In fact, according to the current law, ofo has nothing to do with most of these crimes:
1 does not meet the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits.
In the judicial interpretation "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Illegal Fund-raising" issued on 20 10, the Supreme Court formulated four criteria for the determination of the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits, namely illegality, openness, seduction and sociality. In the case of Xiaohuangche, ofo did not promise interest and return by charging the user a deposit, so it is not a crime of illegally absorbing public deposits.
2. It does not meet the crime of illegal use of funds.
This is relatively simple. The crime of illegal use of funds refers to the use of funds by public fund management institutions such as social security fund management institutions and housing provident fund management institutions, as well as insurance companies, insurance asset management companies and securities investment fund management companies in violation of state regulations, and the circumstances are serious. Bike-sharing obviously does not belong to the scope of the subject of this crime.
3. It does not meet the crime of fund-raising fraud.
The core of the crime of fund-raising fraud lies in whether there is "fraud" in ofo. The definition of "fraud" in Chinese law is "fabricating facts to conceal the truth to defraud public and private property". Ofo did not fabricate any facts, nor did it conceal any truth. It also admitted that it was reasonable for users to refund the deposit. At least before it disappeared, it was still providing services and refunds, but it was a bit slow. At present, although the company's abnormal operation leads to various rulings being unenforceable, it has nothing to do with the crime of fraud.
4. It does not meet the crime of embezzlement and fraud.
The subject of embezzlement and fraud is a natural person, and the company that signed the agreement with the user is ofo, not a natural person Dai Wei. So ofo does not involve these two crimes.
5. It does not meet the crime of misappropriating funds.
The crime of misappropriating funds objectively requires the actor to take advantage of his position to misappropriate the funds of his own unit for personal use, or to lend a large amount to others, which has not been paid back for more than three months, or there are other relevant circumstances. In other words, if the user deposit is used for the production, purchase, bicycle enjoyment and other purposes of the enterprise, which reflects the will of the unit and the beneficiary is the unit, then this behavior does not infringe on the right to use the unit funds. Therefore, it does not constitute the crime of misappropriation of funds.
6. It does not meet the crime of misappropriation of public funds.
The subject of this crime must be the national staff.
At that time, ofo bike-sharing was all over the mountains, and now the whole company is gone:
At present, about150,000 ofo users queue up to refund the deposit, and the deposit is 99 yuan or 199 yuan. According to this calculation, the scale of the deposit to be refunded is between 65.438+0.5 billion and 3 billion yuan (this does not include users who have not applied for queuing to refund the deposit).
Judging from the disappearance of ofo bike-sharing, CEO Dai Wei, who once boasted that "the money owed to users must be paid back, and even if he goes to other companies, he must write down all the phone numbers", I am afraid that he finally decided to throw all the debts on the "Dongxia Datong" company owned by ofo and keep a low profile.
Not surprisingly, the 3 billion deposit that ofo bike-sharing inexplicably disappeared should constitute the biggest "missing deposit case" in the commercial history of China.