Du Yimin, the female owner of a beauty salon, was sentenced by the Intermediate People's Court of Lishui City, Zhejiang Province on March 2 1 for illegally raising 700 million yuan.
He was convicted of fund-raising fraud, sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment, deprived of political rights for life, and confiscated all personal property.
On the day before Du Yimin was sentenced in the first instance, Zhu Junyi, the former director of Shanghai Labor and Social Security Bureau, was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of158.56 million yuan by Changchun Intermediate People's Court. (China Youth Daily, March 25)
These are two typical economic cases, but the punishment results are quite different. One was sentenced to 700 million for illegal fund-raising and the other was sentenced to158.56 million for embezzlement, but only 18 years. The latter involved 22.6 times as much money as the former, but the punishment was far lighter than the former. Moreover, the loss caused by the latter is12438+000 billion yuan, which has not been recovered before the incident. In addition, the latter was punished for several crimes 18 years, while the former was sentenced only for "fund-raising fraud".
Is the social harm caused by the crime of fund-raising fraud far greater than the combined crime of accepting bribes, misappropriating public funds and abusing power?
Only by comparing these two cases can we know that the law has such great flexibility. I can't help asking, if such corrupt officials are given light sentences, why are the female bosses of beauty salons sentenced?
Which is bigger, 700 million or 65.438+058 billion?
The law cannot be a rubber band, and equality before the law is not just a slogan. Your judgment is obviously unfair. How can you convince the public?
Such a judgment will undoubtedly make the masses fall into a misunderstanding: the sentencing standards vary from person to person. If there are double standards in sentencing, corrupt officials like Zhu Junyi who embezzled 65.438+0.58 billion yuan will not be sentenced. What are other corrupt officials afraid of? The natural people will also ask: How much is the corruption of corrupt officials enough to be sentenced?
The judge's kindness to corrupt elements is encouraging the arrogance of corrupt elements. If corrupt elements are not punished as they deserve, they cannot really purify the social atmosphere. If the judgment is unfair, the legal prestige will be lost.
In recent years, although the anti-corruption efforts of the relevant state departments have increased, the corrupt elements are still "previous corruptions", and the amount of corruption is increasing, which is shocking. Zhu Junyi was given a light sentence for misappropriating 65.438+05.8 billion yuan. How many corrupt officials will this encourage?
In their view, greed is the same as greed. As long as the punishment is not executed immediately, they will have a chance to turn over. So that the property of the country and people will not be eroded by them?
Anti-corruption work must be serious, not just stopped. Because the corrupt officials themselves are deeply hidden, this has brought some difficulties to the work of the anti-corruption department. Zhu Junyi was arrested and some corrupt officials are enjoying the property of the country and the people. If we give a light sentence to corrupt officials, we can't make an example of them, which will undoubtedly encourage the arrogance of corrupt officials and may also cause people to misunderstand and question the fairness of the law. How can we talk about governing the country according to law? The case that the female boss raised funds and wished everyone a combined punishment for several crimes is worthy of reflection by the judicial department.
It can be concluded that the sentencing of China courts is not "everyone is equal before the law", and there is even a serious sentencing imbalance.
Of course, the generality of statutory punishment, the lack of in-depth research on sentencing theory and the expansion of judges' discretion in practice are the important reasons that eventually lead to the imbalance of sentencing, and the imbalance of sentencing between cases seriously affects the establishment of the concept of judicial justice.
The author believes that the specific manifestations of sentencing imbalance are as follows:
1. The sentencing in different regions is unbalanced. There are obvious differences in sentencing areas, such as accepting bribes of 6,543.8+0,000 yuan. Some places are sentenced to 12 or 3 years, some places are sentenced to probation, and some are sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment. The regional differences of sentencing are mainly related to the degree of economic development, law enforcement environment and law enforcement concept. Generally speaking, the punishment for the same crime in economically developed areas is lighter than that in economically backward areas. In areas with advanced law enforcement concepts, the punishment for the same crime is lighter than that in areas with outdated law enforcement concepts, which is particularly obvious in economic crimes.
