挪用资金 is diversion of unit funds — return intent and authorisation fights are the usual battlegrounds, not a Twitter diagnosis.
Criminal Law misappropriation-of-funds provisions target personnel who divert unit funds for personal use in ways the statute covers. Fact patterns overlap with embezzlement but the legal theory differs (divert vs take). Board authorisations, shareholder loans, and sloppy treasury controls create both false positives and real exposure. Internal investigation first is common; PSB filing changes the game. This wiki is the label. Occupational embezzlement is the related pages. Fraud crimes are a different deception stack.
4 questions before you choose the route.
This page identifies the right question and evidence. It does not determine the legal outcome on a reader’s facts.
Diverted or taken?
Theory choice.
TheoryWas there authorisation?
Board/treasury.
AuthorityPersonal use shown how?
Bank trail.
UseAmount and duration?
Statutory factors.
ScaleWorking rule: Map the regulated role before marketing or launch in China.
The signal ledger.
These facts move the question beyond a label and into a product, money-flow and control analysis.
Bring a compact evidence docket—not a pitch deck.
Give a compliance team or counsel the operating facts that reveal the perimeter.
Questions people ask before they build.
Short answers for orientation. The right result can change with the service model and current rules.
If we repay, is it over?
Repayment may mitigate but does not automatically erase criminal exposure. Fact-specific.
Where do books become criminal evidence?
See related tax/financial-crime evidence narratives — link,.
Primary authorities
Reviewed sources support orientation, not a fact-specific assessment.