The main reason for the difficulty in pursuing blame is that the nature of this case is difficult to define. Is Liang Jianhong a theft crime or a job embezzlement crime? In fact, the final analysis is that no one is willing to bear this responsibility, and neither the bank nor Liang Jianhong wants to compensate the money.

You must have heard about the story of "bank executives transferred 250 million in deposits". After all, it has been on the hot search for several days in a row recently.

More than 250 million yuan in deposits from the Nanning Branch of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China were transferred away through secret operations, and the person who carried out this case was none other than a senior executive of the bank named Liang Jianhong. Liang Jianhong’s personal assistant, Shi, surrendered to the police in 2019, saying that she had repeatedly forged large deposit certificates under Liang Jianhong’s instruction.

After the police got the news, they quickly arrested Liang Jianhong. After catching Liang Jianhong, the next step must be to deal with him and discuss compensation for depositors' deposits. In 2021, the Nanning Intermediate People's Court made a first-instance verdict: Liang Jianhong was sentenced to life imprisonment for committing theft, fraud, forgery of financial instruments, etc.; Shi and the other two criminals were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment ranging from seven to 15 years; The defendants are ordered to compensate the victims for their economic losses.

One thing that deserves attention here is that this case was classified as theft, and it was Liang Jianhong who needed to pay compensation. Such a judgment also means that the bank does not need to compensate or bear corresponding responsibilities. The bank must be secretly happy at this time, thinking, "Although he is an employee of mine and it happened in our bank, it has nothing to do with me!"

After the verdict of the case, Liang Jianhong immediately filed an appeal. In her opinion, the victim had a relatively clear understanding of her position and life, and her request for a deposit certificate was only agreed to by the other party because she was the general manager of the Nanning branch, so she should be classified as a crime of job embezzlement.

You may not know the difference between the crime of official embezzlement and the crime of theft. To put it simply, if this case is classified as a crime of official embezzlement, then the bank will have to compensate the depositors for their losses and bear responsibility; but if it is If it is defined as the crime of theft, the defendant must bear corresponding compensation and liability. So Liang Jianhong and the bank each had their own opinions.

From the perspective of the victims, they also believed that Liang Jianhong’s behavior was a crime of job embezzlement, and the bank needed to pay compensation. Of course, I also agree with their view. Because there are many restrictions on transferring money from large certificates of deposit into accounts, it would be difficult for Liang Jianhong to accomplish this kind of theft by himself.

At the same time, I want to say one more thing here, that is, there will be no pie in the sky. The reason why these victims believed in Liang Jianhong so much was not only because she was once a senior executive of ICBC Nanning Branch, but also because she was driven by interests and wanted to obtain more generous returns.