According to the news of the "Southern Guangdong Qingfeng" on December 3, 2021, Lin Zhuangsen, deputy secretary of the party group and deputy director of the Standing Committee of the Chaozhou Municipal People's Congress, fell from power.
The news quickly spread in Guangdong, especially in the Chaoshan region. People still remember that the "smuggling" case of Wang Jinshun, sponsored by Lin Zhuangsen more than 20 years ago, caused the innocent Wang Jinshun to be unjustly imprisoned for 4 years and 3 months. Now, with the fall of Lin, Wang Jinshun seems to be looking forward to the time when the case will be seen again and the truth of society will be returned.
At the same time as Lin Zhuangsen fell, Wang Jinshun also received a reply letter from the Chao'an District People's Procuratorate in Chaozhou City, saying that its reflecting case materials met the conditions for acceptance and had been accepted according to law.
Normal imports became smuggling, and the goods were confiscated and sold at low prices
In August 1992, Shantou Special Economic Zone Hengxiang Economic Development Company (hereinafter referred to as "Shantou Hengxiang Company") was established. The company is a special enterprise owned by the whole people with the right to import and export operation approved by the People's Government of Shantou County, and the legal representative is Wang Jinshun, and the position is manager (at the level of a section).
Shante Hengxiang Company also has Nan'ao County Hengfa Industrial Company (hereinafter referred to as "Nan'ao Hengfa Company"), which is an enterprise owned by the whole people with independent legal personality established and established in South Australia.
On September 29, 1995, the "Hengxiang No. 2" cargo ship of the Hong Kong route of Nan'ao Hengfa Company carried a batch of self-used electrical appliances from three foreign-funded enterprises, including a restaurant co., LTD. in Nan'ao County and a handbag factory co., LTD. in Nan'ao County, back to Shantou for customs declaration and import in Hong Kong. Passing through the Jiazi Sea in Shanwei City, while sailing in the normal channel, it was intercepted and inspected by the public side boats under the public security organ of Raoping County, Chaozhou City, which exceeded the jurisdiction of the sea area, and was forcibly escorted to Raoping without abnormality.
After that, the representative of Shante Hengxiang Company went to Raoping County with relevant documents and materials to explain the situation in order to prove the legitimacy of the batch of imported goods, and made legitimate requests for clarification or transfer to customs, supervision and declaration, etc., but was rejected. It was verbally declared on the spot: the goods were smuggled and confiscated.
Subsequently, Shante Hengxiang Company repeatedly stated its reasoning with the Raoping County Public Security Bureau and other relevant departments, requesting that it be handled in accordance with laws and regulations. The then leaders in charge of Nan'ao County and the leaders of relevant departments repeatedly made representations to Rao Ping, and the relevant departments at higher levels also came forward to mediate, but to no avail.
In the process of actively coordinating with the Raoping Public Security Bureau, the bureau sold a batch of goods with an original import cost of more than 1.4 million yuan at a low price of 1.05 million yuan (according to Rao Fang's news).
The administrative lawsuit won, but Wang Jinshun was arrested
In October 1996, forced to do so, Nan'ao Hengfa Company filed an administrative lawsuit with the Chaozhou Intermediate People's Court.
Therefore, such cases are rare, and the Chaozhou Intermediate People's Court reported that the Guangdong Provincial High People's Court identified it as an administrative case, and the case was heard in public court in accordance with law.
In February 1998, the Chaozhou Intermediate People's Court rendered a judgment in accordance with the law with the (1997) Chaoxing Chuzi No. 1 Administrative Judgment:
1. Revoke the administrative penalty decision made by the defendant Raoping County Public Security Bureau on October 1, 1995, to confiscate the goods carried by the plaintiff's Hengxiang No. 2 vessel.
2. The defendant shall, within 5 days from the date of legal effect of the judgment, return the confiscated goods of the plaintiff or return the freight of RMB 33,150 at a discount of the national exchange rate, and compensate for the economic losses during the period of confiscation of the goods.
3. The defendant Raoping County Public Security Bureau shall be responsible for the repair costs of the Hengxiang No. 2 ship that was damaged.
In this case, South Australian Hengfa Company won the case.
Some people in legal circles said that the judgment of the Chaozhou Intermediate People's Court proves that the operation activities of The Hengfa Company in Nan'ao County and the carriage of goods are legitimate and legal; the facts of this case are not "smuggling" and are not criminal cases; the Raoping County Public Security Bureau intercepts and seizes and confiscates the goods carried by the carrier across the sea, which is illegal.
On April 11, 1998, during an appeal to the Guangdong Provincial High People's Court, the Raoping County Public Security Bureau after losing the case sent someone to Shantou City to forcibly detain Wang Jinshun (a witness in the administrative case) of Shante Hengxiang Company, the superior company of Nan'ao Hengfa Company, to Raoping County for detention, and unilaterally forcibly imposed criminal charges on the same facts of the administrative case.
