Is it a crime in China for a salesperson to keep payments collected from customers?

Usually yes. Using a sales position to collect customer money that should go to the employer and then keeping it is primarily duty embezzlement under Article 271(1) of the Criminal Law, even if the money never reached the company account and even if internal rules said the salesperson was not authorised to collect payments.

What is the minimum amount for duty embezzlement in China?

Police filing starts at RMB 30,000 (Article 76 of the Case Filing Standards (II), 2022), while the conviction threshold for a "relatively large amount" is RMB 60,000 and "huge" is RMB 1 million, derived from Article 11 of the 2016 SPC/SPP interpretation. There is no published figure for the "especially huge" tier.

What is the difference between duty embezzlement and misappropriation of funds in China?

The intent to permanently take the money. An employee who uses company money intending to return it commits misappropriation of funds (Article 272) — e.g. more than three months unreturned; one who hides and keeps it with no intention to return commits duty embezzlement (Article 271).

If the amount is too small for embezzlement, can the employee still be prosecuted?

Possibly, for theft. If the court finds the employee only used "work convenience" rather than their position — for example a cash counter taking notes under company control and surveillance — it is theft, whose threshold is only RMB 1,000–3,000.

← Back to Case Research

A Salesperson Collects Customer Payments and Keeps Them — Duty Embezzlement in Chinese Criminal Law and Its "Amount Ladder": A Case Study

Topics: how to classify a salesperson or account manager who collects customer payments and keeps them instead of handing them over (duty embezzlement vs misappropriation of funds vs conversion vs fraud vs theft) · whether "the unit's property" includes customer payments not yet booked · the line between "use of one's position" and "work convenience" · the amount ladder (RMB 30,000 for filing, RMB 60,000 for conviction, RMB 1,000–3,000 for theft) and the risk of a lesser charge · calculating the amount, restitution and leniency

Coverage: 22 full cases from the People's Court Case Database + 4 extracts from the China Courts Annual Cases (26 in total) · database and case numbers in the text link to the originals · report completed 2026-09-14

Criminal Law Art. 271 · duty embezzlementFiling RMB 30,000 / conviction RMB 60,000Sales-collection pattern26 linked originals

English edition of Wang Xin’s Chinese research report 销售人员私收客户款项不上交、自己私吞 —— 职务侵占的定性与「数额阶梯」类案研究. Case numbers are kept in their original Chinese form so they can be searched and verified; the full-text judgments they link to are in Chinese.

The 30-second answer

A salesperson who, by virtue of their job, collects customer money that should go to the employer and keeps it may be convicted of duty embezzlement even if the money never entered the company's account.
Whether the position was used, whether the money belonged to the unit and whether possession was lawfully obtained are the keys to distinguishing duty embezzlement, conversion, fraud and theft.
Temporary use with intent to repay must be distinguished as misappropriation of funds; intent to take permanently is judged from conduct such as concealment, squandering and refusal to repay.
Amount thresholds, restitution and the employer's forgiveness affect filing, conviction and sentence, but what internal rules call a collection authority cannot replace the criminal-law analysis.

Scope and exceptions as set out in the text · page structure updated 2026-09-19 · statute check dates in the text

1. Summary of conclusions

Where a company salesperson uses the authority to collect payments from customers and keeps the money instead of handing it to the company, the primary classification is duty embezzlement (Criminal Law Article 271(1)): internally they are "a staff member of a company, enterprise or other unit"; externally they collect money on the unit's behalf and have authority to "handle and manage" it. The money becomes the unit's property when paid to them (including "customer funds that should be delivered to the unit, and the unit's receivables"), and concealing and keeping it is "illegally taking it as one's own".

Key point	Conclusion	Basis
Basic offence	Duty embezzlement (Art. 271(1))	Statute + Nie Moumou case (Database No. 2024-03-1-226-001)
"Use of position" element	Whether the unit authorised collection is an internal management rule and cannot negate use of position; matters temporarily assigned by the unit also count	Gu Moumou case (2024-05-1-226-001), Nie Moumou case
Ownership element	Money going into a personal account does not change the classification: a customer paying because of the employee's role makes a valid transaction, so the money is the unit's property	Xu Moumou case (2024-05-1-226-006), Yu Mouqiang case (2023-05-1-226-002)
Line with fraud	Taking the unit's property = duty embezzlement; cheating customers = fraud / contract fraud	Xu Moumou case, Qin Mouqing case (2025-05-1-226-003), Tao Mouyang case (2026-03-1-167-001)
Line with misappropriation	Intending only to use the money and repay → misappropriation of funds (Art. 272); no intention to repay → duty embezzlement	Li Mou misappropriation case (2023-05-1-227-003)
Amount thresholds	Relatively large RMB 60,000 / huge RMB 1 million	Fa Shi [2016] No. 9, Articles 1, 2 and 11 (text below)
Below the threshold (e.g. RMB 20,000)	Not duty embezzlement (below both the RMB 30,000 filing and RMB 60,000 conviction thresholds), but possibly downgraded to theft (whose "relatively large" threshold is only RMB 1,000–3,000)	See section 4, "The amount ladder and the downgrade risk"
Third tier, "especially huge"	No judicial interpretation sets an amount for this tier	Inference · to verify see section 4
Case filing standard	Duty embezzlement: RMB 30,000 or more should be filed for prosecution (the band above 30,000 and below 60,000 does not match the conviction threshold; see section 4)	SPP and MPS Provisions on Case Filing Standards for Criminal Cases under Police Jurisdiction (II), Art. 76

Note: all "original text" in this report is quoted verbatim (translated here) with its source, so each can be checked; passages marked Inference · to verify are the analyst's summaries or inferences, not statutory text — verify before relying on them.

