editor of the First Criminal Division and the Second Criminal Division of the Supreme People's Court: Criminal Trial Reference (the first episode in 2005, the 42nd episode in total), Law Press, 2005

7. Zhao Bingzhi, Chief Editor: Case Study of China's Criminal Code - Corruption, Bribery and Dereliction of Duty (Volume V), Peking University Press, 2008

5. Interpretation of Paragraph 2 of Article 93 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress http://www.weidong.gov.cn/ReadNews.asp?NewsID=12178 (Accessed on April 9, 2009)

6. He Weiya, Zhu Weichun: The Right and Wrong of Village Cadres' Compensation for Corruption of Land

http://www.hicourt.gov.cn/theory/artilce_list.asp?id=4636&l_class=6 (Accessed on April 11, 2009)

7. Zhang Jianbing: Determination of the Crime of Embezzlement and Embezzlement of Land Expropriation Compensation, China Audit, 2007, Issue 23