Today's @ brother said to tell you about this case - the thief was caught after reporting the case involved 20 million officials were commuted (four years), after the verdict was spread on the Internet, netizens have said: Happy to hear! Verdict justice! No matter when, understand the law, do not suffer losses!
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" > the facts of the case are not complicated:</h1>
In February 2018, Mr. Jiang stole RMB cash (210,000 yuan), foreign currency (worth more than 160,000 yuan), commemorative coins, Moutai liquor and other property in the room of Qiu Mou, the owner of a residential area in Nanning, Guangxi.
In the same month, Jiang X was arrested by the public security, and some of the money involved in the case that was seized was returned to the victim Qiu X. Later, the procuratorial organ filed a public prosecution with the court for Jiang Moumou's theft.
The Qingxiu District People's Court of Nanning City convicted defendant Jiang X of the crime of theft in the first instance:
He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment and fined RMB100,000, as well as rmb188,850 for economic losses to the victim, Qiu.
After the first-instance judgment, Jiang X appealed on the grounds that after arriving at the case, he had reported zhao X, the leader of the Guangxi Banking Regulatory Bureau, who was suspected of committing crimes abusing public office, and that this fact had been verified by the Discipline Inspection and Supervision Group of the Central Discipline Inspection Commission and the State Supervision Commission in the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, constituting a "major meritorious service" and could be commuted.
(Later, the Baise Municipal Procuratorate filed a public prosecution with the court for Zhao Moumou's crime of accepting bribes, and the amount involved in the case was as high as more than RMB 21.22 million.) ）
In July 2020, the Nanning Intermediate People's Court ruled in the second instance to revoke the original judgment and change the judgment:
Defendant Jiang X committed the crime of theft and was sentenced to six years' imprisonment and a fine of RMB 60,000, as well as the return of the victim's stolen money in custody and compensation for economic losses.
From a legal point of view, there is no controversy over the determination that Zhao X committed the crime of accepting bribes in this case, and the point of contention is that-
1. Does Jiang Moumou constitute a "meritorious service in wearing a crime" in the criminal law, and can reduce the punishment/waive the punishment according to law?
2. If you have meritorious service, how much should you reduce your sentence? What is the basis for consideration?
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" >1. Does Jiang Constitute "Meritorious Service" in criminal law? </h1>
According to the relevant laws and regulations of our country, where a criminal suspect has meritorious performance before a verdict, the court may appropriately mitigate the punishment on the basis of his meritorious performance when sentencing:
According to article 68 of the Criminal Law, where a criminal has exposed another person's criminal conduct, verified that it is true, or provided important clues, so as to be able to solve other cases, or other meritorious performance, the punishment may be mitigated or mitigated; where there is a major meritorious performance, the punishment may be mitigated or waived.
In this case, Mr. Jiang had previously served as a driver for Mr. Liang (the person who paid bribes to Mr. Zhao), so he was aware of mr. Liang's bribery to Mr. Zhao. After Jiang X arrived at the case, he also truthfully provided the public security organs with the criminal clues of Zhao X's acceptance of bribes, so that the bribery case involving an amount of more than 20 million yuan was successfully solved.
- "Meritorious performance" is obviously not controversial, so whether it belongs to "general meritorious service" or "major meritorious service"? In general, there are two factors to consider:
The severity of the sentence imposed on the person being reported or the person who has been exposed, based on the facts of the crime;
the regional impact of the case;
If, on the basis of the facts of the crime, the informant or the person to be exposed may be sentenced to life imprisonment or above, and the case has a significant influence at the provincial level or above, the informant may be found to be a "major meritorious performance" at that time.
In the second instance of this case, the Nanning Municipal People's Procuratorate held that Jiang X only provided a clue to the crime of Zhao X accepting bribes, and the amount of the crime zhao X accepted bribes was not enough to be sentenced to life imprisonment, so Jiang X's prosecution did not constitute "major meritorious service".
- This opinion was not adopted by the court of second instance:
According to the Nanning Intermediate People's Court, according to the regulations, the sentencing of Zhao should be carried out within the range of more than ten years of fixed-term imprisonment, life imprisonment or death. Zhao Moumou accepted a particularly large amount of bribes from others, and this criminal act had a great impact on the entire Guangxi banking and insurance industry, and it was a case with a greater impact within the autonomous region.
<h1 class= "pgc-h-arrow-right" >2, meritorious service, how much should be reduced when sentencing? What is the basis for consideration? </h1>
In this case, Mr. Jiang committed the crime of theft, and the amount involved was more than 300,000 yuan - according to the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Theft Cases and the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law, it is a situation where the amount is "particularly huge" and can be "sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years or life imprisonment":
Where public or private property valued at 1,000 to 3,000 yuan, 30,000 to 100,000 yuan or more, or 300,000 yuan to 500,000 yuan or more is stolen, it shall be found to be "a relatively large amount", "a huge amount", and "a particularly large amount" as provided for in criminal law article 264.
Article 264 of the Criminal Law stipulates that whoever steals public or private property in a particularly large amount or has other particularly serious circumstances shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years or life imprisonment, and shall also be fined or have his property confiscated.
At the same time, according to the relevant provisions on the reduction of penalties for meritorious service in the Guiding Opinions of the People's Courts on Sentencing (Trial Implementation) (Fa Fa [2010] No. 36) issued by the Supreme People's Court in September 2010:
For meritorious circumstances, comprehensively consider the size, frequency, content, source, effect, and severity of the crime, and determine the extent of leniency.
(1) Where meritorious service is made in general, the base sentence may be reduced by less than 20%;
(2) Where major meritorious service is made, the base sentence may be reduced by 20%-50%; where the crime is relatively minor, the base sentence may be reduced by more than 50% or the punishment may be waived in accordance with law.
In summary, it can be seen that from the first instance (ten years) to the second instance trial to the second trial (six years), in addition to the reduction of the sentence of "major meritorious performance", there should also be a point that "most of the stolen money and stolen property in the theft case can be recovered in a timely manner".
Personally, the author believes that there is nothing wrong with the outcome of this precedent - the sentence is first sentenced according to the crime of theft and theft, and then the punishment is mitigated according to the major meritorious acts reported and exposed, which can be described as a clear distinction between reward and punishment.
Although the original intention of the thief's report is not to combat corruption, but more like a utilitarian "transaction" with the judicial organs, the meritorious commutation system is not made up out of thin air, and the social harm caused by the thief and the social harm caused by corrupt officials are more serious, I believe everyone has a number.
Pay attention to @woo brother sayings, read stories to learn law.