SPP Guiding Cases Set 7

ALL TRANSLATIONS ON THIS SITE ARE UNOFFICIAL AND ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY. THESE TRANSLATIONS ARE CREATED AND CONTINUOUSLY UPDATED BY USERS --THEY ARE FREE TO VIEW, BUT PROPER ATTRIBUTION IS REQUIRED FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THESE OR DERIVATIVE TRANSLATIONS.

Notice on the Issuance of the Seventh Installment of Guiding Cases of the Supreme People's Procuratorate

Gao Jian Fa Yan Zi [[2016] No.7

People's procuratorates of all provinces, autonomous regions and directly governed municipalities; military procuratorates and the people's procuratorate for the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps:

Upon decision of the 51st session of the Twelfth procuratorial committee of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on May 13 2016, we hereby release for your reference and use, the guiding cases of Ma Le exploiting undisclosed information in trading and three other cases.

Supreme People's Procuratorate

May 31, 2016

Contents

 

The Case of Ma Le Exploiting Undisclosed Information in Trading

The Yu Yingsheng Appeals Case

Then Chen Man Appeals Case

The Wang Yulei Approval of Arrest Case

 

The Case of Ma Le Exploiting Undisclosed Information in Trading

(检例第24号)

[Keywords]

Error in the application of law, Criminal Counter-appeals, invocation of statutory sentences, extremely serious circumstances

[Basic case details]

Ma Le is a male, born in August of 1982, and from Henan Province's Nanyang city.

From March , 2011 to May 30, 2013, Ma Le served as the Manager of the Boshi Select Stocks and Securities Investment Fund, under the banner of the Boshi Fund Management Co. LLD; and was fully responsible for the investment funds investments in the stock market, with a clear grasp on undisclosed information about the Boshi Select Stocks and Securities Investment Fund such as it's stocks, the time of transactions and the volume of transactions. During the period Ma Le held the position, he exploited the undisclosed information described above to operate 3 stock accounts that he controlled, namelty the Jin X, Yan Xjin, and Yan Xwen, and through short-term purchases using an unrecorded Shenzhou telephone care to comple the sale, engaged in securities exchange activities before, concurrent with, or after the Boshi Selct account he manageed, selling 76 stocks for a cummulative value of more than 1,050,000,000 yuan aquiring unlawful proceeds of 19,120,246.98 yuan.

[Procedural history]

June 21, 2013, the China Securities Regulatory Commission decided to initiate an investigation of Ma Le for suspicion of using undisclosed information in transactions, and sent it to the Shenzhen securities regulatory bureau. On July 17, 2013, Ma Le turned himself in to the Public Security Bureau of Shenzhen Municipality, Guangdong Province. On January 2, 2014, the Shenzhen Municipal People's Procuratorate initiated prosecution in the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, charging defendant Ma Le with exploiting undisclosed information in trading with especially serious circumstances. 2014年3月24日,深圳市中级人民法院作出一审判决,认定马乐构成利用未公开信息交易罪,鉴于刑法第一百八十条第四款未对利用未公开信息交易罪情节特别严重作出相关规定,马乐属于犯罪情节严重,同时考虑其具有自首、退赃、认罪态度良好、罚金能全额缴纳等可以从轻处罚情节,因此判处其有期徒刑三年,缓刑五年,并处罚金1884万元,同时对其违法所得1883万余元予以追缴。

深圳市人民检察院于2014年4月4日向广东省高级人民法院提出抗诉,认为被告人马乐的行为应当认定为犯罪情节特别严重,依照“情节特别严重”的量刑档次处罚;马乐的行为不属于退赃,应当认定为司法机关追赃。 一审判决适用法律错误,量刑明显不当,应当依法改判。 2014年8月28日,广东省人民检察院向广东省高级人民法院发出《支持刑事抗诉意见书》,认为一审判决认定情节错误,导致量刑不当,应当依法纠正。

广东省高级人民法院于2014年10月20日作出终审裁定,认为刑法第一百八十条第四款并未对利用未公开信息交易罪规定有“情节特别严重”情形,马乐的行为属“情节严重”,应在该量刑幅度内判处刑罚,抗诉机关提出马乐的行为应认定为“情节特别严重”缺乏法律依据;驳回抗诉,维持原判。

广东省人民检察院认为终审裁定理解法律规定错误,导致认定情节错误,适用缓刑不当,于2014年11月27日提请最高人民检察院抗诉。 On December 8, 2014, the Supreme People's Procuratorate lodged a procuratorate protest appeal with the Supreme People's court in accordance with the procedure for trial supervision.

【Grounds for counter-appeal】:

最高人民检察院审查认为,原审被告人马乐利用因职务便利获取的未公开信息,违反规定从事相关证券交易活动,累计成交额人民币10.5亿余元,非法获利人民币1883万余元,属于利用未公开信息交易罪“情节特别严重”的情形。 本案终审裁定以刑法第一百八十条第四款并未对利用未公开信息交易罪有“情节特别严重”规定为由,对此情形不作认定,降格评价被告人的犯罪行为,属于适用法律确有错误,导致量刑不当。 Our reasons are as follows:

一、刑法第一百八十条第四款属于援引法定刑的情形,应当引用第一款处罚的全部规定。 按照立法精神,刑法第一百八十条第四款中的“情节严重”是入罪标准,在处罚上应当依照本条第一款的全部罚则处罚,即区分情形依照第一款规定的“情节严重”和“情节特别严重”两个量刑档次处罚。 首先,援引的重要作用就是减少法条重复表述,只需就该罪的基本构成要件作出表述,法定刑全部援引即可;如果法定刑不是全部援引,才需要对不同量刑档次作出明确表述,规定独立的罚则。 刑法分则多个条文都存在此种情形,这是业已形成共识的立法技术问题。 其次,刑法第一百八十条第四款“情节严重”的规定是入罪标准,作此规定是为了避免“情节不严重”也入罪,而非量刑档次的限缩。 最后,从立法和司法解释先例来看,刑法第二百八十五条第三款也存在相同的文字表述,2011年《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理危害计算机信息系统安全刑事案件应用法律若干问题的解释》第三条明确规定了刑法第二百八十五条第三款包含有“情节严重”、“情节特别严重”两个量刑档次。 司法解释的这一规定,表明了最高司法机关对援引法定刑立法例的一贯理解。

