职务侵占 is ‘using the job to take the company’s thing’ — it is not every messy expense claim and not automatically 挪用资金.
Occupational embezzlement under Criminal Law targets persons who take unit property by virtue of office. It differs from ordinary theft and from misappropriating funds for personal use with intent to return (挪用资金 — see the misappropriation related pages). Amount thresholds and role proof matter. Companies often start with an internal fraud investigation; crossing to PSB is a separate decision. This wiki is the offence label. Keep owner-manager case narratives for depth.
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.
Whose property?
Unit vs personal.
OwnerRole advantage used?
职务 element.
RoleTake vs temporary divert?
Embezzlement vs misappropriation.
IntentInternal hold done?
Investigations wiki.
HoldWorking 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.
Is this the same as fraud?
No. Fraud is deception of a victim; embezzlement is taking unit property via role.
Where is a manager funds narrative?
Keep related case guides such as owner-manager misappropriation pieces — link,.
Primary authorities
Reviewed sources support orientation, not a fact-specific assessment.