Subsequently, the Raoping County People's Procuratorate prosecuted Wang Jinshun, the manager of Shante Hengxiang Company, for smuggling. The Raoping County People's Court heard the case knowingly had no jurisdiction.
In December 1998, the Raoping County Court rendered the (1998) Rao Xing Chu Zi No. 114 Criminal Judgment, convicting Wang Jinshun of smuggling and sentencing him to 10 years' imprisonment for smuggling "fraudulently using other people's licenses to illegally import goods."
In January 1999, Wang Jinshun appealed to the Chaozhou Intermediate People's Court.
On January 14, 2000, the Chaozhou Intermediate People's Court ruled in the (1998) Chaozhong Law No. 3 final ruling: "It is determined that the place of conduct and the place of residence of the defendant are not in Raoping County, and the first-instance criminal judgment rendered by the Raoping County Court without jurisdiction clearly violates legal procedures, and the judgment rendered by it is invalid... Revoke the first-instance criminal judgment of the Raoping County People's Court in accordance with law."
In other words, the economic activities of enterprises and their legal representatives outside the jurisdiction of Raoping County in Chaozhou City are not interfered with or restricted by Raoping County, Chaozhou City; Raoping County has no jurisdiction, exceeds the statutory jurisdiction, and forced case filing, investigation, including compulsory measures such as detention, are not legal, and the cases they carry out are illegal and invalid.
At this point, the Raoping Public Security Bureau should carry out the final ruling on Wang Jinshun's case, and should terminate, revoke, or transfer it to a jurisdictional place for trial.
However, the case is still not closed.
Several fallen officials handled the Wang Jinshun case
After the Chaozhou Intermediate People's Court made a final ruling, the case was withdrawn to the Raoping County Procuratorate but was shelved, and Wang Jinshun continued to be detained.
During this period, Lin Zhuangsen, the organizer of Wang Jinshun's case, and Tang Xikun, who was known as the "King of Chaozhou" (then deputy secretary of the Chaozhou Municipal CPC Committee and secretary of the Political and Legal Committee, who fell from power in 2015), and others took advantage of their positions to continuously request the higher departments of Guangdong Province in various names that the case be designated to Chao'an County, Chaozhou City, for trial, and to engage in "legal flexibility."
Unexpectedly, this abnormal demand was supported by Chen Shaoji (then deputy secretary of the Guangdong Provincial Party Committee, secretary of the Political and Legal Affairs Committee, and director of the Public Security Department, who fell in 2010).
On January 16, 2001, Chen Shaoji presided over a "coordination meeting", after some operations, the case was designated in the form of a case, so that the Chao'an County Court of Chaozhou City, which had no jurisdiction and belonged to the same superior and the same system, obtained the right to adjudicate the case.
On November 14, 2001, the Chao'an County Court held a hearing on Wang Jinshun's case.
In court, Wang Jinshun and his defender proved with a large amount of factual evidence: the cargo carried by the Hengxiang No. 2 ship, the cargo owner is clear and clear, the cargo certificate on the ship is consistent, the documents are complete and complete, legal and valid, the operation of this voyage is legitimate and legal, the fact is not smuggling, let alone crime, and the public prosecution organ must come up with evidence to prove and answer if it wants to deny these facts.
In the face of frequent questions from defenders, the prosecutor failed to produce any evidence and admitted in court that there was "no evidence." The Court also had no objection to the evidence adduced by the defender.
On April 24, 2002, the Chao'an County Court, in the absence of sufficient evidence, found that "Shante Hengxiang Company fraudulently used other people's licenses to illegally import goods; Wang Jinshun was directly responsible for the company, constituting the crime of smuggling", and sentenced Wang Jinshun to fixed-term imprisonment for 4 years and 3 months after his actual detention.
This time, Wang Jinshun did not appeal.
Wang Jinshun said that from the first appeal to the change of sentence, it took more than three years, if you appeal again, you may have to be detained for several years, there are too many variables in the case, and now look back, the main officials who handled the case in those years have also fallen, which also explains some problems from the side.
In the last trial, the facts were concealed and the conviction was not based on sufficient grounds
Wang Jinshun was deeply touched by the chao'an county court's conviction and judgment: Not only was the procedure illegal, but there were also unclear facts and insufficient evidence, and what aroused people's indignation was to conceal the facts, openly falsify, and reuse perjury and invalid evidence.
First, the trial procedures of the case are illegal. During the trial, the defendant was deprived of the last right to speak by the court, and Wang Jinshun was not allowed to speak, which made Wang Jinshun still unable to let go.
