Recently, Zhengshi learned from Zhou Ze, the defense lawyer in Bai Zhigang's case, that the Shenyang Intermediate People's Court made a final ruling and found that Bai Zhigang accepted a bribe of 50,000 yuan, which constituted the crime of accepting bribes.The court rejected the protest of the Shenyang Hunnan District People's Procuratorate and Bai Zhigang's appeal, and upheld the original judgment.
Bai Zhigang, born in 1964, served as the director of the Shaling Sub-district Office in Yuhong District, Shenyang City from September 2009 to July 2011. Before the incident, he was the deputy secretary of the Political and Legal Committee of the Yuhong District Committee of Shenyang City.
During his tenure at the Shaling Sub-district Office, Bai Zhigang was in charge of the demolition of the Shaling section of Shenyang Fourth Ring Road.This experience became a turning point in Bai Zhigang's life.
He was accused of taking advantage of his position to accept bribes totaling 550,000 yuan from Hua Zhenhao and Cao Jun during the demolition process of the Shaling section of Shenyang Fourth Ring Road to help them increase their compensation.
In the first instance, it was determined that bribery of 550,000 yuan was accepted, and the Shenyang Intermediate People's Court ruled to revoke the original judgment and send it back for retrial
The facts of the case show that on May 27, 2015, Bai Zhigang was suddenly taken away by the Shenyang City Procuratorate; the next day, he was criminally detained on suspicion of accepting bribes and arrested on June 11 of the same year.
In November 2015, the People's Procuratorate of Dongling District, Shenyang City filed a public prosecution with the People's Court of Hunnan District, Shenyang City on suspicion of accepting bribes against Bai Zhigang.The prosecution accused Bai Zhigang of taking advantage of his position to accept two bribes when he was the director of the Shaling Sub-district Office in Yuhong District and was in charge of the demolition of the Shaling Section of Shenyang Fourth Ring Road:
First, he accepted the entrustment in January 2011 to use the convenience of his position to help increase the compensation for Hua Zhenhao's factory, which was forced to relocate, and received 500,000 yuan from Hua Zhenhao in his office in June of that year;
Second, in March 2011, Bai Zhigang accepted a request from his colleague Cao Jun, then Secretary of the Party Committee of the Shaling Sub-district Office, to provide assistance in increasing compensation for the relocation of Cao Jun’s family fish pond, and in June of that year he received 50,000 yuan from Cao Jun in the office.
In December 2016, the People's Court of Hunnan District, Shenyang City made the first-instance judgment, affirming the facts of the above two crimes. Bai Zhigang was sentenced to three years and six months in prison for accepting bribes and fined RMB 200,000. Bai Zhigang's illegal gains were recovered according to lawRMB 550,000 will be turned over to the state treasury.
After the verdict, Bai Zhigang refused to accept it, and he appealed on the grounds that the original trial procedure was illegal and the evidence was insufficient.In May 2017, the Shenyang Intermediate People's Court ruled that Bai Zhigang was found guilty of accepting bribes in the original judgment, some facts were unclear and there were legal procedures that violated legal provisions, which may affect the fair trial.The Shenyang Intermediate People's Court ruled to revoke the criminal judgment of the Shenyang Hunnan District People's Court and remand the case for retrial.
The court of first instance retried and found that the bribe was changed from 550,000 to 50,000
In April this year, the Hunnan District People's Court retried the case.Faced with the criminal facts charged by the public prosecution agency, Bai Zhigang stated that all his guilty confessions were the result of extorting and inducing confessions by torture.In this case, he admitted that he had accepted 500,000 yuan from Hua Zhenhao.In addition, he also admitted to accepting 50,000 yuan from Cao Jun.
The public prosecution accused that on June 21, 2011, Hua Zhenhao withdrew 560,000 yuan from the bank, of which 500,000 yuan was given to Bai Zhigang.
