Legal Evening News , View News (Reporters Liu Yilong and Zhang Ziyuan) The owner of a flower and bird shop in Jiangxi was indicted by the local procuratorate for buying 8 parrots and 4 wrens. On July 24, the Guixi Municipal Court of Jiangxi Province held a hearing on the case, and the local procuratorate believed that the facts were clear, the evidence was credible and sufficient, and held that the crime of illegally purchasing and selling endangered wild animals was convicted, and the entire trial lasted for 6 hours, and finally the Guixi Municipal Court did not pronounce the verdict in court.
Qiu Guorong appeared in court with his lawyer
After the trial, the reporter contacted Qiu Guorong and his son, the party of the Jiangxi parrot case, for the first time at 9 p.m.
Reporter: Did the court pronounce a verdict after today's trial?
Qiu Guorong: The court did not pronounce the verdict in court, and the verdict will be announced next Monday.
Reporter: How did the public prosecution recognize it?
Qiu Guorong: The local procuratorate found that the facts were clear, the evidence was credible and sufficient, and held that the crime of illegally purchasing and selling endangered wild animals was convicted.
Reporter: How are you feeling when you hear the prosecution's determination?
Qiu Guorong: It's hard to accept, I think it's incredible.
Reporter: Is this a big blow to you and your family?
Qiu Guorong: My wife and son were also in court, and when they heard each other say that they were convicted of illegally buying and selling endangered wild animals, my wife almost fainted and her face was very ugly.
Reporter: If the final court decision is not ideal, will you appeal?
Qiu Guorong: The court's verdict will be announced next Monday, and if we are not satisfied, we will prepare for the second instance trial.
The reporter then interviewed Qiu Guorong's defense lawyer and Zheng Xiaojing, a lawyer at Beijing Shengyun Law Firm.
Reporter: What is the focus of the debate in today's trial?
Lawyer Zheng: We mainly aimed at their appraisal opinions, we applied for the appraiser to appear in court and ask questions about the appraiser, and we believe that the appraisal opinion is not authentic and legal, especially not authentic. It violates the most basic appraisal standards of appraisers, that is, the principles of objective, impartial, independent and neutral appraisal.
Reporter: What are your reasons for believing that the appraisal opinion is untrue and illegal?
Lawyer Zheng: Because its main appraisal site is in the forest public security, and the forest public security bureau is also the unit entrusted with the appraisal, there are 6 staff members in the appraisal, of which 4 are the staff of the forest public security bureau, and more importantly, the appraisal and supplementary appraisal are full of errors.
Reporter: What's wrong?
Lawyer Zheng: The mistake is manifested in the species of wild animals. Two identifications of 9 species were identified, 2 of which were incorrectly identified. The appraisal paper believes that all 8 parrots are Fei-style couple parrots, I searched on the Internet, there are no Fei-style couple parrots, and their real scientific name is called Feshi-style couple parrot or Fraser-style couple parrot, also called peony parrot. The name itself is mistaken. My client Qiu Guorong and Wan Moumou, the owner of the Nanchang flower, bird, fish and insect shop, identified in court that only 4 of the 8 parrots were Feshi-style couple parrots. When we asked about the most commonly used professional identification method for appraisers, called morphological identification methods, and asked them about the professional name, they did not understand.
Reporter: Did the seller of Qiu Guorong's purchase of the parrot appear in court today?
Lawyer Zheng: He appeared in court today and pleaded guilty to the fact that the 12 birds were sold to Qiu Guorong. As a superior, the source is on his side. But in court he admitted that he also did not have a wildlife business license.
Reporter: What is the core problem now?
Lawyer Zheng: The main problem now is that my client and his boss of the Nanchang Flower, Bird, Fish and Insect Market, Wan Moumou, did not hold a license to sell artificially bred wild animals, which is called a wildlife business license, but Wan Moumou's Shangjia Henan farm is complete with two certificates. The Wildlife Protection Act stipulates that vouchers can be sold. A certain farm in Henan is complete with two certificates, which ensures that it can be traced, so as long as the merchant has a license, it can circulate and buy and sell freely. If there is no certificate to trade, this is a general illegal act, and the relevant state organs will punish and fine, and the administrative warning can be used, which is enough to not be a crime.
Reporter: What is your mood after the trial now?
Lawyer Zheng: As far as I am concerned, I am still full of expectations, because in terms of the current form, I think it is better than the parrot case in Shenzhen, and there are three verdicts in similar cases, and there are three verdicts that have been repeatedly changed to acquittal. In addition to illegally buying and selling endangered wild animals, there are also slaughtering and the like. The facts of the crime are similar, all are undocumented acquisition of captive wild animals. The four parties who changed the acquittal were the purchase of domesticated sika deer, while my counterpart was the undocumented acquisition of parrots. The sika deer is a national first-class protected animal, and the parrot purchased by my party is a national second-level protected animal. According to the principle of weightlifting, so I feel that my client can also acquit.