The degree of media attention to the "People's Justice" cannot be used as a criterion for determining major cases with a larger impact

People's Justice: The degree of media attention cannot be used as a criterion for determining major cases with a greater impact

Summary of the trial

Major cases with a relatively large impact are one of the circumstances in which major meritorious service is determined. Larger social impact should be understood from the perspective of benefiting the state and society, and generally refers to cases involving national security, major economic activities, social stability, and involving the persons, property, and interests of a large number of unspecified victims, within the province, autonomous region, or directly governed municipality or nationwide. Cases that attract social attention simply because the type of case is novel or the defendant's identity is special, or the content of the case can cater to the public's curiosity, cannot be found to be a case with a larger impact.

Basic facts of the case

Public prosecution organ: Suzhou Municipal People's Procuratorate, Jiangsu Province.

Defendant: Geng Yuping, the actual person in charge of Hefei Hepu Trading Co., Ltd.

Defendant: Hefei Hepu Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hepu Company).

The Intermediate People's Court of Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, investigated and found that between October and December 2011, Geng Yuping, the actual person in charge of the defendant Hepu Company, violated customs regulations and environmental protection laws and regulations in the process of importing waste newspapers, evaded customs supervision, conspired with Fu Zhichang (handled in a separate case) to sign two sets of purchase contracts, true and false, and smuggled 30 containers of solid waste totaling 656.156 tons by means of false product names and sealing paper. After identification, all the 656.156 tons of goods involved in the case were solid wastes prohibited from being imported by the state.

After being arrested, Geng Yuping provided important clues about the smuggling of waste by others to the investigating authorities, thus enabling the case to be solved.

The People's Procuratorate of Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, held that the defendant unit and the defendant Geng Yuping smuggled solid waste from abroad into the country, and the circumstances were particularly serious, and constituted the crime of smuggling waste in accordance with law. Defendant Geng Yuping truthfully confessed the circumstances, which was a confession, and at the same time had meritorious circumstances, so the punishment may be mitigated or commuted.

Adjudication Results

The Intermediate People's Court of Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, held after trial that the defendant unit and the general company and the defendant Geng Yuping violated customs laws and regulations, evaded customs supervision, and smuggled waste prohibited by the state, and the circumstances were particularly serious, and should be criminally punished in accordance with the law. After the defendant Geng Yuping arrived at the case, he provided important clues, thus enabling the judicial organs to crack other cases, constituting meritorious service and giving him a lighter punishment in accordance with law. Defendant Geng Yuping truthfully confessed his crime in court, and may be given a lighter punishment. In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 152, Articles 68 and 64 of the Criminal Law, and Articles 6 and 7 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation (II) on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Smuggling, the defendant Hefei Hepu Trading Co., Ltd. was found guilty of smuggling waste and fined RMB 800,000. Defendant Geng Yuping was sentenced to 6 years and 6 months imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 yuan for the crime of smuggling waste.

After the first-instance verdict was announced, the defendant in the original trial, Geng Yuping, was not satisfied and appealed, claiming that the crimes of others he reported and exposed were verified to be true and should be found to be major meritorious service. The reason is that the cases of other people's crimes reported and exposed by him have been verified to be true, and the cases have been reported on 2 and 4 sets of CCTV, provincial and municipal television stations, Sina, Sohu, and other networks, as well as a large number of newspapers and periodicals, indicating that the case has had a major impact on the whole country, and conforms to the provisions of Article 7, Paragraph 2 of the Supreme People's Court's "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Voluntary Surrender and Meritorious Service" that the case has a relatively large impact in the province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government or on a national scale, and should be found to be a major case.

The Jiangsu Provincial High People's Court held at trial that the original judgment found that the facts of the crime of smuggling waste by the appellant Geng Yuping and the defendant of the original trial, Hefei Hepu Trading Co., Ltd., were clear, the evidence was sufficient, the conviction was accurate, and the sentence was appropriate. With regard to Geng Yuping's grounds of appeal that his reporting and exposing the crimes of others constituted major meritorious contributions, upon investigation, it was found that the grounds of appeal could not be established because the amount of media coverage alone could not determine whether the case had a significant impact, and the above-mentioned media reports included the case of appellant Geng Yuping's smuggling of waste. In accordance with Article 225 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Law, the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.

Case Analysis

The focus of the dispute in this case is: can the media coverage of the case be used as a criterion for judging that the case has a greater impact on the whole province, autonomous region, municipality directly under the Central Government or the whole country, so as to be recognized as a major meritorious service?

According to article 7 of the Supreme People's Court's "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Voluntary Surrender and Meritorious Service", there are the following circumstances for determining major meritorious service: First, the criminal reports or exposes the major criminal conduct of others, which is verified to be true after investigation; the second is to provide important clues for the investigation of other major cases, which have been verified to be true; the third is to prevent other people's major criminal activities; Fourth, assist the judicial organs in arresting other major criminal suspects; Fifth, it has made other major contributions to the country and society. The standards for suspects of major crimes, major cases, or major crimes generally refer to situations where the criminal suspect or defendant might be sentenced to a sentence of life imprisonment or higher, or where the case has a relatively large impact in the province, autonomous region, directly governed municipality, or nationwide.