二、利用未公开信息交易罪与内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪的违法与责任程度相当,法定刑亦应相当。 内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪和利用未公开信息交易罪,都属于特定人员利用未公开的可能对证券、期货市场交易价格产生影响的信息从事交易活动的犯罪。 两罪的主要差别在于信息范围不同,其通过信息的未公开性和价格影响性获利的本质相同,均严重破坏了金融管理秩序,损害了公众投资者利益。 刑法将两罪放在第一百八十条中分款予以规定,亦是对两罪违法和责任程度相当的确认。 因此,从社会危害性理解,两罪的法定刑也应相当。

三、马乐的行为应当认定为“情节特别严重”,对其适用缓刑明显不当。 《最高人民检察院、公安部关于公安机关管辖的刑事案件立案追诉标准的规定(二)》对内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪和利用未公开信息交易罪“情节严重”规定了相同的追诉标准,《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理内幕交易、泄露内幕信息刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》将成交额250万元以上、获利75万元以上等情形认定为内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪“情节特别严重”。 如前所述,利用未公开信息交易罪“情节特别严重”的,也应当依照第一款的规定,遵循相同的标准。 马乐利用未公开信息进行交易活动,累计成交额人民币10.5亿余元,从中非法获利人民币1883万余元,显然属于“情节特别严重”,应当在“五年以上十年以下有期徒刑”的幅度内量刑。 其虽有自首情节,但适用缓刑无法体现罪责刑相适应,无法实现惩罚和预防犯罪的目的,量刑明显不当。

四、本案所涉法律问题的正确理解和适用,对司法实践和维护我国金融市场的健康发展具有重要意义。 自刑法修正案(七)增设利用未公开信息交易罪以来,司法机关对该罪是否存在“情节特别严重”、是否有两个量刑档次长期存在分歧,亟需统一认识。 正确理解和适用本案所涉法律问题,对明确同类案件的处理、同类从业人员犯罪的处罚具有重要指导作用,对于加大打击“老鼠仓”等严重破坏金融管理秩序的行为,维护社会主义市场经济秩序,保障资本市场健康发展具有重要意义。

【Case Verdict】

2015年7月8日,最高人民法院第一巡回法庭公开开庭审理此案,最高人民检察院依法派员出庭履行职务,原审被告人马乐的辩护人当庭发表了辩护意见。 最高人民法院审理认为,最高人民检察院对刑法第一百八十条第四款援引法定刑的理解及原审被告人马乐的行为属于犯罪情节特别严重的抗诉意见正确,应予采纳;辩护人的辩护意见不能成立,不予采纳。 原审裁判因对刑法第一百八十条第四款援引法定刑的理解错误,导致降格认定了马乐的犯罪情节,进而对马乐判处缓刑确属不当,应予纠正。

2015年12月11日,最高人民法院作出再审终审判决:维持原刑事判决中对被告人马乐的定罪部分;撤销原刑事判决中对原审被告人马乐的量刑及追缴违法所得部分;原审被告人马乐犯利用未公开信息交易罪,判处有期徒刑三年,并处罚金人民币1913万元;违法所得人民币19120246.98元依法予以追缴,上缴国库。

【Main Ideas】

刑法第一百八十条第四款利用未公开信息交易罪为援引法定刑的情形,应当是对第一款法定刑的全部援引。 其中,“情节严重”是入罪标准,在处罚上应当依照本条第一款内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪的全部法定刑处罚,即区分不同情形分别依照第一款规定的“情节严重”和“情节特别严重”两个量刑档次处罚。

[Guidance Significance]

我国刑法分则“罪状+法定刑”的立法模式决定了在性质相近、危害相当罪名的法条规范上,基本采用援引法定刑的立法技术。 本案对刑法第一百八十条第四款援引法定刑理解的争议是刑法解释的理论问题。 正确理解刑法条文,应当以文义解释为起点,综合运用体系解释、目的解释等多种解释方法,按照罪刑法定原则和罪责刑相适应原则的要求,从整个刑法体系中把握立法目的,平衡法益保护。

1.从法条文义理解,刑法第一百八十条第四款中的“情节严重”是入罪条款,为犯罪构成要件,表明该罪情节犯的属性,具有限定处罚范围的作用,以避免“情节不严重”的行为也入罪,而非量刑档次的限缩。 本条款中“情节严重”之后并未列明具体的法定刑,不兼具量刑条款的性质,量刑条款为“依照第一款的规定处罚”,应当理解为对第一款法定刑的全部援引而非部分援引,即同时存在“情节严重”、“情节特别严重”两种情形和两个量刑档次。

2.从刑法体系的协调性考量,一方面,刑法中存在与第一百八十条第四款表述类似的条款,印证了援引法定刑为全部援引。 如刑法第二百八十五条第三款规定“情节严重的,依照前款的规定处罚”,2011年《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理危害计算机信息系统安全刑事案件应用法律若干问题的解释》第三条明确了本款包含有“情节严重”、“情节特别严重”两个量刑档次。 另一方面,从刑法其他条文的反面例证看,法定刑设置存在细微差别时即无法援引。 如刑法第一百八十条第二款关于内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪单位犯罪的规定,没有援引前款个人犯罪的法定刑,而是单独明确规定处五年以下有期徒刑或者拘役。 这是因为第一款规定了情节严重、情节特别严重两个量刑档次,而第二款只有一个量刑档次,并且不对直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员并处罚金。 在这种情况下,为避免发生歧义,立法不会采用援引法定刑的方式,而是对相关法定刑作出明确表述。

