Misappropriation of Property and Related Criminal Liability
Order 6. Mr. K. and Ms. Baeng B. jointly purchased a plot of land for 1, and Mr. K. was the sole registered owner of the land. Subsequently, Mr. Wang, the husband of Ms. Baeng B., consented to Mr. K.’s full rights and avoided recognition as his wife. Ms. Baeng B. therefore sued Mr. K. and Ms. Ka, having learned that Mr. K. and Ms. Ka had presented themselves to the court. The court ordered that the two parties be divorced and that the land be divided equally. The matter of Mr. K. was referred to a friend, Mr. Ng, for consultation. Mr. Ng advised Mr. K. to sell the land to Mr. Ng. Mr. K. then transferred the registration of the sale of the aforementioned plot to Mr. Ng at the price of 1, and all proceeds from the sale were delivered to Ms. Ka. Ms. Ka subsequently purchased the land. What actions, if any, did Mr. K., Ms. Ka, and Mr. Ng commit?
Answer:
The act of Mr. K. in jointly acquiring the land, Mr. K. knew that Ms. Baeng B. was the sole owner of the land. Simply granting Mr. K. a registration name only was a misappropriation of the property for his own benefit, constituting a violation of Section 198.
Furthermore, it is a violation of embezzlement under the Criminal Code, Section 90.
The court ordered Mr. K. to divide the land in half with Ms. Baeng B. Therefore, it is an act of damage, destruction, concealment, or rendering useless or depriving it of value, which he knew should have been seized or forfeited to prevent such a judgment or order. Another section of the law. Mr. K.’s actions constitute a single act, violating multiple statutes, applying the most severe penalty under the Criminal Code, Section 90.
For Ms. Ng, she is liable for aiding and abetting a crime under the Criminal Code, Sections 352, 187, and 86. And Mr. Ng’s acceptance of the transfer constitutes a violation of embezzlement under the Criminal Code, Section 90.
Furthermore, it is a single act violating multiple statutes, applying the most severe penalty under the Criminal Code, Section 90, even though he received money from the sale of the embezzled property from Mr. K., it was not a receipt.
Ms. Ka, whose wrongdoing occurred directly, is not liable under Criminal Code Section 357, paragraph one.