2. The map of offences: the same "pocketing customer money" facts can fall under five offences

Offence	Article	Core elements	Fit with this situation
Duty embezzlement	Criminal Law Art. 271(1)	Staff member of a unit + use of position + illegally taking the unit's property + relatively large amount	Best fit (a sales role naturally "handles" customer money)
Misappropriation of funds	Art. 272	Using one's position to divert unit funds for personal use; relatively large and unreturned for over three months, or used for profit-making / illegal activity	Only where the intent is "borrow and repay"; "pocketing" does not fit
Conversion (embezzlement of entrusted property)	Art. 270	Illegally keeping another's property held in custody, relatively large, refusing to return it; prosecuted only on complaint	Only where there is neither a position in the unit nor a taking of unit property (e.g. collecting on commission after leaving)
Theft	Art. 264	Secret taking; if only "work convenience" rather than position was used, duty embezzlement is excluded	Where both offences fit, the special provision prevails: duty embezzlement (Zhang Mou case)
Fraud / contract fraud	Arts. 266 / 224	Fabricating facts to customers to obtain their money	Possible where the customer gets no valid consideration and the unit does not recognise the authority to collect (Tao Mouyang case)
Corruption (graft)	Arts. 271(2), 382	Persons performing public duties in state-owned units, or assigned to perform them	If the unit is state-owned (state hotel, venue, property management, etc.); note that "a person hired to collect fees without authority to manage them should not be treated as a state functionary" (Wang Mouchuan case)

3. Core statutory text

The following are quoted in full from the original (English translation), with sources given.

1. Criminal Law Article 271 (duty embezzlement)

Article 271. A staff member of a company, enterprise or other unit who, by taking advantage of their position, illegally takes the unit's property as their own, if the amount is relatively large, shall be sentenced to up to three years' imprisonment or criminal detention and a fine; if the amount is huge, to three to ten years' imprisonment and a fine; if the amount is especially huge, to ten years' or more imprisonment or life imprisonment and a fine. Persons performing public duties in state-owned companies, enterprises or other state-owned units, and persons assigned by them to perform public duties in non-state-owned companies, enterprises or other units, who commit the acts in the preceding paragraph shall be convicted and punished under Articles 382 and 383. Source: Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (text of 2020-12-26)

2. Criminal Law Article 272 (misappropriation of funds)

Article 272. A staff member of a company, enterprise or other unit who, by taking advantage of their position, diverts the unit's funds for personal use or lends them to others, where the amount is relatively large and has not been returned for more than three months, or although not more than three months, the amount is relatively large and used for profit-making activities, or is used for illegal activities, shall be sentenced to up to three years' imprisonment or criminal detention; where the amount diverted is huge, to three to seven years' imprisonment; where especially huge, to seven years' or more imprisonment. (Paragraph 2 deals with state-unit personnel under Article 384; paragraph 3:) A person who commits the acts in paragraph 1 and returns the diverted funds before public prosecution may receive a lighter or mitigated punishment; where the crime is minor, punishment may be mitigated or exempted. Source: Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (text of 2020-12-26)

3. Criminal Law Article 270 (conversion, for comparison)

Article 270. Whoever illegally takes as their own another's property held in their custody, where the amount is relatively large and they refuse to return it, shall be sentenced to up to two years' imprisonment, criminal detention or a fine; where the amount is huge or there are other serious circumstances, to two to five years' imprisonment and a fine. Whoever illegally takes as their own another's lost or buried property, where the amount is relatively large and they refuse to hand it over, shall be punished under the preceding paragraph. The crime in this Article is handled only upon complaint. Source: Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (text of 2020-12-26)

4. Criminal Law Article 64 (recovery and restitution)

Article 64. All property illegally obtained by a criminal shall be recovered or restitution ordered; the victim's lawful property shall be returned promptly; contraband and the criminal's own property used in the crime shall be confiscated. Confiscated property and fines shall all be turned over to the state treasury and may not be diverted or disposed of otherwise. Source: Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (text of 2020-12-26)

5. The only direct basis for the amounts: Fa Shi [2016] No. 9, Article 11 and Articles 1, 2 and 3

Article 11. The starting amounts for "relatively large" and "huge" in the crime of bribery by non-state functionaries under Article 163 and duty embezzlement under Article 271 of the Criminal Law are two times and five times, respectively, the corresponding amounts for bribery and corruption in this Interpretation. The starting amounts for "relatively large", "huge" and "used for illegal activities" in the crime of misappropriation of funds under Article 272 are two times the amounts for "relatively large", "serious circumstances" and "used for illegal activities" in the crime of misappropriation of public funds in this Interpretation. Source: SPC and SPP Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Corruption and Bribery (text of 2016-04-18)

Article 1. Corruption or bribery of RMB 30,000 or more but less than RMB 200,000 shall be found to be a "relatively large amount" under Article 383(1)… Article 2. Corruption or bribery of RMB 200,000 or more but less than RMB 3 million shall be found to be a "huge amount" under Article 383(1)… Article 3. Corruption or bribery of RMB 3 million or more shall be found to be an "especially huge amount" under Article 383(1)… Source: SPC and SPP Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Corruption and Bribery

Derivation (calculated directly from the above): corruption "relatively large" RMB 30,000 × 2 = duty embezzlement RMB 60,000; corruption "huge" RMB 200,000 × 5 = duty embezzlement RMB 1 million. Misappropriation of funds "relatively large" = misappropriation of public funds standard × 2.

