某跨国制造企业发现，其中国区采购经理多年来向供应商收取“回扣”，累计金额近千万元。公司虽已将其开除，但已经支付的回扣无法追回，涉事供应商亦拒不配合。另一家外资零售企业的区域总监被查出利用职务便利，通过设立虚假经销商的方式，将公司自有客户的订单转移给由其配偶设立的经销公司，赚取差价，金额达数千万元。公司欲提起民事诉讼，但漫长的诉讼周期和证据问题令维权举步维艰。

这两类场景：商业贿赂与职务侵占，是外企最常遭遇的员工违法行为。面对此类情形，多数外企的应对停留在内部纪律处分或民事诉讼，却忽略了一条兼具威慑力与实效性的路径：刑事控告。本文旨在从学理与实务双重视角，围绕外企最核心的两个关切：如何追究员工刑事责任与如何追回公司损失，系统分析刑事控告的制度逻辑与操作路径。

A multinational manufacturer discovers that its China procurement manager has been receiving kickbacks from suppliers for years, totaling nearly RMB 10 million. Although the company has terminated the employee, the kickbacks already paid cannot be recovered, and the implicated suppliers refuse to cooperate. In another case, a regional director of a foreign-invested retailer is found to have used their position to establish fictitious distributors, transferring the company’s own customer orders to a distribution company set up by their spouse, profiting from the price differential, in an amount reaching tens of millions of yuan. The company wishes to file a civil lawsuit, but the lengthy litigation cycle and evidentiary challenges make rights protection an uphill battle.

These two scenarios — commercial bribery and job-related embezzlement — are the most common forms of employee misconduct encountered by foreign enterprises in China. Faced with such situations, most foreign companies respond with internal disciplinary action or civil litigation, while overlooking a path that combines deterrence with effectiveness: criminal complaints. This article systematically analyzes the institutional logic and practical pathways of criminal complaints from both academic and practical perspectives, focusing on the two core concerns of foreign enterprises: how to hold employees criminally liable and how to recover company losses.

准确辨识罪名是刑事控告的逻辑起点。外企员工常见的违法行为主要涉及以下罪名，各罪的构成要件与认定标准存在显著差异，直接影响控告策略的制定。

（一）职务侵占罪（《刑法》第271条）

构成要件：公司、企业或者其他单位的工作人员，利用职务上的便利，将本单位财物非法占为己有，数额较大的行为。

关键学理争议与实务要点：

1.“利用职务上的便利”之界定

通说认为，“利用职务上的便利”是指利用本人职务上主管、管理、经营、经手单位财物的权力和方便条件。学理上有“行为说”与“便利说”之分：前者强调基于职务产生的对财物的支配力，后者则将范围扩展至因工作关系形成的一切便利条件。实务中，最高法相关司法解释采纳了相对限缩的立场，即要求行为人对单位财物具有一定的管理、支配权限，而非仅因工作关系产生“接触机会”。

对外企的实务意义：若侵占者仅为普通员工，不具财物管理权限（如仅因工作原因接触公司财产），则可能不构成职务侵占罪，而应以侵占罪（刑法第270条）论处。因此，在刑事控告前必须准确判断涉案员工的职务权限边界。

2.“非法占有目的”的认定

区分职务侵占罪与挪用资金罪的核心在于是否具有“非法占有目的”。根据2016年《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理贪污贿赂刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》确立的裁判规则，以下情形可以推定具有非法占有目的：携款潜逃、肆意挥霍、转移隐匿资产拒不归还、将资金用于违法犯罪活动等。若行为人仅是临时挪用，具有归还意图，则构成挪用资金罪（《刑法》第272条），而非职务侵占罪。

对外企的实务意义：两罪的立案标准和量刑差异显著（职务侵占罪“数额较大”的起点为3万元，最高可判无期徒刑；挪用资金罪“数额较大”的起点因用途不同分为3万-5万元，最高刑期15年）。定性的准确性直接影响刑事控告能否被受理及最终的量刑幅度。

3.立案追诉标准

根据2022年《最高人民检察院、公安部关于公安机关管辖的刑事案件立案追诉标准的规定（二）》，职务侵占罪“数额较大”的起点为3万元。

（二）非国家工作人员受贿罪（《刑法》第163条）

构成要件：公司、企业或者其他单位的工作人员，利用职务上的便利，索取他人财物或者非法收受他人财物，为他人谋取利益，数额较大的行为。

关键学理争议与实务要点：

1.“为他人谋取利益”的认定

本罪成立要求“为他人谋取利益”，但是否要求实际谋取了利益，抑或只需承诺即可？2016年《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理贪污贿赂刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第13条予以明确：实际为他人谋取利益、承诺为他人谋取利益、明知他人有具体请托事项而收受财物的，均应认定为“为他人谋取利益”。即采“承诺说”立场，不要求必须存在实际谋利行为。