3.从设置利用未公开信息交易罪的立法目的分析,刑法将本罪与内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪一并放在第一百八十条中分款予以规定,就是由于两罪虽然信息范围不同,但是其通过信息的未公开性和价格影响性获利的本质相同,对公众投资者利益和金融管理秩序的实质危害性相当,行为人的主观恶性相当,应当适用相同的法定量刑幅度,具体量刑标准也应一致。 如果只截取情节严重部分的法定刑进行援引,势必违反罪刑法定原则和罪刑相适应原则,无法实现惩罚和预防犯罪的目的。

【Relevant Legal Provisions】

《Criminal law of the People's Republic of China》

Article 180: 证券、期货交易内幕信息的知情人员或者非法获取证券、期货交易内幕信息的人员,在涉及证券的发行,证券、期货交易或者其他对证券、期货交易价格有重大影响的信息尚未公开前,买入或者卖出该证券,或者从事与该内幕信息有关的期货交易,或者泄露该信息,或者明示、暗示他人从事上述交易活动,情节严重的,处五年以下有期徒刑或者拘役,并处或者单处违法所得一倍以上五倍以下罚金;情节特别严重的,处五年以上十年以下有期徒刑,并处违法所得一倍以上五倍以下罚金。

单位犯前款罪的,对单位判处罚金,并对其直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员,处五年以下有期徒刑或者拘役。

The scope of the inside information and the persons with knowledge is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of laws and administrative regulations.

证券交易所、期货交易所、证券公司、期货经纪公司、基金管理公司、商业银行、保险公司等金融机构的从业人员以及有关监管部门或者行业协会的工作人员,利用因职务便利获取的内幕信息以外的其他未公开的信息,违反规定,从事与该信息相关的证券、期货交易活动,或者明示、暗示他人从事相关交易活动,情节严重的,依照第一款的规定处罚。

 

The Yu Yingsheng Appeals Case

(检例第25号)

[Keywords]

刑事申诉 再审检察建议 改判无罪

[Basic case details]

Yu Yingsheng is male, born in March 1962, and from Shandong Province's Wendeng City.

1996年12月2日,于英生的妻子韩某在家中被人杀害。 安徽省蚌埠市中区公安分局侦查认为于英生有重大犯罪嫌疑,于1996年12月12日将其刑事拘留。 1996年12月21日,蚌埠市中市区人民检察院以于英生涉嫌故意杀人罪,将其批准逮捕。 在侦查阶段的审讯中,于英生供认了杀害妻子的主要犯罪事实。 蚌埠市中区公安分局侦查终结后,移送蚌埠市中市区人民检察院审查起诉。 蚌埠市中市区人民检察院审查后,依法移送蚌埠市人民检察院审查起诉。 1997年12月24日,蚌埠市人民检察院以涉嫌故意杀人罪对于英生提起公诉。 蚌埠市中级人民法院一审判决认定以下事实:1996年12月1日,于英生一家三口在逛商场时,韩某将2800元现金交给于英生让其存入银行,但却不愿告诉这笔钱的来源,引起于英生的不满。 12月2日7时20分,于英生送其子去上学,回家后再次追问韩某2800元现金是哪来的。 因韩某坚持不愿说明来源,二人发生争吵厮打。 厮打过程中,于英生见韩某声音越来越大,即恼羞成怒将其推倒在床上,然后从厨房拿了一根塑料绳,将韩某的双手拧到背后捆上。 接着又用棉被盖住韩某头面部并隔着棉被用双手紧捂其口鼻,将其捂昏迷后匆忙离开现场到单位上班。 约9时50分,于英生从单位返回家中,发现韩某已经死亡,便先解开捆绑韩某的塑料绳,用菜刀对韩某的颈部割了数刀,然后将其内衣向上推至胸部、将其外面穿的毛线衣拉平,并将尸体翻成俯卧状。 接着又将屋内家具的柜门、抽屉拉开,将物品翻乱,造成家中被抢劫、韩某被奸杀的假象。 临走时,于英生又将液化气打开并点燃一根蜡烛放在床头柜上的烟灰缸里,企图使液化气排放到一定程度,烛火引燃液化气,达到烧毁现场的目的。 后因被及时发现而未引燃。 经法医鉴定:死者韩某口、鼻腔受暴力作用,致机械性窒息死亡。

[Procedural history]

On April 7, 1998, the Bengbu Intermediate People's Court convicted Yu Yingsheng of intentional homicide and sentenced her to death with a two-year reprieve. Not satisfied, Yu Yingsheng filed an appeal to the Anhui Provincial High People's Court.

On September 14, 1998, the Anhui Provincial High People's vacated the original judgment and remanded the case for a retrial on grounds that part of the facts and evidence based on which the original judgment determined that Yu Yingsheng committed intentional homicide were not clear or adequate. The parents of the victim Han initiated collateral civil action.

On September 16, 1999, the Bengbu Intermediate People's Court convicted Yu Yingsheng of intentional homicide and sentenced her to death with a two-year reprieve. Not satisfied, Yu Yingsheng filed an appeal to the Anhui Provincial High People's Court again.

On May 15, 2000, the Anhui Provincial High People's vacated the original judgment and remanded the case for a retrial on grounds that the original judgment's facts were not clear and evidence not adequate.

