Jinyun News reporter Zhou Baishi
Qiu Sijing, who lives in Guixi City, Jiangxi Province, couldn't figure out how his father, Qiu Guorong, bought 8 parrots and 4 wrens and wanted to make a little money, but was arrested by the local forest police on suspicion of "illegally buying and selling endangered wild animals". On August 24, the Guixi Municipal People's Court held a hearing on the case, the prosecution and defense clashed for 6 hours, the trial lasted from 15:00 to 21:00, the focus of the dispute between the two sides was whether Qiu Guorong had "illegal acquisition", and the court did not pronounce the judgment in court. That night, Qiu Guorong was released on guarantee pending further investigation.
(Qiu Guorong)
Buy 12 birds or face 10 years in prison
It started in April of this year.
Qiu Guorong, 45, opened the "Guorong Aquarium" in Guixi City, operating flowers and fish tanks, and he saw that his peers were always patronizing birds, and he also thought about buying a few birds to put in the store to attract customers. When he went to the flower, bird, fish and insect market in Nanchang to buy goods, he bought birds by the way, including 4 wrens and 8 parrots involved in the case.
Later, I didn't expect an accident.
On May 2, police from the local Forestry Public Security Bureau came to the door and said that someone had reported that he had illegally bought and sold wild animals and arrested him.
Soon, the local procuratorate indicted Qiu Guorong for illegally buying and selling endangered wild animals.
Qiu Guorong's family almost collapsed.
Qiu Guorong's son, Qiu Sijing, said that after the accident, their mother and son ran to ask for help and find a way to exonerate their father. How could he not understand that the bird that his father bought from a formal channel had committed the crime of "illegally buying and selling endangered wild animals"? The family arrived in Nanchang and found the owner of the small shop that had previously sold Qiu Guorong's birds. The other party provided complete sales procedures and relevant business licenses, and actively contacted the purchase of the home - a certain farm in Henan.
The operator of The Henan farm provided the "Henan Provincial Key Protected Wild Animal Domestication and Breeding License" and the "Henan Provincial Wild Animal and Product Business License" issued by the Forestry Department of Henan Province, and the types of domesticated breeding allowed in the certificate stated: Peony parrot, tiger parrot, etc. are within the scope of the permit.
Qiu Sijing got these things, and at that time thought that her father was "saved" and quickly went to the public security organs to explain the situation. As a result, the other party replied that this thing is useless, Qiu Guorong is illegal, according to the provisions of the first paragraph of article 341 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, he should be investigated for criminal responsibility for the crime of illegally purchasing and selling rare and endangered wild animals, and he may face 10 years in prison.
How to define "domestication" and "wild wild"
Zheng Xiaojing, Qiu Guorong's lawyer, said in an interview that she would resolutely defend Qiu Guorong's innocence in this case.
The key to this case lies in whether the birds bought by Qiu Guorong are endangered wild animals, and whether Qiu Guorong's behavior is illegal purchase and sale. Judging by the evidence they gathered, it is clear that it is not. Qiu Sijing said that when they found the forest public security department, the forest police replied to him that Qiu Guorong was arrested because his behavior violated the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which China has acceded to, and the second appendix to the Convention mentions that the parrots involved in the case are wild animals.
But Qiu Guorong bought the bird from a formal channel, Nanchang's upper family has a relevant business license, and the breeding enterprise in Henan has also provided evidence, and the source of 8 parrots can be found, and it can be determined that they are artificially raised. According to the Notice of the State Forestry Administration on The Issuance of a List of 54 Species of Terrestrial Wild Animals, Including Sika Deer, which are commercially operated and used for domestication and breeding technology, the parrots involved in the case are breeds that are allowed to be raised in captivity. And according to the common sense consensus, those who have been artificially raised for more than three generations are no longer wild animals.
The 4 wrens involved in the case belong to the "three haves" protected animals (that is, terrestrial wild animals with important ecological, scientific and social values protected by the state) in China, and the protection level is very low, and it cannot reach the sentencing level at all. And these 4 wrens are also farmed and are not wild protected animals.
Article 28 of the Wildlife Protection Law stipulates that wild animals under national key protection with mature and stable artificial breeding technology can be sold and used with artificial breeding licenses and special labels. Qiu Sijing also stressed that his father did not understand the law, but he did not dare to do illegal things, so he confirmed that the other party had relevant licenses before "daring" to buy birds. More importantly, many people in the Guixi City Flower, Bird, Fish and Insect Market are selling similar parrots and wrens, and the locals like to keep birds, communities, roads, and often see people carrying bird cages.
Zheng Xiaojing believes that the root cause of this case is that the Interpretation of Animal Cases "includes domestication and breeding" is unreasonable. Article 1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Destruction of Wildlife Resources (FaShi (2000) No. 37) stipulates that "'precious and endangered wild animals' as provided for in the first paragraph of Article 341 of the Criminal Law, including wild animals under national first- and second-level protection included in the list of wildlife under key national protection, and appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Appendix II of Wild Animals and domesticated and bred above species". The problem is that "domestication and reproduction" and "wild wild" are antonyms, and this expanded interpretation goes far beyond the legislative purpose of the article to protect precious and endangered "wild" animals, greatly exceeds the meaning and general semantic scope of the criminal law, directly expands the scope of application of the criminal law, and includes "domestication and breeding" that should not be included, violating the principle of criminal law. When the Interpretation of Animal Cases conflicts with the Criminal Law, judicial workers cannot mechanically apply the judicial interpretation.
