SPC and SPP Interpretation on theft Crimes (11-11-2013)

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.

"The Supreme People's Court and Supreme People's Procuratorate's Interpretation on Several Issues Regarding the Application of Law in Cases of Theft" was passed on September 30, 2013 by the 1592 session of the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People's Court, and on October 22, 2013 by the 12th meeting of the 12th session of the prosecutor's committee of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and is hereby promulgated, to take effect on November 18, 2013.

Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate

November 11, 2013

  Legal Interpretation (2013) No. 25

  Supreme People's Court Supreme People's ProcuratorateInterpretation on Several Issues Regarding the Application of Law in Cases of Theft

The following interpretation on the application of law in the handling of theft cases is made on the basis of the relevant provisions of the "Criminal Law of the PRC" so as to punish thefts in accordance with law and to protect public and private assets:

Article 1: Where theft is of public or private property valued at 1000-3000 or more, 30,000-80,000 or more, or 200,000-400,000 or more; it shall be respectively be found to be "a relatively large amount", "a huge amount", or "an especially huge amount" as used in Article 267 of the Criminal Law.

High People's Courts and People's Procuratorates of each province, autonomous region, or directly controlled municipality may determine specific standards for local enforcement within the ranges provided in the previous paragraph based on the state of local economic development and with consideration of the public security conditions, and report these to the Supreme People's Court and Supreme People's Procuratorate for approval.

Article 2: In any of the following situations, theft of personnel property the standard for a 'relatively large amount' shall be 50% of that in the previous article.

(1) Have previously received a criminal punishment for robbery, theft or organizing a group to loot;

(2)Have received an administrative punishment within the previous year for theft or looting;

(3)Have stolen three or more times in the preceding year;

(4) theft while operating a vehicle, motorized or otherwise;

(5)Organizing or controlling theft by juveniles;

(6)Stealing the property of the elderly, juveniles, pregnant women, persons carrying infants, handicapped persons or persons who have lost the ability to work.

(7) Stealing from patients, their friends or families in a hospital.

(8) Stealing relief funds for disaster relief, emergency rescue, flood control, special care, poverty relief or immigrants.

(9) Theft in the effected area of a natural disaster, disaster resulting from an accident or public security incident, during the time of the emergency.

(10) causes serious harms such as leading to light injury of others or their mental aberration.

Article 3: In any of the following circumstances, the theft of public or personal property shall be found to be 'other serious circumstances' as provided in article 267 of the Criminal Law.

(1) Causes serious injury to others;

(2) Causes others to commit suicide;

(3) has one of the circumstances provided in Article 2(3)-2(10) of this interpretation and where the amount reaches 50% of the amount for "a huge amount" as provided in Article 1 of this interpretation.

Article 4: In any of the following circumstances, theft of public or private property shall be found to be 'especially serious circumstances' as provided in Article 67 of the Criminal Law.

(1) Causes the death of another.

(2) has one of the circumstances provided in Article 2(3)-2(10) of this interpretation and the amount reaches 50% of the amount for "an especially huge amount" as provided in Article 1 of this interpretation

Article 5: In any of the following circumstances, where theft of public or private property was of a relatively large amount but did not cause a light or more serious injury to others, and the perpetrator was a first-time offender, has confessed, repented, returned the stolen goods, and made compensation; it may be found that the circumstances of the crime are slight, and not prosecuted or excused from criminal punishment, and when necessary, the relevant departments may give administrative punishments:

(1) where there are legally prescribed circumstances calling for leniency;

(2) was not a principle offender, and did not receive a share of the gains, or received a small portion;

(3) The victim has forgiven;

(4) other circumstances are minor and the harm was not large.

Article 6: In any of the following circumstances, taking the property of others while operating a motor vehicle or other vehicle, shall be convicted and punished as the crime of robbery:

(1) Because the victim would not let go while there property was being stolen, forcibly stole it;

(2) drove a car to crowd or bump another or forcibly knocked someone over to take property.

(3) Clearly knowing it might cause harm or death to others, nonetheless forcibly took and caused the property holder to suffer minor injuries or more serious consequences.

Article 7: After this interpretation is released and takes effect, the "Supreme People's Court Interpretation on Several Questions Regarding the Specific Law to be Used When Trying Robbery Cases" (Legal Interpretation 2002 No 18) is abolished at the same time; where previously released interpretations and normative documents do not accord with this interpretation, this interpretation is controlling.

Issued November 14 by the Secretary of the General Office of the Supreme People's Court

 

About China Law Translate 755 Articles
CLT is a crowdsourced, crowdfunded legal translation project that enables English speaking people to better understand Chinese law.

1 Comment

  1. Notice how many of the mitigating and aggravating factors don’t require any level of knowledge or mens rea on the part of the perpetrator. While this at first seems to be a difference in the legal systems,, other articles like 6(3) explicitly have a knowledge component. So why not 2(6)?

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. China Law Translate | A bargain at twice the speed: A long overdue overview of plea bargaining pilots in China pt 1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*