对外企的实务意义：即便无法证明员工实际为供应商谋取了利益，只要证明其明知供应商有具体请托事项而收受财物，即可构罪。这降低了刑事控告的举证难度。

2.经济往来中的“暗中收受回扣、手续费”

该条第2款规定：公司、企业的工作人员在经济往来中，违反国家规定，收受各种名义的回扣、手续费，归个人所有的，依照前款规定处罚。此处无需证明“为他人谋取利益”，只要在经济往来中违反国家规定收受回扣归个人所有，即构成本罪。

3.立案追诉标准

非国家工作人员受贿罪“数额较大”的起点为3万元。

（三）对非国家工作人员行贿罪（《刑法》第164条）

构成要件：为谋取不正当利益，给予公司、企业或者其他单位的工作人员以财物，数额较大的行为。

对外企的双重风险：外企在经营中可能面临两个维度的风险

•作为被害单位： 他人为获取不正当利益向本企业员工行贿，员工构成非国家工作人员受贿罪，行贿者构成本罪

•作为涉案主体： 本企业员工为谋取不正当利益向他人行贿。若行贿行为系为单位谋取不正当利益、经单位决策或由负责人决定，则可能构成单位犯罪，企业自身面临罚金刑

立案追诉标准：“数额较大”的起点为：个人3万元、单位20万元。单位犯本罪的，对单位判处罚金，并对其直接负责的主管人员和直接责任人员追究刑事责任。

（四）罪名体系小结

需要特别关注的是，2026年4月10日，最高人民法院、最高人民检察院发布《关于办理贪污贿赂刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释（二）》（法释〔2026〕6号，2026年5月1日施行），对上述四个罪名的定罪量刑数额标准作出了重大调整。该解释第8条规定，职务侵占罪、挪用资金罪、非国家工作人员受贿罪、对非国家工作人员行贿罪的定罪量刑标准分别参照贪污罪、挪用公款罪、受贿罪、行贿罪（单位行贿罪）的定罪量刑标准执行。这一规定彻底废除了此前2016年解释中采用的“二倍/五倍”倍数规则（即非公领域犯罪数额标准按国家工作人员对应犯罪的2倍或5倍计算），改为直接参照对齐。据此，非国家工作人员受贿罪和职务侵占罪的“数额较大/巨大/特别巨大”标准现分别为3万元/20万元/300万元，挪用资金罪的标准现为3万元（非法活动）/5万元（营利活动或超期未还），对非国家工作人员行贿罪的标准现为个人3万元/100万元、单位20万元/200万元。这是近年来该领域最重要的司法解释变化，外企在制定内部合规标准和刑事控告策略时应密切关注。

Accurate identification of criminal offenses is the logical starting point for criminal complaints. Common illegal acts committed by employees of foreign-invested enterprises primarily involve the following offenses, each with significantly different elements of the crime and standards of determination that directly affect the formulation of complaint strategies.

(I)Crime of Job-Related Embezzlement (Criminal Law, Art. 271)

Elements of Crime:The act of company, enterprise or other organization's staff members, taking advantage of their positions of authority, illegally appropriating the property of their own unit for personal use, with the amount exceeding a certain threshold.

1.Defining “taking advantage of position”

The prevailing view holds that “taking advantage of position” means utilizing the power and convenience arising from one’s position to supervise, manage, operate, or handle the property of the unit. There is an academic distinction between the “position-based act theory” and the “business convenience theory”: the former emphasizes the power of disposal over property arising from one’s position, while the latter expands the scope to include all conveniences formed by work relationships. In practice, the Supreme People’s Court has adopted a relatively restrictive approach, requiring that the actor has a certain degree of management or disposal authority over the unit’s property, rather than merely having “access opportunities” arising from work.

Practical significance: If the offender is merely an ordinary employee without the authority to manage company assets (such as having only access to company property due to work-related reasons), it may not constitute the crime of embezzlement of office, but should be treated as the crime of embezzlement (Article 270 of the Criminal Law). Therefore, before making a criminal accusation, it is necessary to accurately determine the boundaries of the employee's job authority involved in the case.

2.Determining “unlawful appropriation”

The core distinction between job-related embezzlement and misappropriation of funds lies in whether the actor possesses the “purpose of unlawful appropriation.” According to the adjudicative rules established by the 2016 Judicial Interpretation on Handling Criminal Cases of Corruption and Bribery, the following circumstances may give rise to a presumption of the purpose of unlawful appropriation: absconding with funds, reckless squandering, transferring or concealing assets and refusing to return them, and using funds for illegal or criminal activities. If the actor merely temporarily uses the funds with intent to return them, the crime is misappropriation of funds (Art. 272), not job-related embezzlement.