In this regard, Zheng Xiaojing's lawyers at Beijing Shengyun Law Firm and lawyers Si Weijiang and Xu Xin representing the Shenzhen "Parrot Case" have submitted to the NPC Standing Committee a "proposal requesting the NPC Standing Committee to review the judicial interpretation of precious and endangered wild animals", and the Legislative Affairs Committee of the NPC Standing Committee also replied in June this year: "We have conducted research in accordance with the law and have sent a letter of recommendation to the Supreme People's Court. The Reply Letter of the Supreme People's Court stated that it has launched the formulation of a new judicial interpretation on the crime of wild animal and plant resources, and it is proposed to clearly stipulate that the position of leniency should be reflected in the artificial breeding of the animals involved in the case, so as to achieve the adaptation of criminal responsibility and action. ”
The reporter also noted that the "Criminal Trial Reference" sponsored by the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China published on page 215 of the "Reply letter of the Research Office of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of Law on the Acquisition, Transportation and Sale of Some Wild Animals with Mature Artificial Domestication and Breeding Techniques", which involved similar cases to Qiu Guorong, and mentioned at the end of the article "a solution to completely solve the current dilemma, or to start the revision of the list of wild animals under key national protection as soon as possible." All animals that are no longer actually endangered are promptly adjusted from the list, and some animals that are already endangered are added; or in the revised judicial interpretation, it is clear that for some wild animals that have been domesticated and bred in captivity and whose number has increased significantly, the number of convictions and sentencing standards listed in the schedule only applies to wild animals in the true sense, and does not include domesticated and bred wild animals. ”
Qiu Sijing said that he has consulted many similar cases that have occurred in other cities in China, or similar acquisitions and sales behaviors, the local forest police usually warn first, administrative penalties for merchants or individuals whose warnings are invalid, and legal sanctions are imposed on those who do not change their teachings.
6-hour "marathon" trial
In a seemingly "small" case, I did not expect that the trial time would be as long as 6 hours.
On the evening of August 24, Qiu Guorong, who was released on bail, said in an interview with Jinyun News that when the prosecution said in court that he "believed that the illegal purchase and sale of endangered wild animals was convicted", his wife almost fainted, and he and Qiu Sijing's mood was also particularly bad, which was incredible. He believes that the birds he bought have legal origin and are farmed, not wild animals, let alone endangered wild animals, and the prosecution and police believe that he is guilty, which is no different from "hatting".
Zheng Xiaojing, Qiu Guorong's lawyer and Beijing Shengyun Law Firm, said that the 6-hour trial was almost always cross-examined and questioned by both parties, and the prosecution believed that the defendant and all the case reference materials and SPC reply materials provided by her were "inadmissible", and still insisted that Qiu Guorong 's criminal facts were clear, the evidence was credible and sufficient, and that the illegal acquisition and sale of endangered wild animals was convicted."
Regarding the relevant appraisal provided by the public prosecution about Qiu Guorong's "illegal acquisition" of the parrot wild protected animal, Zheng Xiaojing thought it was unreasonable and raised objections, and she applied for the appraiser to appear in court and questioned the appraiser, believing that the appraisal opinion was 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. The reason is that the appraisal site is in the forest public security, and the forest public security bureau is also the unit entrusted with the appraisal, and 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. The error manifested in the species of wild animals, two identification papers for the identification of 9 species, of which 2 species identification errors. According to the appraisal, all 8 parrots are "Fei-style couple parrots", she searched and found that there is no such breed at all, and its real scientific name is "Fischer-style couple parrot" or "Fraser-style couple parrot", also called peony parrot. 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. Zheng Xiaojing said that when she asked the appraiser what is the professional name of "what is the morphological identification method (the most commonly used professional identification method)", the other party was dumbfounded. At the same time, the local forest public security said that Qiu Guorong's "illegal acquisition" was reported by the masses, but Zheng Xiaojing asked the other party to show relevant evidence such as reporting materials, and the other party could not get it out at all.
Jinyun News reporter learned that there were two defendants in the Qiu Guorong parrot case, one was Qiu Guorong, and the other was Wan Moumou, the owner of his home and The Nanchang Flower, Bird, Fish and Insect Market. In the whole transaction process, Qiu Guorong and Wan Moumou's behavior is not "flawless" - they did not hold the "Wildlife Business License" to sell artificially bred wild animals, but Wan Moumou's upper home and a certain farm in Henan are complete. The Wildlife Protection Law stipulates that the voucher can be sold, because a certain farm in Henan has two complete certificates and guarantees that the birds involved in the case can be traced, then the merchant can freely circulate and buy and sell as long as he has a license. If there is no certificate, this is a general illegal act, and the relevant state organs may give it administrative warnings and fines, but this act is not enough to be a crime.
For the trial, Qiu Guorong's family is extremely unoptimistic, saying that even if they are found guilty, they will continue to appeal.
But in Zheng Xiaojing's view, the non-pronouncement of the verdict in court is not "bad news", because they have provided sufficient evidence, as well as the verdicts of similar cases, and she believes that the verdict was not pronounced in court because the local court used sufficient time to fully accept and consider this evidence and finally make a fair judgment.
<h1>Source: Jinyun News</h1>