She opened a small supermarket in a county town in another place, with a store area of about ten square meters. She holds a sole proprietorship license and hires a cashier to work shifts with her.
In the last two months, she has begun to suspect that something is wrong with her accounts. Finally, after carefully checking the accounts and reviewing the surveillance footage, she confirmed that the cashier she hired was stealing cash from the store. After careful calculation, it was found that the amount stolen did not exceed 4,000 yuan.
She questioned the cashier to stop stealing, and at first the cashier vehemently denied it. But after confronted with conclusive evidence of accounts and surveillance footage, he finally admitted his actions, but only admitted to stealing 1,500 yuan. After that, she never went to work again.
Upon learning of the incident, she reported the incident to the police station. However, the receptionist informed her that the case was not a "theft", but an "embezzlement" and therefore did not fall within their jurisdiction. They told her that she needed to file a lawsuit in court. So, she went to the local county courthouse. However, after submitting the situation, the window staff told her that according to the definition of the crime of embezzlement, the amount involved did not meet the criteria for filing a case, and even if a lawsuit was filed, a judgment could not be made. He suggested that she communicate with the police station again to resolve the issue.
She felt aggrieved that her hard-earned money had been stolen while the thieves seemed to get away with it.
We saw the dilemma faced by a female proprietor after a theft incident in a small supermarket. Not only did she find out that the clerk was stealing, but she also encountered institutional obstacles that prevented her from receiving effective legal protection. The story highlights the problems faced by ordinary people with an imperfect justice system and an inability to fairly protect individual interests.
This is theft, every penny of cash paid by the customer, when the cashier receives it and puts it in the collection box, becomes the supermarket's business money, and the cashier does not belong to the custody, because the money is not allowed to be placed on them, let alone taken away. If it exceeds 2,000 yuan, the police should file a case for investigation, saying that embezzlement is prevarication, and the definition of the crime of embezzlement is "taking possession of other people's property for one's own use", and there is no such thing as "custody on behalf of oneself", that is, the employee steals the employer's money.
"Misappropriation" refers to a criminal act in the crime of theft, usually referring to the illegal possession of another person's property, but does not meet the constitutive elements of theft. In the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the relevant legal provisions for the crime of embezzlement are Article 276 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 276:[Crime of Embezzlement of Public or Private Property] Whoever takes possession of public or private property, and the amount is relatively large, is to be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or short-term detention and/or a fine; where the amount is especially huge or there are other serious circumstances, a sentence of between 3 and 10 years imprisonment and a concurrent fine is to be given. A relatively large amount or a particularly large amount refers to the amount that meets the following criteria:
1) The amount is relatively large, which refers to more than RMB 30,000 but less than 100,000 yuan;
2) The amount is particularly huge, which refers to more than RMB 100,000.
According to the criminal law, the crime of embezzlement must meet the monetary conditions to constitute a crime, otherwise it cannot be filed, which also shows that in practice, some criminal acts may be difficult to be severely punished because of the inadequacy of the law.