Practical significance:The criteria for filing and sentencing differ significantly between the two offenses (the threshold for "relatively large amount" in embezzlement of public funds is 30,000 yuan, with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment; for misappropriation of funds, the threshold varies from 30,000 to 50,000 yuan depending on usage, with a maximum sentence of 15 years). The accuracy of legal characterization directly affects whether a criminal complaint will be accepted and ultimately determines the severity of the sentence.

3. Filing and Prosecution thresholds

Per the 2022 Provisions on Filing and Prosecuting Standards for Criminal Cases Under Public Security Organs’ Jurisdiction (Part II), the threshold for “relatively large amount” is RMB 30,000.

(II)Crime of Receiving Bribes by Non-State Functionaries (Criminal Law, Art. 163)

Elements of Crime:The act of company, enterprise or other organization's staff, taking advantage of their positions of authority, soliciting property from others or illegally accepting property from others, in order to seek benefits for them, with a relatively large amount.

1.Determining “seeking benefits for others”

This crime requires “seeking benefits for others,” but does it require actually obtaining benefits, or is a promise sufficient? The 2016 Judicial Interpretation on Corruption and Bribery Cases (Art. 13) clarifies: actually seeking benefits, promising to seek benefits, or accepting property while knowing the other party has a specific request — all constitute “seeking benefits for others.” This adopts the “promise theory” position, without requiring actual benefit-provision conduct.

Practical significance: Even if it cannot be proven that the employees actually obtained benefits for the suppliers, as long as it is proved that they knew that the suppliers had specific requests and accepted bribes, they can be convicted. This reduces the burden of proof in criminal accusations.

2.“Secretly accepting kickbacks and handling fees in economic transactions” (Art. 163, §2)

This provision states: personnel of a company or enterprise who, in economic transactions, violate state regulations by accepting kickbacks or handling fees of various denominations for personal use shall be punished under the preceding paragraph. Here, there is no need to prove “seeking benefits for others” — merely accepting kickbacks in violation of state regulations for personal use constitutes the crime. This is the most directly applicable provision for foreign enterprise employees receiving supplier kickbacks.

3. Filing and Prosecution thresholds

Relatively large amount in the crime of accepting bribes by non-state officials is RMB 30,000.

(III)Crime of Offering Bribes to Non-State Functionaries (Criminal Law, Art. 164)

Elements of Crime:The act of company, enterprise or other organization's staff, taking advantage of their positions of authority, soliciting property from others or illegally accepting property from others, in order to seek benefits for them, with a relatively large amount.

Dual risks for foreign enterprises:

•As the victim entity: Others offer bribes to the employees of this enterprise to obtain improper benefits. The employees commit the crime of accepting bribes from non-state personnel, and the briber commits this crime.

•As a subject of investigation: The employees of this enterprise offer bribes to others. If the bribery behavior is for the benefit of the unit to obtain improper benefits, it is decided by the unit's decision or by the person in charge's decision, then it may constitute a unit crime, and the enterprise itself faces a fine penalty.

Filing and Prosecution thresholds:  RMB 30,000 for individuals / RMB 200,000 for units for “relatively large amount.” For unit crimes, the unit is fined, and the directly responsible managers and other directly liable personnel face criminal liability.

(IV) Summary

It is particularly important to note that on April 10, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate issued the Interpretation (II) on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Corruption and Bribery (Fashi [2026] No. 6, effective May 1, 2026), which made significant changes to the monetary thresholds for conviction and sentencing of the four offenses discussed above. Article 8 provides that the conviction and sentencing standards for job-related embezzlement, misappropriation of funds, receiving bribes by non-state functionaries, and offering bribes to non-state functionaries shall respectively follow the standards for embezzlement, misappropriation of public funds, accepting bribes, and offering bribes (or unit offering bribes) by state functionaries. This interpretation completely abolishes the previous “double/quintuple” multiplier rule under the 2016 Interpretation (under which the thresholds for non-public sector offenses were calculated at 2x or 5x the corresponding thresholds for state functionary offenses), replacing it with direct alignment. Accordingly, the thresholds for “relatively large / large / particularly large” amounts for receiving bribes by non-state functionaries and job-related embezzlement are now RMB 30,000 / 200,000 / 3,000,000; for misappropriation of funds, RMB 30,000 (for illegal activities) / 50,000 (for profit-making activities or overdue non-return); and for offering bribes to non-state functionaries, RMB 30,000 / 1,000,000 for individuals and RMB 200,000 / 2,000,000 for units. This is the most significant judicial interpretation change in this area in recent years, and foreign enterprises should closely monitor it when formulating internal compliance standards and complaint strategies.