6. Joint offences: Fa Shi [2000] No. 15

Article 2. Whoever colludes with staff of a company, enterprise or other unit and, using that staff member's position, jointly takes the unit's property as their own, where the amount is relatively large, shall be treated as an accomplice in duty embezzlement. Article 3. Where, in a company, enterprise or other unit, a person who is not a state functionary colludes with a state functionary and each uses their own position to jointly take the unit's property, the offence is determined by the nature of the principal offender's crime. Source: SPC Interpretation on Several Issues of Determining Joint Crimes in Corruption and Duty Embezzlement Cases (text of 2000-06-30)

7. Related civil and labour provisions

Civil Code Article 172. Where a person without authority of agency, exceeding it, or after it has terminated, still acts as agent, and the counterparty has reason to believe the person has authority, the act of agency is valid. Source: Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (text of 2020-05-28)

Civil Code Article 985. Where a person obtains an improper benefit without legal basis, the person suffering loss may demand return of the benefit, except: (1) payment made to perform a moral obligation; (2) payment of a debt before it fell due; (3) payment of a debt knowing there was no obligation to pay. Source: Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (text of 2020-05-28)

Labour Contract Law Article 39. An employer may terminate the labour contract if the employee: (1) is proved not to meet the conditions for employment during probation; (2) seriously violates the employer's rules; (3) seriously neglects duty or engages in malpractice for personal gain, causing heavy losses to the employer; … (6) is held criminally liable according to law. Source: Labour Contract Law of the People's Republic of China (text of 2012-12-28)

4. Amounts and sentencing tiers (with actual sentences)

Tier	Starting amount	Statutory sentence (Art. 271(1))	Basis
Relatively large	RMB 60,000 or more	Up to three years' imprisonment or criminal detention, plus a fine	Fa Shi [2016] No. 9 Art. 11 × Art. 1 (30,000 × 2)
Huge	RMB 1 million or more	Three to ten years' imprisonment, plus a fine	Same × Art. 2 (200,000 × 5)
Especially huge	No figure found	Ten years' or more imprisonment or life imprisonment, plus a fine	Art. 271 has this tier (after Criminal Law Amendment XI), but Art. 11 only covers "relatively large" and "huge"

Researcher's inference (not original text): in practice "especially huge" is often taken as five times corruption's "especially huge" RMB 3 million, i.e. RMB 15 million. This is an inference — among the cited cases, Wang Moujia (2025-03-1-226-002, embezzling RMB 18 million + 44 million + 1.1 million, plus bribery of over RMB 41 million) received thirteen years in total for several offences, showing the tier is applied in practice; but check the latest judicial interpretation or local practice for the exact threshold.

Case filing standards (original text)

Article 76. [Duty embezzlement (Criminal Law Art. 271(1))] Where a staff member of a company, enterprise or other unit, by taking advantage of their position, illegally takes the unit's property as their own, and the amount is RMB 30,000 or more, the case shall be filed for prosecution. Source: SPP and MPS Provisions on Case Filing Standards for Criminal Cases under Police Jurisdiction (II) (text of 2022-04-06)

Article 77. [Misappropriation of funds (Criminal Law Art. 272(1))] Where a staff member of a company, enterprise or other unit, by taking advantage of their position, diverts the unit's funds for personal use or lends them to others, the case shall be filed in any of the following situations: (1) RMB 50,000 or more diverted and unreturned for more than three months; (2) RMB 50,000 or more diverted for profit-making activities; (3) RMB 30,000 or more diverted for illegal activities. Source: Case Filing Standards (II)

Keep the two numbers apart: the threshold for police filing is RMB 30,000 (Art. 76); the "relatively large" threshold for conviction and sentencing, derived from Art. 11 of Fa Shi [2016] No. 9, is RMB 60,000 — double. The notice issuing the Provisions also says: "Where, after this notice is issued, a judicial interpretation further specifies filing standards, the judicial interpretation shall prevail." Inference · to verify Whether amounts between RMB 30,000 and 60,000 can lead to conviction, and whether practice is uniform across regions, is beyond what this report can settle; check local practice and the latest interpretations before acting.

