The current criminal law does not define state-owned assets, but defines public property as: (1) state-owned property; (2) Property collectively owned by the working people; (3) Property donated by the society or with special funds for poverty alleviation and other public welfare undertakings. Private property managed, used or transported by state organs, state-owned companies, enterprises, collective enterprises and people's organizations shall be regarded as public property. The Provisions on the Standards for People's Procuratorates to Directly Accept Cases for Investigation (Trial) stipulates in the supplementary provisions that the state-owned assets in the crime of privately dividing state-owned assets refer to assets obtained and recognized by the state according to law, or assets formed by the state's investment in enterprises and various forms of investment income, and the state's appropriation for administrative institutions.
In my opinion, the scope of state-owned assets should be defined as administrative appropriations, investments of state organs, state-owned enterprises and institutions, and funds that the state expressly stipulates should be turned over to fiscal revenue. Other income that the law does not expressly stipulate belongs to the state or violates collective rules and regulations and should be turned over to the state shall be treated as violating financial discipline. The focus of the crime of privately dividing state-owned assets should be: changing the use of state administrative appropriations and investment plans without permission, maliciously embezzling state-owned assets in the process of enterprise restructuring, selling fixed assets in the process of state-owned enterprises extricating themselves from difficulties, and affecting state plans and economic order.
Current illegal income, off-balance sheet funds, small coffers, etc. It is roughly composed of the following situations: (1) the "sponsorship fee" that the unit asks the relevant enterprises and institutions in the name of financial shortage; (2) Concealing or withholding profits, administrative fees or other income that should be turned over to the state; (3) Impersonating or defrauding state financial allocations or subsidies. After finding out the illegal income or sources of funds of small coffers, according to the above-mentioned principles of defining state-owned assets, we can distinguish which belong to "state-owned assets" and which do not. If the unit privately sets up a small vault to privately divide the state-owned assets, then whether the unit sets up a small vault by cheating the state-owned assets out of the account or intercepts the state-owned assets that should be turned over, it should be considered as privately dividing the state-owned assets. If a unit secretly sets up a small treasury for the purpose of illegal possession, deceives the superior department or other regulatory departments by means of deception or concealment, and the money is owned by individuals, it shall be deemed as * * * guilty of corruption. Units that set up private coffers for the benefit of employees, build dormitories for employees in violation of national financial policies, and pay bonuses in violation of regulations shall be dealt with according to discipline. State organs that charge fees beyond their functions and powers shall be investigated for the crime of abuse of power.
It is worth emphasizing that, in view of the relatively difficult identification of state-owned assets in practice, when handling cases of privately dividing state-owned assets, the competent department of state-owned assets should make an identification as the basis for judicial identification to ensure the unity and standardization of the application of criminal law. (Author: Second Branch of Shanghai Procuratorate, Shanghai Baoshan District Procuratorate)