（一）刑事控告的启动条件

根据《刑事诉讼法》第110条，任何单位和个人发现有犯罪事实或者犯罪嫌疑人，有权向公安机关报案或者举报。被害人对侵犯其人身、财产权利的犯罪事实或者犯罪嫌疑人，有权向公安机关报案或者控告。

立案标准：公安机关接受控告后，认为有犯罪事实需要追究刑事责任，且属于自己管辖的，应当立案（《刑事诉讼法》第112条）。需要注意的是，此处的“有犯罪事实”不同于定罪标准——立案阶段仅要求有证据证明犯罪事实存在，而非达到“事实清楚、证据确实充分”的证明程度。这是很多外企在准备控告材料时容易误解的关键点。

（二）管辖选择

刑事控告的管辖遵循以下原则：

•犯罪地管辖为主：犯罪地包括犯罪行为发生地和犯罪结果发生地（《公安机关办理刑事案件程序规定》第16条）。对于职务侵占，犯罪行为地通常为侵占行为的实施地（如公司注册地或办公地），犯罪结果地为公司财产遭受损失地

•被告人居住地管辖为辅：犯罪嫌疑人居住地的公安机关也可以管辖

•单位犯罪的特殊管辖：若涉及单位犯罪（如单位行贿），单位注册地、主要营业地的公安机关有管辖权

实务建议：优先选择对涉外经济犯罪有丰富办案经验的经侦部门。上海、北京、深圳等城市的经侦部门处理此类案件的经验更为成熟，且涉外案件协调机制更为完善。

（三）控告材料的准备——从“法官思维”到“公安思维”

刑事控告书的核心功能不是论证法律观点，而是让公安机关“看得懂、查得下去”。学理上，立案阶段的证明标准为“合理怀疑”（reasonable suspicion），远低于审判阶段的“排除合理怀疑”（beyond reasonable doubt）。控告材料的准备应重点围绕以下方面：

1.犯罪事实的时间线：按时间顺序清晰陈述侵占或受贿行为的发生、发展过程

2.资金流向图：以可视化方式呈现资金的流转路径——从公司账户到员工个人账户、关联账户或第三方账户

3.人员关系图：标明涉案人员之间的职务关系、利益关系

4.初步证据清单：

•财务证据：银行流水、转账记录、报销单据、审计报告

•电子证据：邮件往来、即时通讯记录、电子审批记录（需进行电子数据取证和哈希值固定）

•业务证据：合同文本、供应商资质文件、比价记录、授权审批文件

•人员证据：内部调查谈话记录、证人证言

涉外证据的特别程序：外企的财务系统、邮件服务器可能位于境外，根据《刑事诉讼法》及《公安机关办理刑事案件程序规定》，境外获取的证据需经公证认证并附具有翻译资质的机构出具的中文翻译件方可在中国刑事程序中使用。此过程耗时较长（通常为2-4个月），应在控告前尽早启动。

（四）立案受阻的救济途径

实践中，外企刑事控告最常遇到的障碍是公安机关“不予立案”。此时，法律提供了以下救济途径：

1.申请复议/复核（《公安机关办理刑事案件程序规定》第179条）：控告人收到《不予立案通知书》后7日内向作出决定的公安机关申请复议；对复议决定不服的，可向上一级公安机关申请复核

2.检察监督（《刑事诉讼法》第113条）：控告人认为公安机关对应当立案侦查的案件而不立案侦查的，可向同级人民检察院提出。人民检察院应当要求公安机关说明不立案的理由。人民检察院认为不立案理由不能成立的，应当通知公安机关立案，公安机关接到通知后应当立案

3.刑事自诉（《刑事诉讼法》第210条）：对于被害人有证据证明对被告人侵犯自己人身、财产权利的行为应当依法追究刑事责任，而公安机关或者人民检察院不予追究被告人刑事责任的案件，被害人可以直接向人民法院提起自诉

实务建议：检察监督作为最有效的救济途径之一——检察院的立案通知对公安机关具有法律约束力。然而，许多外企并不了解这一制度，在遭遇不立案后即放弃追诉，错失了有效的救济窗口。

(I)Conditions for Initiating Criminal Complaints

Under Article 110 of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL), any unit or individual that discovers criminal facts or criminal suspects has the right to report to public security organs. Victims have the right to report or file complaints regarding criminal facts or suspects that infringe upon their personal or property rights.

Filing threshold: After accepting a complaint, public security organs shall file a case if they believe criminal facts exist that warrant criminal liability and the case falls within their jurisdiction (CPL, Art. 112). Importantly, “criminal facts exist” here differs from the conviction standard — at the filing stage, only evidence suggesting the possible existence of criminal facts is required, not the “facts are clear and evidence is conclusive and sufficient” standard applicable at trial. This is a critical misunderstanding many foreign enterprises make when preparing complaint materials.