The amount ladder and the downgrade risk: from RMB 1,000 to RMB 1 million

Amount	Corresponding standard	Basis (source)
RMB 1,000–3,000 or more	Theft "relatively large" threshold (each province sets its figure within this range)	2013 SPC/SPP Interpretation on Theft Cases, Art. 1
RMB 10,000 to under 30,000	Corruption with "other relatively serious circumstances" (only for persons performing public duties in state units + one of six circumstances in Art. 1(2))	Fa Shi [2016] No. 9, Art. 1(2)
RMB 20,000 or more	Contract fraud filing standard	Case Filing Standards (II), Art. 69
RMB 30,000 or more	Duty embezzlement filing standard (police filing threshold)	Case Filing Standards (II), Art. 76
RMB 60,000 or more	Duty embezzlement "relatively large" = conviction threshold (up to three years or criminal detention, plus a fine)	Fa Shi [2016] No. 9 Art. 11 + Art. 1(1) (30,000 × 2)
RMB 1 million or more	Duty embezzlement "huge" (three to ten years, plus a fine)	Same + Art. 2 (200,000 × 5)
No figure found	Duty embezzlement "especially huge" (ten years or more or life, plus a fine)	Art. 271 has the tier; the interpretations give no amount

How to read it (taking RMB 20,000 as an example): below the duty-embezzlement filing (RMB 30,000) and conviction (RMB 60,000) thresholds, so not a crime as duty embezzlement; but far above theft's "relatively large" threshold (RMB 1,000–3,000), so a crime if the classification slides to theft; and exactly at the contract-fraud filing threshold (RMB 20,000).

Downgrade risk: falling short of duty embezzlement does not mean no crime. If the conduct is assessed as using only work convenience rather than one's position, it is theft — whose "relatively large" threshold is only RMB 1,000–3,000 (2013 SPC/SPP theft interpretation, Art. 1); RMB 10,000 is far above it.

Example (China Courts Annual Cases 2023, Nangang District People's Court, Harbin): Zheng Moumou, a cash counter at a passenger transport company, stole money while counting. The defence argued it "meets the elements of duty embezzlement, but the amount does not reach the statutory threshold, so it is not a crime". The court disagreed, finding Zheng "illegally stole the unit's property by secret taking, in a relatively large amount, constituting theft", because the money being counted remained under the company's actual control, the counting area was closely monitored, and no use of position was involved. (Extract of the original, in Chinese)

Source of the rule (database case text): Zhang Mou duty embezzlement case (2023-05-1-226-008) — "Stealing a non-state unit's property by taking advantage of one's position is duty embezzlement; stealing it by taking advantage of work convenience is theft."

Inference · to verify Two further questions: (1) Aggregation — multiple takings, payments or customers are usually aggregated in practice; Article 271 itself has no "aggregate unhandled multiple takings" clause (corruption has one in Article 383), so aggregation is common practice without an express provision for duty embezzlement. (2) Temporal effect — conduct before 2016-04-18 (the RMB 60,000 standard) or 2022-05-15 (the RMB 30,000 filing standard) was subject to lower old standards, but the principle of applying the old law unless the new is lighter means the lighter new standard applies.

Actual sentences (same offence, amount vs sentence)

Case	Amount taken	Sentence / fine
Nie Moumou duty embezzlement	RMB 100,000	Ten months' imprisonment
Xu Moumou duty embezzlement	RMB 818,000	Two years nine months, fine RMB 80,000, restitution of RMB 818,000 ordered
Rao Mou duty embezzlement	Over RMB 950,000 (at the company's purchase price)	Three years suspended for five (restitution made, forgiveness obtained, guilty plea)
Gu Moumou duty embezzlement	RMB 825,232.60	Three years nine months, restitution ordered
Li Mou misappropriation (comparison)	RMB 289,000 (diverted, unreturned over three months)	Two years suspended for three

Doubtful · check the original judgment Gu Moumou (RMB 825,000) received three years nine months, which seems in tension with the amount falling in the "relatively large (RMB 60,000–1 million) = up to three years" tier. The database summary expressly says "relatively large", and the judgment is dated 2022-03-07. The summary does not show any aggravating circumstances or other offences. If you cite this sentence, check the original judgment — it is reported here as is, without explanation.

5. The five cases closest to "collected but not handed over"

Gu Moumou duty embezzlement — a sales manager collected customer payments into a personal account and kept them

Database No. 2024-05-1-226-001 | (2021) 沪0113刑初1539号 | Baoshan District People's Court, Shanghai | judgment 2022-03-07 | effective at first instance

Facts (from the original): "From September to November 2020, while serving as steel sales manager of a Shanghai technology company, the defendant Gu Moumou, using the position of being responsible for sales, illegally appropriated RMB 825,232.60 in payments for four batches of steel collected in a personal account and squandered it, and was still unable to repay when the case came to light." Sentenced to three years nine months; restitution ordered.

Holding (original): A company employee who, by taking advantage of their position and exceeding their authority, collects payment from customers by deception and illegally keeps it, in a relatively large amount, commits duty embezzlement.

Why it matters: one issue was precisely "did he have authority to collect payments?". The court said: "Whether Gu Moumou had authority to collect payment is a matter of the technology company's internal management rules and cannot negate the fact that he used his position to appropriate the payments." This directly rejects the approach of a company arguing "our rules forbid cash / require company accounts", so the salesperson had no authority and the case should be fraud or a civil matter.