Whether a criminal suspect or defendant can be sentenced to life imprisonment depends on the provisions of the Criminal Law. If the penalty for an offence is lower than life imprisonment, the defendant cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment, no matter how serious the offence committed. For example, the defendant in this case, Geng Yuping, reported and exposed the crime of smuggling waste by others, the maximum penalty stipulated in the Criminal Law is 15 years imprisonment. Therefore, according to this standard, it is determined that the case that has been reported and exposed is not a major meritorious service. In cases where the criminal law provides for a penalty lower than life imprisonment, the criterion of having a relatively large impact in the province, autonomous region, municipality directly under the Central Government, or the whole country can only be applied to determine whether the case is a major crime, a major case, or whether the defendant is a major criminal suspect.

In practice, there is a lack of specific criteria for determining whether a case has a greater impact in the province, autonomous region, municipality directly under the Central Government, or the whole country, and it is relatively rare for cases to be applied. At the same time, in the current era when the media and the Internet are highly developed, most of the cases reported by the media and hyped up on the Internet go beyond the regional scope of the province, autonomous region, municipality directly under the Central Government, or even the country from the perspective of the objective geographical scope, and this situation has also added new problems to the application of this provision. Therefore, there is considerable controversy over the application of cases that have a greater impact on the province, autonomous region, municipality directly under the Central Government, or the whole country. In this regard, the author believes that it can be analyzed from two perspectives: one is the perspective of the crime committed by the defendant itself, and the other is the perspective of the social impact of the defendant's identity and status. The former mainly considers the defendant's criminal acts, such as the degree of ferocity of the means, the severity of the consequences, the scope and degree of harm to society, etc., while the latter mainly considers the defendant's position, identity, and the social impact it produces. For example, if the defendant reports and exposes a relatively high position or status in a certain province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government, or if a person with a specific identity commits a crime and is verified to be true, the position, status, or identity of the person being reported and exposed has a greater influence on the province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government where he is located, and can be identified as a major case or a major criminal suspect, and this situation is mostly manifested in cases of duty (economic) crimes. It is difficult to grasp how to determine the former. This is because, considering the heinousness of the defendant's crime and the degree of harm to society, it is necessary to consider not only whether the criminal methods are brutal and whether the consequences are very serious, but also to comprehensively consider the impact of the crime on society, and the factors that consider the social impact are often social conditions and public opinion. As mentioned above, in today's informatization, media reports and Internet hype have made the impact of cases objectively beyond the geographical area of the province, autonomous region, and municipality directly under the Central Government, but can the public opinion expressed through the Internet and the frequent news media hype about the case represent public opinion in the traditional sense? That is, whether it can be used as one of the bases for determining the social impact of the case is very worthy of study.

Under such circumstances, the author believes that the determination of a case that has a greater impact on the province, autonomous region, municipality directly under the Central Government, or the whole country can be grasped from the following aspects:

The first is to accurately understand the meaning of the case that has a greater social impact. There is a greater social impact that is included in the judicial interpretation as a legal term, which should be different from the social impact in the general social sense. The greater social impact of judicial interpretations should be understood from the perspective of benefiting the state and society. Relatively large impact refers to cases involving national security, major economic activities, social stability, and involving the persons, property, and interests of a large number of unspecified victims, within that province, autonomous region, or directly governed municipality, or nationwide. Cases that attract social attention simply because the type of case is novel or the defendant's identity is special, or the content of the case can cater to the public's curiosity, cannot be found to be a case with a larger impact.

Second, it is not possible to determine whether a case has a larger social impact based solely on the degree, scope, and number of media and online coverage. In today's informatization, it has become the norm for the media and the Internet to report on cases. In practice, there is an increasing number of cases of influencing or pressuring the trial of cases through media and online hype, and cases of abuse of media and online hype cannot be identified as having a greater social impact.

Thirdly, if the case that is reported and exposed is objectively not of public concern because it involves national security, other people's privacy, commercial secrets, etc., and the relevant departments have taken confidentiality measures or restricted reporting, but as long as it is beneficial to the state and society, it should still be found to have a greater social impact.

To sum up, the court of second instance held that although there were objectively many media reports on the criminal case reported and exposed by the defendant Geng Yuping in this case, such media reports did not belong to the situation where the judicial interpretation had a greater social impact, and could not be recognized as a major case, so her procuratorial conduct could not be recognized as a major meritorious service. Therefore, his appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.

Author: Shang Zhaosheng Unit: Jiangsu Provincial High People's Court

Case No. First instance: (2012) Su Zhong Xing Er Chu Zi No. 0014 Second instance: (2013) Su Xing Er Zhong Zi No. 0004

Source: People's Justice (Cases) No. 14, 2013

Reprinted from: Fa Miao Legal Dou public account, for learning and discussion only, such as invasion and deletion, thank you.