(II)Jurisdiction Selection

Criminal complaint jurisdiction follows these principles:

•Place of crime as primary jurisdiction: The place of crime includes both the place where the criminal act occurred and the place where the criminal result occurred (Article 16 of the Provisions on Criminal Case Procedures). For occupational embezzlement, the place of criminal act is typically where the embezzlement was carried out (e.g., company registration address or office location), and the place of criminal result is where the company suffered property loss

•Defendant's residence as secondary jurisdiction: The public security organ at the criminal suspect's place of residence may also have jurisdiction

•Special jurisdiction for unit crimes: If unit crimes are involved (e.g., unit bribery), the public security organ at the unit's place of registration or principal place of business has jurisdiction

Practical recommendation: Prioritize economic crime investigation departments with extensive experience in handling foreign-related economic crimes. Economic crime investigation departments in cities such as Shanghai, Beijing, and Shenzhen have more mature experience in handling such cases and more comprehensive coordination mechanisms for foreign-related cases.

(III)Preparing Complaint Materials — From “Judicial Thinking” to “Investigative Thinking”

The core function of a criminal complaint is not to argue legal points but to make the case “understandable and investigable” for public security organs. In legal theory, the standard of proof at the filing stage is “reasonable suspicion,” far lower than “beyond reasonable doubt” at trial. Complaint materials should center on the following elements:

1.Timeline of criminal facts: Clearly present the occurrence and development of the embezzlement or bribery in chronological order

2.Fund flow diagram: Visually present the path of fund transfers—from company accounts to employee personal accounts, related-party accounts, or third-party accounts

3.Personnel relationship chart: Indicate the occupational relationships and interest relationships among the persons involved

4.Preliminary evidence inventory:

•Financial evidence: Bank statements, transfer records, reimbursement receipts, audit reports

•Electronic evidence: Email correspondence, instant messaging records, electronic approval records (requiring electronic data forensics and hash value preservation)

•Business evidence: Contract texts, supplier qualification documents, price comparison records, authorization and approval documents

•Personnel evidence: Internal investigation interview records, witness testimonies

Special procedures for foreign-related evidence: Foreign enterprises' financial systems and email servers may be located overseas. According to the Criminal Procedure Law and the Provisions on Criminal Case Procedures, evidence obtained from abroad must be notarized and authenticated, and accompanied by a Chinese translation issued by a qualified translation agency before it can be used in Chinese criminal proceedings. This process is time-consuming (typically 2-4 months) and should be initiated as early as possible before filing the complaint.

(IV)Remedies When Case Filing Is Obstructed

In practice, the most common obstacle foreign enterprises encounter is the public security organ’s decision “not to file a case.” The law provides the following remedies:

1.Reconsideration/Review (Provisions on Criminal Case Procedures, Art. 179): After receiving the Notice of Non-Filing, the complainant may apply for reconsideration to the public security organ that made the decision within 7 days; if dissatisfied with the reconsideration decision, may apply for review to the public security organ at the next higher level

2.Prosecutorial supervision (CPL, Art. 113): Where the complainant believes that the public security organ should file a case for investigation but fails to do so, it may raise the issue with the People's Procuratorate at the same level. The People's Procuratorate shall require the public security organ to explain the reasons for non-filing. If the People's Procuratorate considers that the reasons for non-filing are untenable, it shall notify the public security organ to file the case, and the public security organ shall file the case upon receiving the notice

3.Private Prosecution (CPL, Art. 210): For cases where the victim has evidence proving that the defendant should be held criminally liable for infringing upon the victim's personal or property rights, but the public security organ or the People's Procuratorate does not pursue the defendant's criminal liability, the victim may file a private prosecution directly with the People's Court

Practical recommendation: Prosecutorial supervision is one of the most effective remedies—the procuratorate's notice of case filing has legal binding force on the public security organ. However, many foreign enterprises are unaware of this system and give up prosecution after encountering non-filing, missing the effective window of relief.

刑事控告的核心目的不仅在于惩罚犯罪，更在于追回公司损失。与民事途径相比，刑事程序中的追赃挽损机制具有独特的制度优势，但也存在需要特别注意的操作要点。

（一）刑事追赃的法律依据与制度优势

1.法律依据

《刑法》第64条规定：“犯罪分子违法所得的一切财物，应当予以追缴或者责令退赔；对被害人的合法财产，应当及时返还；违禁品和供犯罪所用的本人财物，应当予以没收。” 此即刑事追赃的基本法律依据。其中：