Xu Moumou duty embezzlement — collected money as the unit's salesperson and kept it; charged with fraud, convicted of duty embezzlement

Database No. 2024-05-1-226-006 | (2022) 粤0512刑初6号 | Haojiang District People's Court, Shantou, Guangdong | judgment 2022-03-29 | effective at first instance

Facts (from the original): Xu Moumou helped manage a cemetery and from May 2020 was temporarily in charge of daily management; his personal phone number was listed as the cemetery's contact on a government website. From February to April 2021 he dealt with people buying plots and, citing reasons such as "the boss doesn't agree to the price", "pay in advance first" or "a deposit is required", collected RMB 818,000 from 12 people via his own WeChat, bank account and cash, then squandered it. Convicted of duty embezzlement: two years nine months, fine RMB 80,000, restitution of RMB 818,000 ordered.

Holding (original): The object of the illegal taking and the means used are among the keys to distinguishing duty embezzlement from fraud. Duty embezzlement can only infringe the unit's own property; fraud infringes the counterparty's property. Where the counterparty, because of the actor's role, reasonably believes they have authority to sell on the unit's behalf and buys goods or services, that is a valid civil juristic act, so the money paid should be found to be the company's property.

Why it matters: almost the same structure as an ordinary company case — "the customer pays because of the person's sales role and receives a valid document (receipt, service contract, order)", so the money becomes the unit's property, and what is taken is the unit's property, not the customer's. The court also said: "The cemetery's internal rule that burial certificates are only valid with the finance seal can bind staff as an internal process, but has no necessary effect on purchasers and cannot raise the purchaser's duty of care in the transaction."

Nie Moumou duty embezzlement — "the unit's funds" include customer funds due to the unit and receivables

Database No. 2024-03-1-226-001 | (2022) 川19刑终194号 | Bazhong Intermediate People's Court, Sichuan | judgment 2023-02-15

Facts (from the original): The defendant Nie Moumou, the company's marketing director, was asked by the legal representative to handle shop owners' facade renovations. Claiming design changes required fees for window and door alterations and works coordination, he had shop owners transfer RMB 150,000 in price differences to his personal account (RMB 100,000 actually received), issued receipts in the name of the company's sales office, did not hand the money to the company, and left in September 2018.

Holding (original): 1. "Taking advantage of one's position" in duty embezzlement means the power, within one's authority or arising from performing one's duties, to direct, handle or manage the unit's funds or customer funds. One's authority includes both the powers of one's regular post and powers temporarily granted by the responsible supervisor as work requires… 2. "The unit's funds" in duty embezzlement may be the unit's existing funds or customer funds that should be delivered to the unit. The unit's receivables and obtainable benefits, although not yet in the unit's account or under its actual control, are still the unit's property.

Why it matters: "money the customer should have paid into the company's account but which an individual took" is exactly "customer funds that should be delivered to the unit". This holding shuts down the argument "the money never reached the company account, so it isn't company property".

Rao Mou duty embezzlement — a salesperson used price differences to take the unit's property

Database No. 2025-05-1-226-001 | (2020) 沪0107刑初506号 | Putuo District People's Court, Shanghai | judgment 2020-07-10

Facts (from the original): From June 2012 to July 2019 the defendant Rao Mou, a wholesale department manager, raised the actual transaction price when taking orders from five companies and used the difference to release 648 items from the company without authorisation, sell them and keep the proceeds; valued at the company's purchase price including tax, over RMB 950,000. Sentenced to three years suspended for five (confession, restitution and forgiveness, guilty plea).

Holding (original): A salesperson who, through normal commercial negotiation, raises the selling price to the buyer, conceals the real price from the company and uses the difference to take the company's goods, in a relatively large amount, commits duty embezzlement.

Why it matters: it settles the common dispute "who owns the price difference the salesperson negotiated" in favour of the unit: the court held "the price increase obtained by a salesperson through negotiation under the company's authority belongs to the company". Useful for variants such as unauthorised mark-ups or discounts, pocketing the difference, or collecting lesson or service fees off the books.

China Courts Annual Cases 2023: a property-management employee collected parking fees and kept them

China Courts Annual Cases 2023 (extract of the original, in Chinese) | Banan District People's Court, Chongqing

Holding (from the original): "The defendant Liu Mou, taking advantage of his position, provided parking services to some residents by changing the property company's parking-system data without authorisation or arranging for others to lift the barrier, and privately collected parking fees and kept them, in a relatively large amount; his conduct constitutes duty embezzlement." Sentenced to ten months and a RMB 10,000 fine; restitution to the victim unit ordered. The court also explained that for the part involving "zombie cars", he "had no intent to illegally take another's property … and it should not be treated as a crime".

Why it matters: the fact pattern most resembles "using one's authority to provide the unit's services to customers and pocketing the money", and the court found duty embezzlement directly; it also shows how to separate the parts of the conduct that are criminal from those that are not.

6. By issue: practice points and matching cases

Issue 1 | Did they "take advantage of their position"? (the prosecution's main battleground)

Gu Moumou "Whether he had authority to collect payment is a matter of the company's internal management rules and cannot negate his use of position."
Nie Moumou Matters temporarily assigned by a supervisor beyond the regular post also count as use of position.
Zhang Mou (2023-05-1-226-008, (2020) 京02刑终502号) The test: use of position = duty embezzlement; mere work convenience = theft. "Managing and handling need not include the power to dispose of or sell externally."
Yu Mouqiang (2023-05-1-226-002, (2007) 衢中刑终字第139号) Using the position of acting for the company to keep unit property obtained under a lawful, valid contract → duty embezzlement; and expressly, what was taken was the unit's property, not the contract counterparty's.