On October 25, 2000, the Bengbu Intermediate People's Court convicted Yu Yingsheng of intentional homicide and sentenced her to indeterminate imprisonment. Not satisfied, Yu Yingsheng filed an appeal to the Anhui Provincial High People's Court. On July 1, 2002, the Anhui Provincial High People's Court rejected the appeal and affirmed the original judgment.

On December 8, 2002, Yu Yingsheng filed a petition in the Anhui Provincial High People's Court. On August 9, 2004, the Anhui Provincial High People's Court rejected her petition. Thereafter, Yu Yingsheng filed a petition to the Anhui Provincial People's Procuratorate.

After review, the Anhui Provincial People's Procuratorate asked the Supreme People's Procuratorate to file a procuratorial appeal in accordance with trial supervision procedure. After review, the Supreme People's Procuratorate submitted a procuratorial suggestion for retrial to the Supreme People's Court on May 24, 2013.

【Reasons for Recommending Retrial】

最高人民检察院审查认为,原审判决、裁定认定于英生故意杀人的事实不清,证据不足,案件存在的矛盾和疑点无法得到合理排除,案件事实结论不具有唯一性。

一、原审判决认定事实的证据不确实、不充分。 一是根据安徽省人民检察院复查调取的公安机关侦查内卷中的手写“现场手印检验报告”及其他相关证据,能够证实现场存在的2枚指纹不是于英生及其家人所留,但侦查机关并未将该情况写入检验报告。 原审判决依据该“现场手印检验报告”得出“没有发现外人进入现场的痕迹”的结论与客观事实不符。 二是关于于英生送孩子上学以及到单位上班的时间,缺少明确证据支持,且证人证言之间存在矛盾。 原审判决认定于英生9时50分回家伪造现场,10时20分回到单位,而于英生辩解其在10时左右回到单位,后接到传呼并用办公室电话回此传呼,并在侦查阶段将传呼机提交侦查机关。 安徽省人民检察院复查及最高人民检察院审查时,相关人员证实侦查机关曾对有关人员及传呼机信息问题进行了调查,并调取了通话记录,但案卷中并没有相关调查材料及通话记录,于英生关于在10时左右回到单位的辩解不能合理排除。 因此依据现有证据,原审判决认定于英生具有20分钟作案时间和30分钟伪造现场时间的证据不足。

二、原审判决定罪的主要证据之间存在矛盾。 原审判决认定于英生有罪的证据主要是现场勘查笔录、尸检报告以及于英生曾作过的有罪供述。 而于英生在侦查阶段虽曾作过有罪供述,但其有罪供述不稳定,时供时翻,供述前后矛盾。 且其有罪供述与现场勘查笔录、尸检报告等证据亦存在诸多不一致的地方,如于英生曾作有罪供述中有关菜刀放置的位置、拽断电话线、用于点燃蜡烛的火柴梗丢弃在现场以及与被害人发生性行为等情节与现场勘查笔录、尸检报告等证据均存在矛盾。

三、原审判决认定于英生故意杀人的结论不具有唯一性。 根据从公安机关侦查内卷中调取的手写“手印检验报告”以及DNA鉴定意见,现场提取到外来指纹,被害人阴道提取的精子也不是于英生的精子,因此存在其他人作案的可能。 同时,根据侦查机关蜡烛燃烧试验反映的情况,该案存在杀害被害人并伪造现场均在8时之前完成的可能。 原审判决认定于英生故意杀害韩某的证据未形成完整的证据链,认定的事实不能排除合理怀疑。

【Case Verdict】

On June 6, 2013, the Supreme People's Court forwarded the Supreme People's Procuratorate's procuratorial suggestion for retrial to the Anhui Provincial High People's Court. On June 27, 2013, the Anhui Provincial High People's Court decided to conduct a retrial of this case. On August 5, 2013, the Anhui Provincial People's Court heard this case in a closed hearing. 安徽省高级人民法院审理认为,原判决、裁定根据于英生的有罪供述、现场勘查笔录、尸体检验报告、刑事科学技术鉴定、证人证言等证据,认定原审被告人于英生杀害了韩某。 但于英生供述中部分情节与现场勘查笔录、尸体检验报告、刑事科学技术鉴定等证据存在矛盾,且韩某阴道擦拭纱布及三角内裤上的精子经DNA鉴定不是于英生的,安徽省人民检察院提供的侦查人员从现场提取的没有比对结果的他人指纹等证据没有得到合理排除,因此原审判决、裁定认定于英生犯故意杀人罪的事实不清、证据不足,指控的犯罪不能成立。 On August 8, 2013, the Anhui Provincial High People's Court rendered the retrial judgment: the original judgment was vacated and defendant Yu Yingsheng is not guilty.

[Main Ideas]

坚守防止冤假错案底线,是保障社会公平正义的重要方面。 检察机关既要依法监督纠正确有错误的生效刑事裁判,又要注意在审查逮捕、审查起诉等环节有效发挥监督制约作用,努力从源头上防止冤假错案发生。 在监督纠正冤错案件方面,要严格把握纠错标准,对于被告人供述反复,有罪供述前后矛盾,且有罪供述的关键情节与其他在案证据存在无法排除的重大矛盾,不能排除有其他人作案可能的,应当依法进行监督。

[Guidance Significance]

1.对案件事实结论应当坚持“唯一性”证明标准。 刑事诉讼法第一百九十五条第一项规定:“案件事实清楚,证据确实、充分,依据法律认定被告人有罪的,应当作出有罪判决。 ”刑事诉讼法第五十三条第二款对于认定“证据确实、充分”的条件进行了规定:“(一)定罪量刑的事实都有证据证明;(二)据以定案的证据均经法定程序查证属实;(三)综合全案证据,对所认定的案件事实已排除合理怀疑。 ”排除合理怀疑,要求对于认定的案件事实,从证据角度已经没有符合常理的、有根据的怀疑,特别在是否存在犯罪事实和被告人是否实施了犯罪等关键问题上,确信证据指向的案件结论具有唯一性。 只有坚持对案件事实结论的唯一性标准,才能够保证裁判认定的案件事实与客观事实相符,最大限度避免冤假错案的发生。