2. The sentencing in the same area is unbalanced. This is mainly manifested in:
(1) The sentencing of the same court is unbalanced. Because China mostly adopts empirical sentencing methods, different people have different experiences and personalities, which leads to different sentencing methods in similar cases. In addition, the sentencing of different judicial organizations will be different, and the sentencing of single judges and collegiate panels will often be different.
(2) The sentencing between courts at the same level in the same area is unbalanced.
(3) The sentencing of cases at different trial levels in the same area is not balanced. Under normal circumstances, the penalty imposed in the second instance is lighter than that in the first instance.
(4) The sentencing of cases with different trial procedures in the same area is unbalanced. For example, through the investigation of the judgment of the protest case, it is found that the rate of revision of the judgment of the case protested according to the trial supervision procedure is much higher than that of the case protested according to the second instance procedure.
3. Uneven sentencing in different periods. This is prominently manifested in the irregular and regular "strike hard" mode of criminal offences unique to China. At the peak stage of "strike hard", in order to "highlight the momentum of" strike hard ",under the control of the law enforcement concept of" being heavy and quick ",punishment is highly valued, the sentencing range will be larger than usual, and the imbalance of sentencing will naturally become more prominent.
In addition, in the special rectification struggle against different crimes in different periods, due to social concerns, leadership attention and other factors, the sentencing of such cases will be relatively higher than usual.
The reason is that the legal punishment stipulated in our criminal law is too general, which is one of the reasons leading to the imbalance of sentencing. However, because the legal rules must emphasize its relative stability, it is of great practical significance to constantly improve and refine the substantive content of sentencing and formulate detailed sentencing guidelines under the circumstance that it is unrealistic to modify the existing criminal law to complete the reorganization of punishment and the optimization of statutory punishment.
However, there is controversy about the theme of sentencing guidelines.
The author suggests that the excessive discretion of judges is one of the important reasons leading to the serious imbalance of sentencing at present, and the formulation of sentencing guidelines can limit the exercise of judges' discretion and minimize its negative impact. At the same time, although the formulation of sentencing guidelines can not be said to be a complete legislative activity, its nature of "quasi-legislation" and "secondary legislation" is undeniable. Therefore, the NPC and its Standing Committee should take the lead, with the participation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate.
The author lists several bribery cases that affect the whole country, and analyzes whether the sentencing results are related to the amount of bribes.
1, Liu Yongjiu was sentenced to 7 years in prison by the first instance of Xicheng court for accepting bribes from two companies160,000 yuan.
2. Wang Congjie was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment and fined 250,000 yuan by Zhangzhou Intermediate People's Court for accepting bribes of 6.5438+0.689 million yuan from employees of companies and enterprises, and his illegal income was confiscated.
3. He, the former vice governor of Anhui Province, was sentenced to two years' probation by the Intermediate People's Court of Linyi City, Shandong Province for accepting bribes of 8,465,438+10,000 yuan, and all his personal property was confiscated.
4. The former director and party secretary of Shenzhen Civil Affairs Bureau accepted bribes of RMB 6.05 million, HK$ 946,9361.42 yuan, US$ 50,000, RMB 8,667,738.27, HK$ 8,972,850.04 and US$ 1786 1 yuan. Unable to explain the legal source. He was convicted of accepting bribes, and the source of huge property was unknown. He was sentenced to two years' probation by the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, and all his personal property was confiscated.
5. Xiong Yuanping, the former general manager of Yima Coal Industry Group Cement Co., Ltd., was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of 19 years by Sanmenxia Intermediate People's Court for accepting bribes and confiscated his personal property of 6.5438+0.05 million yuan.
6. Zhao Yucun, former Commissioner of Shenzhen Customs, was sentenced to life imprisonment by Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court for accepting bribes of 9 million yuan, deprived of political rights for life, and confiscated all personal property.
7. Li Yuguo, the former chairman of Shenzhen Urban Construction Group, was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment by Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court for accepting huge bribes of RMB 2.365 million, HK$ 6.5438+0 million and US$ 500,000, suspended for two years, deprived of political rights for life, and confiscated all personal property.