Issue 2 | If the money never reached the company account, is it still "the unit's property"?

Nie Moumou Customer funds due to the unit, receivables and obtainable benefits are the unit's property even if not in its account.
Xu Moumou Where the other party pays because of the employee's role and the transaction is valid, the money is the unit's property.
Liu Mouxia and others (2025-03-1-226-003, (2021) 京0108刑初348号) "The unit's property" also includes property interests such as receivables and expected returns generated through the unit.
Wang Mou (2023-16-1-226-002, (2020) 吉刑再4号) The other way: where ownership is disputed and there is no reliable, sufficient evidence the property belonged to the unit, duty embezzlement cannot be found.

Issue 3 | Duty embezzlement, fraud or "a civil dispute"? (the defence's main battleground)

Xu Moumou "Although both offences involve deception, they differ in whether the position was used"; without the purchasers' recognition and acceptance of his role, "the defendant could not have obtained possession of the money".
Qin Mouqing, Huang Mouli and Tan Moumei (2025-05-1-226-003, (2023) 桂10刑终409号) Inventing a link in the transaction to inflate costs and splitting the difference → duty embezzlement; because the counterparty voluntarily accepted and performed the overall contract, not fraud.
Shi Moumou (2024-05-1-226-004, (2017) 鲁0281刑初803号) Between civil/economic disputes and criminal cases, review the substance and avoid formalistic criminalisation (a shareholder with control over a sole enterprise's income did not commit duty embezzlement).
Tao Mouyang contract fraud (2026-03-1-167-001, (2025) 沪0109刑初480号) A prepaid-consumption counter-example: an operator with no real intention or ability to perform collected prepayments through cheap promotions, linked the payment code to a personal account, changed the registration and disappeared → contract fraud against consumers (Art. 224). The dividing line: embezzlement against the unit, or fraud against customers.

Issue 4 | Duty embezzlement vs misappropriation of funds

Li Mou misappropriation (2023-05-1-227-003, (2014) 锡刑二终字第0058号) Also a company salesperson who "collected payments from customers and did not hand them over", but because he "diverted the payments totalling RMB 289,110 for personal use and did not return them for more than three months", he was convicted of misappropriation of funds: two years suspended for three. The watershed is "intent to take permanently" — intending to repay and only using the funds → Art. 272; no intention to repay and concealing → Art. 271.

Issue 5 | Who is "a staff member of the unit"? Part-timers, agents, probationers and affiliated operators

Xu Moudong and Zhu Mouhua (2023-05-1-226-003, (2021) 沪0106刑初735号) Insurance agents who signed agency contracts, were trained and managed by the company, did business in its name and earned commission "in substance had a de facto employment relationship" and "performed the same tasks as the insurer's salespeople", so can commit duty embezzlement. → A unit's "sales consultants / outsourced sales teams / part-timers" may be treated the same way.
Cheng Mouquan (2025-05-1-226-002, (2021) 渝02刑终280号) A company with a pre-approved name but not yet formally registered is an "other unit" under Art. 271 so long as it "has independent property and can conduct business independently in the organisation's name". → Branches and stores in preparation can be covered.
Wang Mouchuan (2023-05-1-226-006) A person hired to "collect state fees, issue invoices and deposit them" had no authority to manage or operate the money, so was not "performing public duties"; the taking was treated as duty embezzlement, not corruption.

Issue 6 | How the amount is calculated

Feng Moumou (2024-05-1-226-007, (2023) 沪02刑终550号) The amount is what was actually taken, without deducting costs paid to commit the crime (the case was "huge"; the defendant repaid RMB 5.53 million during trial).
Wang Moumou (2023-05-1-226-007, (2019) 鲁刑终46号) Where personal and company property were mixed, that part "should not be counted in the embezzled amount and should be deducted".
China Courts Annual Cases 2025 ("ghost employee" duty embezzlement) Discusses whether social insurance and housing fund contributions, and taxes, meal costs and union dues withheld by the company, beyond wages and bonuses paid directly, count towards the amount.

Issue 7 | Leniency and restitution

Rao Mou Confession + restitution and forgiveness + guilty plea → three years suspended for five.
Xu Moumou Lighter sentence for confession; the judgment also "ordered restitution of RMB 818,000 to the victim unit".
Criminal Law Art. 64 Illegal gains shall be recovered or restitution ordered and the victim unit's lawful property returned promptly — the unit's most reliable remedy.
Sun Mouliang (2023-05-1-226-001, (2012) 吴江刑初4号) Someone who conspired in advance and promised to buy the stolen goods afterwards is an accomplice in duty embezzlement, not separately guilty of concealing criminal proceeds. On joint offences see also Arts. 2 and 3 of Fa Shi [2000] No. 15.