2.坚持全面收集证据,严格把握纠错标准。 在复查刑事申诉案件过程中,除全面审查原有证据外,还应当注意补充收集、调取能够证实被告人有罪或者无罪、犯罪情节轻重的新证据,通过正向肯定与反向否定,检验原审裁判是否做到案件事实清楚,证据确实、充分。 要坚持疑罪从无原则,严格把握纠错标准,对于被告人有罪供述出现反复且前后矛盾,关键情节与其他在案证据存在无法排除的重大矛盾,不能排除有其他人作案可能的,应当认为认定主要案件事实的结论不具有唯一性。 人民法院据此判决被告人有罪的,人民检察院应当按照审判监督程序向人民法院提出抗诉,或者向同级人民法院提出再审检察建议。

【Relevant Legal Provisions】

"Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China"

Article 53: Judgments in all cases should emphasize evidence and emphasize investigation and research, and must not casually credit confessions. 只有被告人供述,没有其他证据的,不能认定被告人有罪和处以刑罚;没有被告人供述,证据确实、充分的,可以认定被告人有罪和处以刑罚。

Evidence that is credible and sufficient shall meet the following requirements:

(1) facts on guilt and sentencing all have evidence supporting them;

(2) All evidence on which the judgment is based must have been verified as true through statutory procedures ;

(3) All evidence of the case taken together, excludes all reasonable doubt as to the identified facts.

Article 242: 当事人及其法定代理人、近亲属的申诉符合下列情形之一的,人民法院应当重新审判:

(1) Where there is new evidence showing that the facts verified in the original judgment or ruling were truly in error, and might influence conviction or sentencing determinations;

(2) Where the evidence on which sentencing was based is not credible, is insufficient or should be excluded in accordance with law; or the principle evidence by which the case was proven is mutually contradictory;

(3) Where the law applied by the original judgment or ruling is truly in error;

(4) Where violations of statutory litigation procedures might influence the fairness of the judgment;

(5) Where, at the time that adjudicators tried the case, there was corrupt, prejudicial or arbitrary conduct.

Article 243: 各级人民法院院长对本院已经发生法律效力的判决和裁定,如果发现在认定事实上或者在适用法律上确有错误,必须提交审判委员会处理。

If the Supreme People's Court finds that an effective judgment of any level of court is truly in error, or a court finds that a court below's effective judgment was truly in error, they have the right to review it or order the lower people's court to have a retrial.

If the Supreme People's Procuratorate finds that an effective judgment of any level of ppeople's court is truly in error, or a procuratorate finds that a court at a level below's effective judgment was truly in error, they have the right raise an appeal in the people's court at their same level in accordance with trial supervision procedures.

In cases of prosecurotrial appeals from the people's procuratorates, the people's court that accepts the appeal shall form a collegial panel to retry the case, and where the original trial's facts were unclear or evidence insufficient, may order a lower people's court to retry it.

 

Then Chen Man Appeals Case

(检例第26号)

[Keywords]

Criminal Appeals, Criminal Counter-appeals, Changing a Guilty Verdict

[Basic case details]

Chen Man is male, born in February 1963, and from Sichuan Province's Fu County.

At about 7:30 P.M. on December 25, 1992 a fire occurred at No. 109 Poxia village, in the Eastern District of Haikou City in Hainan Province. ub At about 7:58 P.M. the Haikou fire department went to the scene after receiving the alert, discovered a body while putting out the fire, and immediately reported it to the public security organs. At 8:30 P.M., after receiving the report, the Haikou municipal public security bureau dispatched personnel to the scene to carry out on-site inspection and investigation work. After investigation it was determined that the deceased was Zhong X who resided in No. 109, and that Chen Man who had previously rented the place was a major criminal suspect. In the early hours of December 28th of that year, the public public security organs captured the suspect Chen Man. In September 25, 1993, the Haikou municipal people's procuratorate approved formal arrest of Chen Man on suspicion of intentional homicide. On November 29, 1993, the Haikou municipal people's procuratorate indicted Chen Man on charges of intentional homicide. The first-instance trial in the Haikou Intermediate People's Court determined the following facts: the defendant Chen Man moved into the residential rental of the company in which Zhong X worked, at Haikou's Poxia village No. 109. residence During this period, Chen Man and Zhong X had disputes for reasons such as Chen Man not paying rent, and Zhong X said that he was going to report Chen Man to the police for personally using official seals to help others arrange business permits, and on December 17 of the same year, asked Chen man to move out of No. 109 Poxia village. 陈满怀恨在心,遂起杀害钟某的歹念。 At 7:00 P.M. on December 25th, Chen Man found that the electricity had been turned off for Shangpoxia village and informed Zhong X that he wanted to return to his old home in Sichuan; he bolted to No. 109 Shangxiapo village, saw that Zhong X was drinking in the living room, and began to chat with him; at some point he went to the kitchen, grabbed a knife and caught Zhong X off guard, stabbing him repeatedly in the head, neck, and torso, so that Zhong X died on the spot. Then Chen Man moved the natural gas tank from the kitchen to the door of Zhong's bedroom, and used a lighter to start a fire and burn the corpse to conceal the crime. The fire destroyed the bed and desk in Zhong's bedroom, and the firemen were only able to extinguish it because of their quick response. Upon a forensic medical examination: the victim Zhong X had several wounds from a sharp object on his upper body, and the cause of death was blood loss after the carotid artery was severed.