Second, conceal evidence that has been cross-examined and certified by the court to reflect the objective facts of the case. Convictions were convicted of fraudulent use, but there was no evidence of "fraudulent use". Wang Jinshun said: As a state-owned enterprise with the right to import and export operations in the Special Economic Zone, if Shantou Hengxiang Company wants to import these goods, it itself has more conditions to apply for an import license, and even if it is too late to obtain the certificate and import the goods, according to the relevant provisions of the Customs Law, it is not a crime of smuggling.
Third, what is a "legal certificate"? How to evade customs supervision, how to evade customs duties payable, and how to avoid the evidence of the trial court, is purely subjective imagination.
Fourth, the issue of perjury. The testimony of the Hong Kong supplier Qiu Moubin in the case, the content of which was clearly instructed to be falsified, contradicted the content of the documents declared to the Customs and Excise in Hong Kong earlier, and had been debunked as perjury, and the trial court knowingly used it.
Fifth, the content of the judgment appears "appraised by Shantou Customs", which is obviously a fraud by the trial court. First of all, the customs did not intervene in the Wang Jinshun case; second, the customs did not provide relevant evidentiary materials for the so-called "Shantou customs appraisal".
Sixth, the goods in the case had been sold to the related person at a low price in that year, but the judgment stated that "the stolen property seized by the Raoping County Public Security Bureau shall be confiscated and handed over to the state treasury."
In essence, the Wang Jinshun case is the product of the same facts of the administrative case being artificially coerced, no matter how it is evolved, but the facts of the case are objectively existent.
In this case, the Goods Hong Kong Supplier of the goods carried by the goods declared to the local customs in accordance with the regulations, as well as the series of documents such as "Manifest", "Receipt of Delivery", "Bill of Lading", "Invoice" and other documents that accompanied the ship and the goods, clearly recorded the consignee, that is, the owner of the goods was a restaurant in South Australia, a handbag factory and other three companies, which has shown that the supplier knows and clarifies who is the owner of the goods, no matter who has helped, introduced, recommended, contacted and procured the goods before, which is not only normal in Hong Kong, but also extremely common, and it is not illegal.
Wang Jinshun said that after the cargo ship left the port, it was headed in the direction of shantou destination port, driving on the normal waterway route, and the intercepted sea area was the only way to pass through, the ship was intercepted before it reached the destination port for customs clearance, and there was no abnormal behavior before the interception, therefore, the public prosecution organ did not and could not have evidence to prove that Shante Hengxiang Company had the intention to smuggle subjectively and objectively, and the trial court also had no evidence to prove that the customs declaration was not declared, the tax was paid without paying taxes, and it was determined that it was a smuggling crime, where did the crime come from?
The Wang Jinshun case, to paraphrase today, is a case of "being fraudulently used" - the "Import Goods License", "being smuggled" - carrying goods from enterprises with import qualifications, using subjective conjecture to infer that Wang Jinshun evaded customs supervision, evaded customs duties, and then violated the law and was full of controversy in a series of procedures such as law enforcement jurisdiction and trial power.
The Case of Wang Jinshun has always attracted much attention from society
In 1998, after the Raoping County Public Security Bureau lost the administrative lawsuit, it used its authority to arrest and execute the plaintiff's case, which caused a sensation in Chaoshan and even inside and outside the province, causing great controversy in society, and there were voices and actions from all walks of life that were unfair to Wang Jinshun.
In May of that year, as the superior administrative unit of Shante Hengxiang Company, the Office of Hengxiang Industrial Zone in Nan'ao County, continuously reported the situation to the Standing Committee of the Guangdong Provincial People's Congress and the relevant units of the province on the case situation, and requested the superior to stop Rao Square's behavior according to law.
In August 1998, a deputy to the Guangdong Provincial People's Congress, under his personal name, constantly reported the situation of Wang Jinshun's case to the Standing Committee of the Guangdong Provincial People's Congress and other departments, and asked the higher authorities to pay attention to and supervise it.
In September 2000, 10 deputies to the Guangdong Provincial People's Congress jointly submitted case supervision suggestions to the Standing Committee of the Provincial People's Congress on the "Case of Wang Jinshun's Illegal Detention.". During the provincial people's congress meeting that year, Li Changchun, then secretary of the Guangdong Provincial CPC Committee, gave instructions.
In 2002, during the Fifth Session of the Ninth People's Congress of Guangdong Province, when the deputies talked about the problems of Wang Jinshun's case not being handled according to law for a long time, which once again attracted the attention of Li Changchun, then secretary of the provincial party committee, Wang Jinshun's case, known as the "Beard Project," gave instructions again, requiring the relevant departments to handle it according to law. At that time, the media once again carried out relevant reports, which once again caused a strong sensation in society.
Objectively speaking, the Wang Jinshun case is a case with wide social impact and high attention in the early days of reform and opening up, the normal behavior of enterprises and the improper law enforcement of local functional departments.
#媒体人周刊 #