7. Beyond criminal law: the unit's civil and employment remedies

Towards customers (external)

A customer who pays because of the salesperson's role and gets a receipt or contract has made a valid transaction (Civil Code Art. 172, apparent agency), so the unit cannot defeat the customer by saying "he never gave us the money"; if the agreed service cannot be provided, the customer can terminate and claim a refund (see the prepaid service contract case Zeng Mou v a Wuhan fitness management company, 2023-07-2-137-001, Qiaokou District People's Court, Wuhan, 2021-12-15 — a prepaid service agreement was terminated because the store closed, and membership and lesson fees were refunded).

Against the salesperson, the unit can claim return of the unjust enrichment under Civil Code Art. 985, or damages in tort / for breach of the duty of loyalty (criminal recovery and civil proceedings can be pursued alternatively or in parallel, avoiding double recovery).

Towards the employee (internal)

Labour Contract Law Art. 39: the contract can be terminated under item (2) "serious violation of the employer's rules", item (3) "serious neglect of duty or malpractice for personal gain causing heavy losses", or item (6) "held criminally liable".

Guiding Case No. 180 (Sun Xianfeng v Huai'an Xiqu Human Resources Development Co., Ltd., labour contract dispute, 2022-18-2-186-002) The court reviews the lawfulness of termination only on the grounds stated in the termination notice; other misconduct the company raises later, such as "not handing over takings promptly", is not considered. → State the grounds clearly in the termination notice and keep evidence.

China Courts Annual Cases 2024 An employee sold goods not in the company's stock and kept the money off the books; the company terminated under its "Retail Department Red/Yellow Card Management System V2.0", and the court upheld the rules' effect (the rules must have been communicated and acknowledged — here the employee had passed a test on them).

8. Special notes for ordinary businesses

Customer payments are often small and scattered, poorly documented and partly collected through personal payment codes. Evidence should focus on customer contracts / receipts / orders (with or without the company seal), payment codes and account statements (company account or not), service or consumption records (lessons, punch cards, orders, repair records), business system (POS / cashier) records and back-end logs, WeChat / Alipay records, witness statements from other customers, and whether the person handed over any money at all (partial versus total retention).
Where some money was handed over and some kept, the amount is the part kept (see how Xu Moumou and Liu Mou separated the conduct; and Feng Moumou's rule of "no deduction for costs of the crime").
If the salesperson is really a "contractor / affiliated" operator trading on their own account, first ask whether external dealings were in the unit's name and whether customers paid because they trusted the unit: yes → leans to duty embezzlement against the unit; no (e.g. collected in a personal name, no consideration, no intention to perform) → possibly fraud / contract fraud against consumers (Tao Mouyang).
Prepayments (stored-value cards, packages, prepaid balances) carry compliance risk independent of this issue: they should go promptly into the unit's account. If the unit long tolerated collection through personal accounts, or shared proceeds with salespeople, this may affect the finding of intent to take permanently and the allocation of civil liability (the substantive-review approach of Shi Moumou applies here).
Status: individual businesses, branches and businesses in preparation are still "units" under Art. 271 (Cheng Mouquan's broad reading of "other unit"); if the unit is state-owned (e.g. a state-owned sports venue), paragraph 2 may lead to corruption instead, which requires a separate status analysis.

9. Search notes and limitations

1. Sources of the conclusions

Statutes: quoted from current texts with sources given under each quotation in section 3.
Cases: from the People's Court Case Database, the SPC's China Courts Annual Cases and SPP guiding / typical cases, each with database number, case number, court and date; holdings are quoted verbatim. Database and case numbers in the text link to the original (database cases in full; annual cases as relevant extracts), in Chinese.
Passages marked Inference · to verify are the analyst's summaries or inferences, not statutory text; verify before relying on them.

2. Limitations and gaps (please note)

Current validity not re-checked: this report did not separately verify the latest official texts; confirm the current version before citing.
The filing standard in Art. 76 of the Case Filing Standards (II) (issued 2022-04-06, effective 2022-05-15) is RMB 30,000, which does not match the RMB 60,000 conviction threshold derived in section 4 from Art. 11 of Fa Shi [2016] No. 9; see the note in section 4.
Database summaries are anonymised ("a company", "Gu Moumou"); case numbers, courts and dates are as stated in the originals. The same case number may vary slightly between documents; rely on the original judgment when citing.
The current text of Art. 271 is the version after Criminal Law Amendment XI (effective 2021-03-01); conduct before 2021-03-01 raises the question of applying the old law unless the new is lighter (see Qing Mouyue and others, 2023-05-1-226-004: "where the new law reduces the principal penalty but adds a supplementary penalty, the principal penalty is the standard for judging which is lighter").

Appendix · Full-text index (26)

These cases are the working sources for this report. Database pages are People's Court Case Database release versions (keywords, holding, facts, related provisions), not the original judgments; annual-case pages are relevant extracts from the China Courts Annual Cases. Texts are unedited, only laid out in paragraphs, and are in Chinese.