•追缴：对犯罪分子的违法所得予以强制收回

•责令退赔：对已被挥霍、转移无法追回的违法所得，责令犯罪分子按价退赔

•及时返还：对权属明确的被害人的合法财产，应当及时返还

上述措施系公安机关、检察机关和人民法院在刑事诉讼中的法定职权，无需被害人另行申请。

2.相较于民事途径的制度优势

（二）退赃退赔与量刑的关系——以退赔促追损

这是刑事追赃最具实务价值的制度设计：退赃退赔是影响量刑的重要法定情节。

根据《刑法》及司法解释的规定：

•从宽处罚情节： 犯罪嫌疑人、被告人退赃退赔的，可以酌定从宽处罚。在职务侵占、商业贿赂等贪利型犯罪中，退赃退赔是最重要的酌定从宽情节之一

•退赔与缓刑适用： 在司法实践中，是否全额退赔是能否适用缓刑的关键考量因素。未退赔的，一般不适用缓刑；全额退赔的，适用缓刑的概率显著提高

对外企的实务意义：刑事程序创造了一种民事途径无法复刻的激励机制——被控告人面临“不退赔则重判”的压力，有强烈动机主动退赔。很多案件中，一旦刑事立案，被控告人即主动联系公司要求退赔以换取从宽处理，追损的实际效率远超民事诉讼。

（三）刑事退赔与民事赔偿的关系

刑民交叉案件中，刑事退赔与民事赔偿的关系是外企普遍困惑的问题：

1.基本规则：刑事退赔优先

根据《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法〉的解释》第175条第2款，经过刑事追缴或者退赔不能弥补损失的，被害人可以另行提起民事诉讼。即刑事退赔在先，民事赔偿在后，刑事退赔未能弥补的部分方可通过民事途径追偿。

2.竞合时的处理

•若刑事判决已判令追缴、退赔，被害人就同一事实另行提起民事诉讼的，法院一般不予受理。

•但若侵占行为同时构成违约或侵权，被害人可以就刑事退赔未涵盖的损失（如可得利益损失、维权合理费用等）另行主张。

3.实务操作建议

•先刑后民：优先推动刑事程序完成追赃，再就不足部分提起民事诉讼

•刑民并行：若刑事程序进展缓慢，可同步提起民事诉讼并申请财产保全，避免资产被进一步转移

•以刑促民：利用刑事侦查获取的资产线索（如银行账户信息、隐匿资产位置等），在民事程序中进行针对性的财产保全

（四）追赃挽损的实务难点与应对

1.资产已转移至境外的追回

若被控告人已将违法所得转移至境外账户，追赃难度显著增大。根据《国际刑事司法协助法》，可以通过司法协助途径请求境外司法机关协助冻结和返还资产。但该程序耗时长（通常为1-3年），且受制于双边司法协助条约的覆盖范围。

实务建议：尽早推动刑事立案，在资产尚未完成跨境转移前进行冻结，是最有效的预防手段。同时，涉外刑事案件中，律师的跨境协调能力至关重要。

2.共同犯罪中各行为人的退赔责任

在商业贿赂案件中，行贿方与受贿方可能构成共同犯罪（如双方合谋损害公司利益），各行为人的退赔责任范围在学理上存在争议。通说认为，各共犯对其参与的犯罪数额承担连带退赔责任。

实务建议：控告时应尽可能将行贿方一并列为被控告人，不仅可以追究其刑事责任，还可以扩大退赔责任主体范围，增加实际追回损失的可能性。

3.善意第三人问题

若违法所得已流转至善意第三人（如正常交易的供应商），根据《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理诈骗刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》确立的规则，善意取得涉案财物的，不予追缴。但第三人明知系违法所得而接受的，不属于善意取得。

实务建议：在控告材料中应尽可能证明资金接收方“明知”资金来源不合法，例如证明其与被控告人存在关联关系、交易价格明显不公等。

Criminal complaints serve not only to punish crime but, more importantly, to recover company losses. Compared with civil remedies, the criminal asset recovery mechanism offers unique institutional advantages, but also involves operational considerations that deserve special attention.

(I)Legal Basis and Institutional Advantages of Criminal Asset Recovery

1.Legal basis

Article 64 of the Criminal Law provides: "All property illegally obtained by a criminal shall be recovered or he shall be ordered to make restitution; the lawful property of the victim shall be promptly returned; contraband and personal property used for the commission of the crime shall be confiscated." This is the basic legal basis for criminal asset recovery. Specifically:

•Recovery: Illicit proceeds derived by the criminal shall be subject to mandatory recovery

•Order for return of compensation: Where illicit gains are no longer recoverable due to dissipation or transfer, the offender shall be ordered to pay equivalent compensation

•Prompt return: Where the lawful property of the victim has clear ownership, it shall be promptly returned

These measures are the statutory powers of public security organs, procuratorates, and people’s courts in criminal proceedings, requiring no separate application by the victim.

2.Institutional advantages over civil remedies

(II)The Relationship Between Restitution and Sentencing — Promoting Recovery Through Sentencing Pressure

This is the most practically valuable institutional design in criminal asset recovery: restitution and recovery of illegal proceeds are important statutory factors influencing sentencing.

