A study of receiving money by issuing defective deposit receipts
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-11-2019-0090 |
| Pages | 457-476 |
| Published date | 03 April 2020 |
| Date | 03 April 2020 |
| Author | Chengjing You |
| Subject Matter | Financial compliance/regulation,Accounting & Finance |
A study of receiving money by
issuing defective deposit receipts
Chengjing You
Department of Law, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics,
Chengdu, China
Abstract
Purpose –This paper aims to convict the offenderof real concurrence offenses of the most severe offense
and applying the most severe penalty will result in no distinction between the perpetrator who conducted
more than one act and the one who conducted only one act. This approach deviates from the purpose of
criminal law. The real concurrence of offenses meansseveral offenses, the perpetrator’s dangerousness and
culpability are much higher than the perpetratorwho commits just one crime, so combined punishments for
severaloffenses should be applied to the real concurrence of offenses.
Design/methodology/approach –If the depositors are acquaintances or relatives and friends, the
relationship can be explained by “personalitytrust.”If the depositors are strangers, but they have complied
with their dutiesof care, the depositrelationship can be explained by “system trust.”
Findings –The real concurrence of offensesmeans several offenses, the perpetrator’s dangerousness and
culpability are much higher than the perpetratorwho commits just one crime, so combined punishments for
severaloffenses should be applied to the real concurrence of offenses.
Originality/value –The principle ofchoosing the most severe punishment applied to thereal concurrence
of offense should be abolished.As the perpetrator separately conducts two acts at differenttimes, these acts
infringe on differentlegal interests. Although these acts exist closely, the authors cannotdeny that these acts
constitutemore than one offense.
Keywords Defective deposit receipts, Receiving clients’money without registration, Embezzlement,
Real concurrence of offenses, Financial crime, Criminal justice
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In recent years, cases involving the inexplicable disappearance of depositors’deposits have
been occurring from time to time.For example, in 2012, Ms Liu in Shanxi province deposited
¥6,400, but when she attempted to withdraw it, she was told that no deposit existed in her
account (Wei, 2012); in 2014, Chen Lanping in Hebei province held ¥1,000, which was
recorded on a deposit receipt, waited for eight years without withdrawing. His deposit
receipt was issued by the bank 56years ago (Wang, 2013). In 2015, several depositors in
Shandong, depositing ¥200m, were told that the deposit receipts they held were “false
deposit receipts”when they attempted to withdraw the money (Zhou, 2018). Furthermore,
because the records of deposit receipts could not be found in the record of bank, five
depositors, having a deposit totaling ¥22m, were told that the deposit receipts they held
were “false deposit receipts”and the bankrefused to repay their money (2000yuwan, 2018);
in 2017, Mr Gu was told the deposit receipthe held was a “false deposit receipt”and he could
not withdraw the deposit (500wan, 2018). In such cases,the perpetrators receiving deposits
and issuing deposit receipts are all bank employees. The deposit receipts they issue are not
forged or altered but are defective deposit receipts that are different from the other perfect
deposit receipts in forms or procedures. Therefore, in juridical practice, views differ on
whether the funds recorded on the defective deposit receipts are deposits, that is, whether
Defective
deposit
receipts
457
Journalof Money Laundering
Control
Vol.23 No. 2, 2020
pp. 457-476
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1368-5201
DOI 10.1108/JMLC-11-2019-0090
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1368-5201.htm
the holders of the deposit receipts havedeposit relationships with the banks. As a result, the
crimes of perpetrators’behavior of receiving clients’money by issuing defective deposit
receipts without registration and embezzling those funds are identified differently in
practice, such as the crime of illegally pooling publicdeposits, the crime of receiving clients’
money without registrationor the crime of embezzlement, among others.
Defective deposit receipts are not false deposit receipts
Usually, formal deposit receipts are always marked with unique code, the signature of the
bank employee and the official seal of the bank deposittransaction. Because they may lack
an official seal or the procedure of issuing such deposit receipts is different from that of
issuing other perfect deposit receipts, even if the deposit receipts have the official seal on
them, they are defective deposit receipts. However, these deposit receipts are not forged or
altered, and theirseals are real, so the defective deposit receipts are notfalse deposit receipts.
Identifying the deposit receipts with defects in elements
This kind of deposit receipt only bears the perpetrators’personal signature, withoutaffixing
the official seal of the bank to which they belong. For example, in the case of Tao Yaoting,
the perpetrator receivedmoney from 92 clients through the bank deposit receipts he held by
signing his name on them or affixing his personal seal, and the funds totaled over ¥1.43m.
In addition, he received over ¥1.05m in the form of issuing receipts for loans (IOU). In the
first trial, the court held that the deposit receipts issued by the defendant were not affixed
with credit cooperatives’seals and that the receipts for loans (IOU) and bills signed in
acknowledgment of debts he issued in his own name do not have the features of work
behavior and are not recognized by the credit cooperatives after the event. Therefore, he
committed the crime of illegallypooling public deposits (2010a). In the second trial, the court
held that the defendant took advantage of his position to receive depositors’money without
registering those fundson the bank ledger and then used them to illegally offer loansor lend
them to others, with the result that the credit cooperatives is duty-bound to repay the
principals and interests on schedule. His acts violated credit cooperatives’right to use
depositors’funds. The defendantdid not register the money on the back ledger but used the
funds to illegally offer loanswithout consulting with the depositors or asking for depositors’
permission. His acts constituted the crime of embezzlement (2010b). The main reason why
the first trial and the second trial identify the defendant’s acts differently is that they hold
different opinions on whether the funds recorded on the deposit receipts belong to bank
deposits. In another similar case, the court has affirmed that the funds belong to bank
deposits. In the case regarding the deposit-receipt-related dispute between the client Lv and
Changning Rural Commercial Bank, the accuser Lv deposited ¥50,000 in the subsidiary to
the defendant and an employee, Deng, of this subsidiaryissued the credit cooperatives’time
certificate of deposit to the accuser. In April 2014, the accuser held the time certificate of
deposit and attempted to withdraw money from the defendant, but the defendant refused
payment because the depositreceipt was not affixed with the official seal and the moneyhad
not been registered on the ledger of the credit cooperatives. Throughthe trial, the court held
that the defendant, Changning Rural Commercial Bank’s employee Deng, used a deposit
receipt with no official seal,but that Deng is Changning Rural Commercial Bank’s employee,
and his engaging in business activity in the name of the bank is work behavior. Therefore,
the accuser has reason to believe that the deposit receipt would be legal and valid, and
Changning Rural Commercial Bank was sentenced to pay the accuser’s principal and
interest (2016b). The court identifiedthe behavior of the employee of this credit cooperatives
JMLC
23,2
458
To continue reading
Request your trial