National Free Hotline:18731579788


Former governor of Yunnan province Li Jiating bribery case

Defendant: Li Jiating, male, 58 years old, former deputy secretary of the Yunnan Provincial People's Government of Yunnan province. On suspicion of bribery crime, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, in September 2001 by the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau of criminal detention, the same year in October was arrested.

In February 2003, the second branch of the Beijing Municipal People's Procuratorate to the Beijing Second Intermediate People's court prosecution, alleged in the indictment: Li Jiating in 1994 to 2000 as CPC Yunnan Provincial Committee, deputy secretary of the provincial Party committee, Yunnan Province of the people's Government of the vice governor, governor period using job convenience, 10 people to seek benefits for, has 30 times collaborated with Li Bo, the son or separate accept other people's property is equivalent to totaling RMB ten Babaiyuwan yuan. After the incident, the defendant to expose the facts of the crime to the prosecution of others, some of the verification is true, and provide important clues, so that prosecutors can detect more cases of major cases. Accordingly, the prosecutor's office for the crime of bribery prosecution.
           ;   defense idea: the defendant of this case was the governor of Yunnan province. Lawyers took the case to consult the relevant evidence, that is the adequacy of evidence provided by the prosecution of the case and the defendant to procuratorate find out the main facts of the crime also confessed, the qualitative behavior has no objection. His defense and a lawyer found part of the facts of the case and the application of the law, combined with bribery crime legal research on the defense of the views put forward, and requested the court to consider the defendant has a lighter, mitigating circumstances. The final court sentenced the accused guilty of taking bribes sentenced to death, suspended for two years.

First instance

The presiding judge, the full court:

Beijing City, Kyoto law firm to accept the defendant Li Jiating, the assignment of the Tian Wenchang, Han Jiayi counsel as the defendant Li Jiating counsel. After the lawyer accepted the Commission, the scoring, meeting, participated in the trial activities. According to the present situation of evidence has been verified as follows: according to the defense opinion, please consider the collegial panel.

, according to court verified by the relevant evidence and criminal law of the specific provisions, Defender of the prosecution accused Li Jiating constitute bribery crime nature has no objection, the alleged in the indictment the main facts of the crime not dissent.

Second, the counsel that the indictment of part of the facts of the crime evidence is not enough, need to be further verified. For part of the evidence for objection. To draw the attention of the court. Which include:

(a) accepting bribes from Ge Jianhui

Counsel said: in the fact that due to the lack of causal connection between qingtuo matters and the defendant behavior, so identified the defendant trustees to seek benefits the evidence is insufficient. The specific reason is:
The defendant although accepting the money to his brother Ge Jinghui, but found in the court trial, Ge Jianhui had never personally formally to the defendant proposed qingtuo, the desired is his promotion, political help and established a good relationship. Send money sent money in Ge Jinghui representation is not clear. That is to say, only hope that the defendant at work to support and assistance from the Ge Jianhui, neither related to positive, also does not involve the transfer and upgrade. There is no direct causal link between the defendant's actions and the two. The defendant just in Ge Jianhui horizontal transfer played a certain role, and this behavior is not his trust, not ge Jianhui is also expected, belonging to the a normal industry and trade arrangement, and Ge Jianhui more than just to mobilize personnel in one of the member. So, the counsel that, although the defendant paid money, but that the evidence is not sufficient to bribe people profit.

(two) accepting bribes from Li Zhongping

The defender believes that the defendant Li Zhongping money to receive the act of bribery, in the application of the law should be studied. Facts by the court proceedings have been identified that Li Zhongping qingtuo indeed, the defendant did receive the Lee to the money, but the defendant's behavior whether can be identified as the use of authority for the profit of others is really need to study. Because, the banking system is not decided by the provincial personnel appointment right. The testimony of the witness Li Suhua expression: bank appointed general principles of cadres to respect the opinions of the superior departments in charge, even if the defendant insists on negative, only the executive will only then to have the right to decide. Can be seen that the defendant does not exist in charge, administered, responsible for the work of the convenience conditions. Moreover, it is more important to the defendant in this incident, only to stand to respect the higher authorities, the Organization Department of the views, that is, not to hold a negative opinion. Its performance is not obvious for the benefit of the trustee. The different in the objective conditions do not exist or are not fully, through active as behavior, as trustees to achieve qingtuo matters reflects the profit behavior.

Step back, even if the act is still to take bribes, the defense should not be the four time to send the money is also found in the defendant's bribery amount. Because for the first time to send money time has happened in interests after, Li Zhongpingming indeed said the thanks and promotion about the meaning of, and four times to send money, Li Zhongping clearly show that is thanks to the help of the defendant to individuals and later before other trust and the interests of the. Therefore, after the four time to send money and the defendant to seek the interests of the behavior has no correspondence, is the nature of the emotional investment.

Notable is, whether in theory or in practice, sometimes easy to pull relationship, please and the payment of the money and the defendant bribes confuse. Because the distinction between the two is sometimes difficult to distinguish between. Embodied in the case, some time in advance to the money, and sometimes in the post to the money, and some time to give money, how to distinguish between the nature of behavior? The defender believes that the analysis should be based on the specific case.

Combined with the case, because of the defendant's position, in many cases to money not only for a specific matters and the implementation of payment behavior, many people just to please, pull the relationship and give money to, look is long-term interests, and there is no explicit of bartering. If the behavior of the implementation of the behavior of payment with obvious correspondence, in line with the money, trading rights, finds that the defendant's behavior is bribery; if the line is the implementation of the payment behavior with a clear expectation of long-term interests, please, pull relationship should not be punished for taking bribes. In some cases a long emotional investment and temporary bartering may occur on the same subject, and in the process of bartering reflect obvious correspondence. Such as in a longer period of time repeatedly sent money to send, and there is no qingtuo matters, once appear qingtuo specifically prior payment of property, at this time in the profit has obvious corresponding relationship between bribery and. In this case can be a long-term, repeated collection of property accumulated, the amount of money calculated for the amount of bribery? In theory, it is necessary to further explore. From the point of view of the strict grasp of the crime of accepting bribes and the angle of the defendant, the two cases should be treated differently.

Copyright © 2014-2016 xuming. Copyright weaving dreams    ICP prepared No. ********