The elements of the crime of embezzlement from a public servant is a comparative study between Iraqi and Algerian law

Because of the development in the economy، the crime of embezzlement has become associated with the development that has occurred and because of this development، the activities have diversified only in large numbers and in a large way Corruption crimes. Most of the legislations have singled out the crime of embezzlement with clear importance through the range of crimes that violate functional duties، and we note this importance in the area of ​​punishment decided for it. Most of the legislations، including the Iraqi and Algerian ones، to tighten the penalty for embezzlement in general، regardless of the political system or the economic and social structure of the state، and because the role of the state is to maintain and protect public funds and interests، especially those funds and interests، according to the people who work in its bodies، in order to achieve the public benefit and because the work of the state is That you invest money and interests in a way that serves the individual and society alike.

 The Iraqi legislator has dealt with the crime of embezzlement in Chapter Two of Chapter Six of the Penal Code No. (11) of 1968، and the crime of embezzlement has been confused with other crimes that are also included in the crimes of influence، which are the crimes of material use from the influence of the position، and the crime of embezzlement is based on certain elements، namely The status of the perpetrator، the character of the embezzled money، the act of embezzlement، and the intent in the crime of embezzlement (the moral element).

 And that the elements of the crime of embezzlement are the description of the perpetrator، i.e. it is required that the perpetrator be an employee or assigned to a public service. If he is not an employee، the act of embezzlement is not realized and he must perform a material act and intend to embezzlement of the money delivered to him and that came to him through the job، and this is the material element of the crime and it must be The direction of the will of the perpetrator، the employee or the person charged with a public service، is to direct the embezzled money to other than the purpose for which it is intended، any assault on the legal interest and in this case the crime is realized and this is the moral element of the crime or the criminal intent.

 It can be said that the role of the public prosecution has the authority to monitor the legality and preserve the state’s funds. The role of the public prosecution emerged after it depleted the state’s funds and because of the spread of corruption in every way. It gave the responsibility to combat this scourge to an effective and independent apparatus and because it has the ability to investigate impartially and seek accountability with what it owns. Whoever approaches himself to committing a crime، and because the Public Prosecution office is effective، has strong authority، and because it is independent، he can recover the money that was stolen from state facilities.