[Procedural history]

On November 9, 1994, the Haikou Intermediate People's Court convicted Chen Man of intentional homicide, sentenced him to death with a two-year reprieve and deprived him of political rights for life; and on conviction for arson, sentenced him to a fixed-term imprisonment of nine years; and decided to impose the death penalty, with a two-year reprieve, and deprive him of political rights for life.

On November 13, 1994, the Haikou People's Procuratorate filed a procuratorial appeal on grounds that the sentence imposed by the original judgment was too lenient and that a death sentence with immediate execution should be given. On April 15, 1999, the Hainan Provincial High People's Court rejected the procuratorial appeal and affirmed the original judgment. After the judgment took effect, Chen Man's filed an appeal petition.

On November 8, 2001, after review, the Hainan Provincial High People's Court rejected the appeal petition. Still not satisfied, Chen Man's parents filed appeals petitions to the Hainan Provincial People's Procuratorate. On April 9, 2013, after review, the Hainan Provincial People's Procuratorate found that the petitioners' ground for petitioning were not sustained and did not meet with the conditions for filing a reexamination case. Not satisfied, Chen Man filed petition to the Supreme People's Procuratorate.

On February 10, 2015, the Supreme People's Procuratorate filed a procuratorial appeal to the Supreme People's Court in accordance with trial supervision procedures.

【Grounds for counter-appeal】:

The review of the Supreme People's Procuratorate found that the evidence on which the first-instance trial judgment was based was neither credible nor sufficient, the facts as found by the court regarding Chen Man's intentional homicide and arson were not clear, and the evidence was not sufficient.

I. The original judgment's determination that Chen Man had time to commit the offense did not accord the facts as demonstrated by the case evidence. The original judgment determined that at about 7:00 PM on December 25, 1992, the defendant Chen Man killed Zhong X with a knife at No. 109 Shangpoxia village, in the Zhendong district of Haikou City. Based on the testimony of witnesses Yang X Chun, Liu X Sheng, Zhang X Sheng, it can be verified that at around 7:00 P.M. on that day, Chen Man was still in the Ningtun Building, and based on the testimony ofwitnesses A Xqing and Liu Xqing, around 7:00 P.M an out of breath "ah ah" sound was heard coming from No. 109, and that about 30 minutes later they saw that No. 109 was aflame. Therefor, there is evidence showing that at the time the crime was committed, Chen Man was in the Ningtun building, and could not have been at the scene of the crime at the same time; the original judgments' determination that Chen Man committed homicide and arson in No. 109 at 7:00 P.M. is inconsistent with the situation portrayed by the witnesses.

II. The evidence for the facts determined by the original judgment were insufficient, and some major evidence was not check for veracity in accordance with law. The major evidence on which the original judgment determined that defendant Chen Man committed homicide and arson, aside from the direct evidence of Chen Man's confession of guilt, the other evidence such as the public security organs' determination of arson, the record of the on-scene investigation, crime scene photos, photos of physical evidence, forensic examination reports, physical evidence examination reports, criminal science technological examinations, only demonstrate that Zhong X was murdered and set on fire at the scene; the witnesses in the case's testimony only shows circumstances such as the situation at the time of the crime, Chen Man's actions before and after the crime, and the relationship between Chen Man and the victim, but none of this can verify that the criminal acts were Chen Man's. The bloody white shirt, black men's suit, and other items taken from the scene were lost during the investigation phase, and were not presented in court at trial and did not undergo examination, and therefore must not be used as a basis for deciding the case.

III. There is doubt as to the veracity of Chen Man's confession of guilt. Although Chen Man confessed guilt during the investigation phase, his confessions were inconsistent, sometimes confessing, but sometimes reversing, and they conflicted with evidence such as the on-scene investigation record, and medical examinations. 如陈满供述杀人后厨房水龙头没有关,而现场勘查时,厨房水龙头呈关闭状,而是卫生间的水龙头没有关;陈满供述杀人后菜刀扔到被害人的卧室中,而现场勘查时,该菜刀放在厨房的砧板上,且在菜刀上未发现血迹、指纹等痕迹;陈满供述将“工作证”放在被害人身上,是为了制造自己被烧死假象的说法,与案发后其依然正常工作、并未逃避侦查的实际情况相矛盾。

【Case Verdict】

On April 24, 2015, the Supreme People's Court rendered a decision for retrial, and ordered the Zhejiang Provincial High People's Court to conduct a retrial. On December 29, 2015, the Zhejiang Provincial High Court heard this case in open court. 法院经过审理认为,原审裁判据以定案的主要证据即陈满的有罪供述及辨认笔录的客观性、真实性存疑,依法不能作为定案依据;本案除原被告人陈满有罪供述外无其他证据指向陈满作案。 因此,原审裁判认定原审被告人陈满故意杀人并放火焚尸灭迹的事实不清、证据不足,指控的犯罪不能成立。 On January 25, 2016, the Zhejiang Provincial High People's Court rendered the retrial judgment: the original judgment was vacated and defendant Chen Man is not guilty.