Under the Criminal Law and judicial interpretations:

•Mitigating circumstance: Where a criminal suspect or defendant returns stolen money or compensates for losses, they may be given a lighter punishment at the discretion of the court. In profit-motivated crimes such as occupational embezzlement and commercial bribery, restitution is one of the most important discretionary mitigating circumstances

•Restitution and probation: In judicial practice, whether full restitution is made is a key consideration in determining whether probation can be applied. Where no restitution is made, probation is generally not applied; where full restitution is made, the probability of probation being granted increases significantly

Practical significance: The criminal procedure creates an incentive mechanism that civil litigation cannot replicate — the accused faces the pressure of “no restitution, heavier sentence,” creating a strong motivation to voluntarily return misappropriated assets. In many cases, once a criminal case is filed, the accused proactively contacts the company to negotiate restitution in exchange for lenient treatment. The practical efficiency of asset recovery far exceeds that of civil litigation.

(III)Relationship Between Criminal Restitution and Civil Compensation

The interplay between criminal restitution and civil damages in criminal-civil overlapping cases remains a source of widespread confusion for foreign-invested enterprises.

1.Basic rule: criminal restitution takes priority

Under Article 175, §2 of the Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law, where recovery or restitution in criminal proceedings cannot fully compensate the loss, the victim may separately file a civil lawsuit. Criminal restitution comes first; civil compensation follows for the shortfall.

2.Handling overlap

•If a criminal judgment has already ordered recovery or restitution, and the victim files a separate civil lawsuit on the same facts, courts generally will not accept it

•However, if the embezzlement also constitutes breach of contract or tort, the victim may separately claim losses not covered by criminal restitution (e.g., lost profits, reasonable costs of rights protection)

3.Practical recommendation

•Criminal first, then civil: Prioritize asset recovery through criminal proceedings, then pursue a civil claim for any shortfall

•Parallel proceedings: If criminal proceedings are progressing slowly, civil litigation may be filed simultaneously and property preservation applied for to prevent further asset transfer

•Criminal pressure facilitating civil resolution: Utilize asset clues obtained through criminal investigation (such as bank account information, location of hidden assets, etc.) to conduct targeted property preservation in civil proceedings

(IV)Practical Challenges and Responses in Asset Recovery

1.Recovery of assets transferred abroad

If the accused has transferred illegal proceeds to overseas accounts, recovery difficulty increases significantly. Under the International Criminal Judicial Assistance Law, asset freezing and return may be requested through judicial assistance channels. However, this process is time-consuming (typically 1–3 years) and depends on the coverage of bilateral judicial assistance treaties.

Practical recommendation: The most effective preventive measure is to push for criminal case filing as early as possible and freeze assets before cross-border transfers are completed. In foreign-related criminal cases, a lawyer’s cross-border coordination capability is crucial.

2.Restitution liability of joint offenders

In commercial bribery cases, the bribe-giver and bribe-recipient may constitute joint crimes (e.g., conspiring to harm company interests). The prevailing view holds that each joint offender bears joint and several restitution liability for the amount involved in their participation.

Practical recommendation: The complaint should name the bribe-giver as a co-respondent wherever possible — this not only allows for pursuing their criminal liability but also expands the scope of restitution-obligated parties, increasing the probability of actual loss recovery.

3.Bona fide third parties

If illegal proceeds have flowed to a bona fide third party (e.g., a supplier in normal commercial dealings), they are not subject to recovery, per the rules established by the Supreme People’s Court and Procuratorate’s Interpretation on Criminal Fraud Cases. However, third parties who knowingly accept illegal proceeds are not bona fide recipients.

Practical recommendation: In the complaint materials, every effort should be made to demonstrate that the fund recipient knew or should have known that the source of funds was illicit — for example, by proving the existence of an affiliate relationship with the accused, manifestly unfair transaction prices, or other circumstances indicating actual or constructive knowledge.

（一）先刑后民：以刑事侦查驱动民事维权

当民事案件审理过程中发现涉嫌犯罪时，根据《最高人民法院关于在审理经济纠纷案件中涉及经济犯罪嫌疑若干问题的规定》，法院应当裁定驳回起诉，将线索移送公安机关或检察机关。待刑事程序终结后，当事人可再行提起民事诉讼。

实务意义：刑事侦查获取的证据（银行流水、审计报告、讯问笔录等）可在后续民事诉讼中作为书证使用，大大降低民事举证难度。

（二）刑民并行：双线推进，互为补充

当刑事与民事涉及不同法律关系时，可分别推进。例如：

•刑事程序：追究员工职务侵占罪/非国家工作人员受贿罪，追缴违法所得

•民事程序：主张员工违反劳动合同的违约责任、违反竞业限制义务的违约责任，或主张供应商的缔约过失责任

注意：刑民并行时需避免对同一损失的双重受偿。刑事退赔已弥补的损失，不得在民事程序中再次主张。

（三）以刑促民：刑事压力驱动和解

刑事控告的最大实务价值，往往不在于走完全部刑事诉讼流程，而在于以刑事压力促成和解。被控告人面临刑事追诉的风险时，通常有强烈意愿与公司达成和解——主动退赔、签署还款协议、赔偿公司损失——以换取从宽处理甚至撤销案件。