8. Lian, the former director of the Health Bureau of Luohu District, Shenzhen, took bribes in 10 for more than 0.7 million yuan. He was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment 13 years by Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court for accepting bribes, and his personal property was confiscated 700,000 yuan.
9. Wu Guangchun, former member of the Standing Committee of Tongling Municipal Committee and Minister of Organization, accepted 8/kloc-0 bribes from party and government organs, cadres of public institutions, factory directors, managers and private owners, totaling RMB 6,543.8+0.447 million and USD 3,500. Wu Guangchun's other property of RMB 6,543,800+RMB 7,400 and USD 4,980 can't explain the legal source. He was sentenced to 654.38+03 years in prison by Anqing Intermediate People's Court for accepting bribes and huge amounts of property with unknown sources, and his property was confiscated for 200,000 yuan. 10, Li, former deputy director of Xuchang City Construction Committee, was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment by changge city People's Court for accepting bribes of 23 10000 yuan and embezzling 200,000 yuan 14 years.
1 1 and An Hui, director of Shenzhen Public Luohu Branch Bureau, were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment by Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court for accepting bribes of RMB16.38 million, HK$ 530,000, US$ 1000, a 54-inch Sony rear projection color TV set and a 25-inch Sony color TV set.
12. Kevin·Z, former secretary of the Discipline Inspection Commission of Yuzhong District, accepted RMB10.2 million yuan from Han, chairman of Chongqing Kuayue Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., and was found guilty of accepting bribes by Chongqing No.5 Intermediate People's Court and sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of 13 years.
13, Wang Zheng, the former deputy head of Yuzhong District, received a bribe of 9663685 yuan, and was sentenced to probation by Chongqing No.5 Intermediate People's Court for accepting bribes.
14. Liu Songtao, former director of the Third People's Hospital of Chongqing (deputy department level), was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment 12 years by the Fifth Intermediate People's Court of Chongqing for accepting bribes 13 1 10,000 yuan.
15, the former state director Zheng Xiaoyu received a total of RMB 6.49 million in property. The Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court made a first-instance judgment on the Zheng Xiaoyu case, and sentenced Zheng Xiaoyu to fixed-term imprisonment for accepting bribes, deprived of his political rights for life, and confiscated all his personal property.
I also provided a set of cases of punishment or probation, and the supplier analyzed whether the amount of bribes was positively related to his right to life.
From the sentencing statistics of a corrupt official case since 2004, some characteristics have been found: in the past two years, many corrupt officials with a corruption amount of one million or even tens of millions have almost been reduced in punishment.
Sentence Form for Corrupt Officials (2004-present)
Results of dealing with the amount of corruption and bribery in surname post office
Bi Yuxi, former deputy director of Beijing Municipal Transportation Bureau, was RMB 6.5438+0.304 million.
The former Minister of Land and Resources of Tian Fengshan was 5.03 million yuan slow.
Han Guizhi, former chairman of Heilongjiang CPPCC, was 7.36 million yuan.
Liu, the former secretary of the Guizhou Provincial Party Committee, is 6.77 million yuan.
Huang Yihui16.6 million yuan, former director of Shenzhen Civil Affairs Bureau.
Rebecca, assistant to the former mayor of Qingdao, was 4.96 million yuan.
The former party secretary of Suihua City was in arrears of 6 million yuan.
Gao Yong, former Minister of Propaganda Department of Chengdu Municipal Committee, paid 9.55 million yuan.
Ding Naijin, former secretary of Jixi Municipal Committee, was reduced by 6.2 million yuan.
Ding Yun, former director of Yunnan Hongta TV Station, was 4.46 million yuan.
Yang Zhida, former director of expressway Administration Bureau of Hunan Province, has an uncertain 2.95 million yuan.
Li Youcan, former deputy director of the Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation Department of Hebei Province, was sentenced to 47.44 million yuan.
Long Wen, the former director of Science and Technology Department of Beijing Branch of Agricultural Bank of China, was sentenced to more than 65,438 yuan +0.505 yuan.