[Main Ideas]

Evidence is the touchstone of criminal procedures, the verification of facts must have evidence as its basis. Where the evidence is not verified through courtroom investigation procedures such as in-court presentation, identification, and debate, it cannot be the basis for deciding a case. 对于在案发现场提取的物证等实物证据,未经鉴定,且在诉讼过程中丢失或者毁灭,无法在庭审中出示、质证,有罪供述的主要情节又得不到其他证据印证,而原审裁判认定被告人有罪的,应当依法进行监督。

[Guidance Significance]

1.切实强化证据裁判和证据审查意识。 证据裁判原则是现代刑事诉讼的一项基本原则,是正确惩治犯罪,防止冤假错案的重要保障。 证据裁判原则不仅要求认定案件事实必须以证据为依据,而且所依据的证据必须客观真实、合法有效。 我国刑事诉讼法第四十八条第三款规定:“证据必须经过查证属实,才能作为定案的根据。 ”这是证据使用的根本原则,违背这一原则就有可能导致冤假错案,放纵罪犯或者侵犯公民的合法权利。 检察机关审查逮捕、审查起诉和复查刑事申诉案件,都必须注意对证据的客观性、合法性进行审查,及时防止和纠正冤假错案。 对于刑事申诉案件,经审查,如果原审裁判据以定案的有关证据,在原审过程中未经法定程序证明其真实性、合法性,而人民法院据此认定被告人有罪的,人民检察院应当依法进行监督。

2.坚持综合审查判断证据规则。 刑事诉讼法第一百九十五条第一项规定:“案件事实清楚,证据确实、充分,依据法律认定被告人有罪的,应当作出有罪判决。 ”证据确实、充分,不仅是对单一证据的要求,而且是对审查判断全案证据的要求。 只有使各项证据相互印证,合理解释消除证据之间存在的矛盾,才能确保查明案件事实真相,避免出现冤假错案。 特别是在将犯罪嫌疑人、被告人有罪供述作为定罪主要证据的案件中,尤其要重视以客观性证据检验补强口供等言词证据。 只有口供而没有其他客观性证据,或者口供与其他客观性证据相互矛盾、不能相互印证,对所认定的事实不能排除合理怀疑的,应当坚持疑罪从无原则,不能认定被告人有罪。

【Relevant Legal Provisions】

"Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China"

Article 48:  All materials that may be used to prove the facts of the case are evidence.

证据包括:(一)物证;(二)书证;(三)证人证言;(四)被害人陈述;(五)犯罪嫌疑人、被告人供述和辩解;(六)鉴定意见;(七)勘验、检查、辩认、侦查实验等笔录;(八)视听资料、电子数据。

Evidence must be verified as true before it can be the basis of a case decision.

Article 193: 法庭审理过程中,对与定罪、量刑有关的事实、证据都应当进行调查、辩论。

经审判长许可,公诉人、当事人和辩护人、诉讼代理人可以对证据和案件情况发表意见并且可以相互辩论。

After the presiding judge announces that debate has concluded, the defendant has the right to make a final statement.

 

The Wang Yulei Approval of Arrest Case

(检例第27号)

[Keywords]

侦查活动监督 排除非法证据 不批准逮捕

[Basic case details]

Wang Yulei is male, born in March 1968, and from Hebei Province's Shunping City.

2014年2月18日22时许,河北省顺平县公安局接王玉雷报案称:当日22时许,其在回家路上发现一名男子躺在地上,旁边有血迹。 次日,顺平县公安局对此案立案侦查。 经排查,顺平县公安局认为报案人王玉雷有重大嫌疑,遂于2014年3月8日以涉嫌故意杀人罪对王玉雷刑事拘留。

[Procedural history]

2014年3月15日,顺平县公安局提请顺平县人民检察院批准逮捕王玉雷。 顺平县人民检察院办案人员在审查案件时,发现该案事实证据存在许多疑点和矛盾。 在提讯过程中,王玉雷推翻了在公安机关所作的全部有罪供述,称有罪供述系被公安机关对其采取非法取证手段后作出。 顺平县人民检察院认为,该案事实不清,证据不足,不符合批准逮捕条件。 鉴于案情重大,顺平县人民检察院向保定市人民检察院进行了汇报。 保定市人民检察院同意顺平县人民检察院的意见。 2014年3月22日,顺平县人民检察院对王玉雷作出不批准逮捕的决定。

【不批准逮捕理由】

顺平县人民检察院在审查公安机关的报捕材料和证据后认为:

一、该案主要证据之间存在矛盾,案件存在的疑点不能合理排除。 公安机关认为王玉雷涉嫌故意杀人罪,但除王玉雷的有罪供述外,没有其他证据证实王玉雷实施了杀人行为,且有罪供述与其他证据相互矛盾。 王玉雷先后九次接受侦查机关询问、讯问,其中前五次为无罪供述,后四次为有罪供述,前后供述存在矛盾;在有罪供述中,对作案工具有斧子、锤子、刨锛三种不同说法,但去向均未查明;供述的作案工具与尸体照片显示的创口形状不能同一认定。

二、影响定案的相关事实和部分重要证据未依法查证,关键物证未收集在案。 侦查机关在办案过程中,对以下事实和证据未能依法查证属实:被害人尸检报告没有判断出被害人死亡的具体时间,公安机关认定王玉雷的作案时间不足信;王玉雷作案的动机不明;现场提取的手套没有进行DNA鉴定;王玉雷供述的三种凶器均未收集在案。

三、犯罪嫌疑人有罪供述属非法言词证据,应当依法予以排除。 2014年3月18日,顺平县人民检察院办案人员首次提审王玉雷时发现,其右臂被石膏固定、活动吃力,在询问该伤情原因时,其极力回避,虽然对杀人行为予以供认,但供述内容无法排除案件存在的疑点。 在顺平县人民检察院驻所检察室人员发现王玉雷胳膊打了绷带并进行询问时,王玉雷自称是骨折旧伤复发。 监所检察部门认为公安机关可能存在违法提讯情况,遂通报顺平县人民检察院侦查监督部门,提示在批捕过程中予以关注。 鉴于王玉雷伤情可疑,顺平县人民检察院办案人员向检察长进行了汇报,检察长在阅卷后,亲自到看守所提审犯罪嫌疑人,并对讯问过程进行全程录音录像。 经过耐心细致的思想疏导,王玉雷消除顾虑,推翻了在公安机关所作的全部有罪供述,称被害人王某被杀不是其所为,其有罪供述系被公安机关采取非法取证手段后作出。