Case	Case number	Court	Date	Text type	Original
Guiding Case No. 180: Sun Xianfeng v Huai'an Xiqu Human Resources Development Co., Ltd. (labour contract)	(2019) 苏07民终658号	Lianyungang Intermediate People's Court, Jiangsu	2019-04-22	Database release	View
Sun Mouliang duty embezzlement	(2012) 吴江刑初字第4号	Wujiang District People's Court, Suzhou	2012-01-20	Database release	View
Yu Mouqiang duty embezzlement	(2007) 衢中刑终字第139号	Quzhou Intermediate People's Court, Zhejiang	2007-11-20	Database release	View
Xu Moudong and Zhu Mouhua duty embezzlement	(2021) 沪0106刑初735号	Jing'an District People's Court, Shanghai	2021-12-01	Database release	View
Qing Mouyue and others duty embezzlement	(2021) 川01刑终810号	Chengdu Intermediate People's Court, Sichuan	2022-02-18	Database release	View
Wang Mouchuan duty embezzlement	(2016) 苏07 刑终252号	Lianyungang Intermediate People's Court, Jiangsu	2016-10-28	Database release	View
Wang Moumou duty embezzlement	(2019) 鲁刑终46号	Shandong High People's Court	2019-03-25	Database release	View
Zhang Mou duty embezzlement	(2020) 京02刑终502号	Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court	2020-12-18	Database release	View
Li Mou misappropriation of funds	(2014) 锡刑二终字第0058号	Wuxi Intermediate People's Court, Jiangsu	2014-07-31	Database release	View
Zeng Mou v a Wuhan fitness management company (service contract)	(2021) 鄂0104民初109号	Qiaokou District People's Court, Wuhan	2021-12-15	Database release	View
Wang Mou duty embezzlement	(2020) 吉刑再4号	Jilin High People's Court	2020-11-25	Database release	View
Nie Moumou duty embezzlement	(2022) 川19刑终194号	Bazhong Intermediate People's Court, Sichuan	2023-02-15	Database release	View
Gu Moumou duty embezzlement	(2021) 沪0113刑初1539号	Baoshan District People's Court, Shanghai	2022-03-07	Database release	View
Shi Moumou duty embezzlement	(2017) 鲁0281刑初803号	Jiaozhou People's Court	2019-10-16	Database release	View
Xu Moumou duty embezzlement	(2022) 粤0512刑初6号	Haojiang District People's Court, Shantou	2022-03-29	Database release	View
Feng Moumou duty embezzlement	(2023) 沪02刑终550号	Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court	2023-08-28	Database release	View
Wang Moujia duty embezzlement	(2024) 沪01刑终179号	Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court	2024-05-22	Database release	View
Liu Mouxia and others duty embezzlement	(2021) 京0108刑初348号	Haidian District People's Court, Beijing	2021-05-07	Database release	View
Rao Mou duty embezzlement	(2020) 沪0107刑初506号	Putuo District People's Court, Shanghai	2020-07-10	Database release	View
Cheng Mouquan duty embezzlement	(2021) 渝02刑终280号	Chongqing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court	2021-08-20	Database release	View
Qin Mouqing, Huang Mouli and Tan Moumei duty embezzlement	(2023) 桂10刑终409号	Baise Intermediate People's Court, Guangxi	2024-01-04	Database release	View
Tao Mouyang contract fraud	(2025) 沪0109刑初480号	Hongkou District People's Court, Shanghai	2026-01-29	Database release	View
China Courts Annual Cases 2023 · Liu Mou duty embezzlement (Banan District People's Court, Chongqing)	—	—	—	Extract, China Courts Annual Cases 2023	View
China Courts Annual Cases 2023 · Zheng Moumou (Nangang District People's Court, Harbin; theft vs duty embezzlement)	—	—	—	Extract, China Courts Annual Cases 2023	View
China Courts Annual Cases 2024 · employee kept takings off the books; termination under red/yellow card rules	—	—	—	Extract, China Courts Annual Cases 2024	View
China Courts Annual Cases 2025 · "ghost employee" duty embezzlement through a nominal position	—	—	—	Extract, China Courts Annual Cases 2025	View

Quick answers

Is it a crime in China for a salesperson to keep payments collected from customers?: Usually yes. Using a sales position to collect customer money that should go to the employer and then keeping it is primarily duty embezzlement under Article 271(1) of the Criminal Law, even if the money never reached the company account and even if internal rules said the salesperson was not authorised to collect payments.
What is the minimum amount for duty embezzlement in China?: Police filing starts at RMB 30,000 (Article 76 of the Case Filing Standards (II), 2022), while the conviction threshold for a "relatively large amount" is RMB 60,000 and "huge" is RMB 1 million, derived from Article 11 of the 2016 SPC/SPP interpretation. There is no published figure for the "especially huge" tier.
What is the difference between duty embezzlement and misappropriation of funds in China?: The intent to permanently take the money. An employee who uses company money intending to return it commits misappropriation of funds (Article 272) — e.g. more than three months unreturned; one who hides and keeps it with no intention to return commits duty embezzlement (Article 271).
If the amount is too small for embezzlement, can the employee still be prosecuted?: Possibly, for theft. If the court finds the employee only used "work convenience" rather than their position — for example a cash counter taking notes under company control and surveillance — it is theft, whose threshold is only RMB 1,000–3,000.

Need case research or advice on a similar matter?

Wang Xin works in English and Mandarin. Phone +86-18601139509 · WeChat wang223040 · weekdays 9:00–18:00 China time (UTC+8).

Contact Wang Xin