操作要点：

•和解应在律师指导下进行，确保和解协议的合法性和可执行性

•根据《刑事诉讼法》第290条，达成和解协议的，公安机关可以向人民检察院提出从宽处理的建议；人民检察院可以向人民法院提出从宽处罚的建议

•和解不等于撤案——对于公安机关已立案的刑事案件，当事人和解仅为从宽情节，一般不导致撤销案件。但对于情节轻微的案件，检察院可以作出不起诉决定

(I)“Criminal First, Then Civil”: Driving Civil Rights Protection Through Criminal Investigation

When suspected crime is discovered during civil proceedings, the court shall dismiss the civil claim and transfer leads to public security organs or procuratorates, per the Supreme People’s Court Provisions on Issues Concerning Suspected Economic Crimes in the Trial of Economic Dispute Cases. After criminal proceedings conclude, parties may re-file civil lawsuits.

Practical significance: Evidence obtained through criminal investigation (bank statements, audit reports, interrogation transcripts, etc.) may be used as documentary evidence in subsequent civil proceedings, significantly reducing the difficulty of civil proof.

(II)“Parallel Criminal and Civil Proceedings”: Dual-Track Advancement as Mutual Complement

When criminal and civil matters involve different legal relationships, they may proceed separately. For example:

•Criminal proceedings: Pursuing the employee for job-related embezzlement or receiving bribes by non-state functionaries; recovering illegal proceeds

•Civil proceedings: Claiming the employee's liability for breach of the labor contract, liability for breach of non-compete obligations, or the supplier's pre-contractual liability

Note: Parallel proceedings must avoid double recovery for the same loss. Losses already compensated through criminal restitution may not be claimed again in civil proceedings.

(III)“Criminal Pressure Facilitating Civil Resolution”: Driving Settlement Through Criminal Pressure

The greatest practical value of criminal complaints often lies not in completing the full criminal process, but in using criminal pressure to facilitate settlement. Facing the risk of criminal prosecution, the accused typically has a strong desire to reach a settlement with the company — voluntarily returning assets, signing repayment agreements, compensating company losses — in exchange for lenient treatment or even case dismissal.

Operational points:

•Settlements should be conducted under legal guidance to ensure the legality and enforceability of settlement agreements

•Under CPL Article 290, where a settlement agreement is reached, public security organs may recommend lenient treatment to the procuratorate; the procuratorate may recommend lenient sentencing to the court

•Settlement does not equal case withdrawal — for cases already filed by public security organs, a settlement is merely a mitigating factor and generally does not lead to case withdrawal. However, for minor cases, the procuratorate may decide not to prosecute

对外企而言，员工商业贿赂与职务侵占不仅是合规风险，更是需要主动维权的现实侵害。刑事控告并非“最后的手段”，而是一种兼具追责与追损功能、被严重低估的制度工具。

在追责层面，刑事控告以国家公权力介入侦查取证，突破了民事途径中个人取证能力的瓶颈；在追损层面，退赃退赔与量刑的联动机制，创造了民事判决无法复制的追偿激励——被控告人面临“重判”的现实压力，有强烈动机主动退赔。

当然，刑事控告并非万能钥匙。它有立案门槛，有程序周期，涉外证据的跨境调取更是额外的复杂变量。但对于在华经营的外企来说，仅知民事而不知刑事，等于维权利器少了一半。懂路径、备好证、找对人——让刑事控告从概念变为利器，这是外企维权必须补上的关键一课。

For foreign enterprises, employee commercial bribery and embezzlement represent not merely compliance risks but real injuries requiring proactive rights protection. Criminal complaints are not a “last resort” but a systematically undervalued institutional tool that simultaneously serves both accountability and recovery functions.

At the accountability level, criminal complaints leverage state public power for investigation and evidence collection, overcoming the bottleneck of individual evidentiary capacity inherent in civil proceedings. At the recovery level, the linkage mechanism between restitution and sentencing creates a recovery incentive that civil judgments cannot replicate — the accused faces the practical pressure of “no restitution, heavier sentence,” creating strong motivation to voluntarily return misappropriated assets.

To be sure, criminal complaints are not a master key. They have filing thresholds, procedural timelines, and cross-border evidence collection adds further complexity. But for foreign enterprises operating in China, relying solely on civil remedies while remaining unaware of criminal pathways means fighting with one hand tied behind your back. Know the path, prepare the evidence, find the right counsel — turning criminal complaints from concept into weapon is the critical lesson foreign enterprises must learn for effective rights protection.