2014年3月22日,顺平县人民检察院检察委员会研究认为,王玉雷有罪供述系采用非法手段取得,属于非法言词证据,依法应当予以排除。 在排除王玉雷有罪供述后,其他在案证据不能证实王玉雷实施了犯罪行为,因此不应对其作出批准逮捕决定。

【Case Verdict】

2014年3月22日,顺平县人民检察院对王玉雷作出不批准逮捕决定。 后公安机关依法解除王玉雷强制措施,予以释放。

顺平县人民检察院对此案进行跟踪监督,依法引导公安机关调查取证并抓获犯罪嫌疑人王斌。 2014年7月14日,顺平县人民检察院以涉嫌故意杀人罪对王斌批准逮捕。 2015年1月17日,保定市中级人民法院以故意杀人罪判处被告人王斌死刑,缓期二年执行,剥夺政治权利终身。 被告人王斌未上诉,一审判决生效。

[Main Ideas]

检察机关办理审查逮捕案件,要严格坚持证据合法性原则,既要善于发现非法证据,又要坚决排除非法证据。 非法证据排除后,其他在案证据不能证明犯罪嫌疑人实施犯罪行为的,应当依法对犯罪嫌疑人作出不批准逮捕的决定。 要加强对审查逮捕案件的跟踪监督,引导侦查机关全面及时收集证据,促进侦查活动依法规范进行。

[Guidance Significance]

1.严格坚持非法证据排除规则。 根据我国刑事诉讼法第七十九条规定,逮捕的证据条件是“有证据证明有犯罪事实”,这里的“证据”必须是依法取得的合法证据,不包括采取刑讯逼供、暴力取证等非法方法取得的证据。 检察机关在审查逮捕过程中,要高度重视对证据合法性的审查,如果接到犯罪嫌疑人及其辩护人或者证人、被害人等关于刑讯逼供、暴力取证等非法行为的控告、举报及提供的线索,或者在审查案件材料时发现可能存在非法取证行为,以及刑事执行检察部门反映可能存在违法提讯情况的,应当认真进行审查,通过当面讯问犯罪嫌疑人、查看犯罪嫌疑人身体状况、识别犯罪嫌疑人供述是否自然可信以及调阅提审登记表、犯罪嫌疑人入所体检记录等途径,及时发现非法证据,坚决排除非法证据。

2.严格把握作出批准逮捕决定的条件。 构建以客观证据为核心的案件事实认定体系,高度重视无法排除合理怀疑的矛盾证据,注意利用收集在案的客观证据验证、比对全案证据,守住“犯罪事实不能没有、犯罪嫌疑人不能搞错”的逮捕底线。 要坚持惩罚犯罪与保障人权并重的理念,重视犯罪嫌疑人不在犯罪现场、没有作案时间等方面的无罪证据以及侦查机关可能存在的非法取证行为的线索。 综合审查全案证据,不能证明犯罪嫌疑人实施了犯罪行为的,应当依法作出不批准逮捕的决定。 要结合办理审查逮捕案件,注意发挥检察机关侦查监督作用,引导侦查机关及时收集、补充其他证据,促进侦查活动依法规范进行。

【Relevant Legal Provisions】

"Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China"

Article 54: 采用刑讯逼供等非法方法收集的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人供述和采用暴力、威胁等非法方法收集的证人证言、被害人陈述,应当予以排除。 收集物证、书证不符合法定程序,可能严重影响司法公正的,应当予以补正或者作出合理解释;不能补正或者作出合理解释的,对该证据应当予以排除。

Where evidence that should be excluded is discovered during the investigation, review for prosecution or trial, it shall be excluded in accordance with law, and must not be used as the bases of an indictment opinion, a decision to indict, or a verdict.

Article 79: 对有证据证明有犯罪事实,可能判处徒刑以上刑罚的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人,采取取保候审尚不足以防止发生下列社会危险性的,应当予以逮捕:

(1) new crimes might be perpetrated;

(2) there is a threat of endangering national security, public safety or the social order.

(3) might destroy or fabricate evidence, or disturb witnesses' testimony or collude statements;

(4) might seek vengeance against the victims, persons who made reports, or accusres ;

(5) plan to commit suicide or escape.

The suspect shall be arrested where there is evidence proving the facts of the crime and the possible punishment is 10 years or more imprisonment; or there is evidence proving the facts of the crime and the possible punishment is imprisonment or higher and the suspect has previous committed a crime of intentional infliction of harm or their identity is unclear.

被取保候审、监视居住的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人违反取保候审、监视居住的规定,情节严重的,可以予以逮捕。

Article 86: 人民检察院审查批准逮捕,可以讯问犯罪嫌疑人;有下列情形之一的,应当讯问犯罪嫌疑人:

(1)there is a question over whether the requirements for arrest are met;

(2)The criminal suspect requests to make a statement to a procurator in person;

(3)There might be major violations of law in the investigative activities.

People's procuratorates performing a review for approving an arrest may question witnesses and other litigation participants and hear the defense lawyers opinions; when a lawyer submits a request, they shall hear the lawyers opinions.

Article 88: 人民检察院对于公安机关提请批准逮捕的案件进行审查后,应当根据情况分别作出批准逮捕或者不批准逮捕的决定。 Where the decision is to approve arrest, the public security organs shall immediately enforce it, and promptly report notify the people's procuratorate of the circumstances of enforcement. Where arrest is not approved, the people's procuratorates shall explain their reasons, and where supplementary investigation is necessary, they shall inform the public security organ at the same time.

About China Law Translate 591 Articles
CLT is a crowdsourced, crowdfunded legal translation project that enables English speaking people to better understand Chinese law.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*