In response to this allegation, the defender pointed out that according to the interrogation records and relevant bank transaction vouchers, Hua Zhenhao used the money to repay the previous debts on June 21 and 22, and lent it to others.The cash withdrawn has a specific whereabouts and is not used to bribe Bai Zhigang.
After investigation by the People's Court of Hunnan District, the source and whereabouts of the 500,000 yuan alleged by the public prosecution agency are unclear, the evidence is insufficient, and the existing evidence does not form a complete chain of evidence.The court found that the prosecution had insufficiently charged the facts of the crime, and the alleged crime could not be established.
However, the Hunnan District People's Court recognized Cao Jun's bribe of 50,000 yuan.On April 4 this year, the Hunnan District Court sentenced Bai Zhigang to 1 year in prison and a fine of 100,000 yuan for accepting bribes; 50,000 yuan of his illegal gains were recovered according to law and turned over to the state treasury.On the same day, Bai Zhigang was released on bail pending trial.
Bai Zhigang appealed, the procuratorate protested
After the retrial judgment was made, Bai Zhigang appealed again, while the Hunnan District Procuratorate filed a protest on the grounds that the 500,000 that Bai Zhigang received from Hua Zhenhao had not been recognized.
On September 25 and November 23 this year, the Shenyang Intermediate People's Court held a public hearing on the case.
The Prosecutor's Office of Hunnan District, Shenyang City made three protest opinions.The Hunnan District Procuratorate of Shenyang City believes that in the retrial judgment, the public prosecution accused Bai Zhigang of accepting Hua Zhenhao's RMB 500,000.Withdrawing RMB 560,000, of which 500,000 was used to give to Bai Zhigang, the prosecution accused Bai Zhigang of receiving RMB 500,000 from Hua Zhenhao with unclear facts and insufficient evidence. These three determinations are errors in determining facts and should be corrected.
The Shenyang Municipal People's Procuratorate also supported the above-mentioned protest opinions, and believed that the fact that Bai Zhigang accepted Hua Zhenhao's 500,000 yuan was not recognized in the retrial judgment was an error in determining the facts, which led to obviously inappropriate sentencing.But this protest was rejected by the Shenyang Intermediate People's Court.
After investigation by the Shenyang Intermediate People's Court, Hua Zhenhao's testimony before the court accusing Bai Zhigang of accepting 500,000 yuan in bribes was repeated, and he denied giving 500,000 yuan to Bai Zhigang in the two court trials during the original trial and the retrial.Bai Zhigang also denied accepting Hua Zhenhao's 500,000 yuan in bribes from the late stage of the investigation until the second instance of the Shenyang Intermediate People's Court.In addition, the testimony of witnesses Hua Zhenjuan, Xian Hongwei and others, as well as relevant bank account details, cannot accurately confirm the source and whereabouts of Hua Zhenhao's bribe of 500,000 yuan to Bai Zhigang.
The Shenyang Intermediate People's Court judged that it was not inappropriate for the retrial judgment to find that the accusation of 500,000 yuan could not be established. Therefore, the protest opinion of the appealing agency was not supported, and the opinion of the defender was adopted.
So, did Cao Jun bribe Bai Zhigang 50,000 yuan?This became the key to whether Bai Zhigang constituted the crime of accepting bribes.
Before the judgment, the key witness came to the case to explain the situation
According to the retrial judgment, the public prosecutor issued Cao Jun's testimony during the retrial.Cao Jun said that the fish ponds in Shatuozi Village, Yuhong District, which he contracted were relocated in 2011, and some of them were within the relocation of the Fourth Ring Road.In March 2011, Cao Jun approached Bai Zhigang and asked him for help. Bai Zhigang agreed, and finally received more than 260,000 yuan in relocation compensation.After receiving the relocation payment in June 2011, he went to Bai Zhigang's office and gave him 50,000 yuan to express his gratitude.
In addition, the public prosecutor also issued the testimony of Fang Xiuzheng, then director of the Urban Management Office of the Shaling Sub-district Office in Yuhong District.Fang Xiuzheng said that at that time, Cao Jun’s family had a total of 10 acres of fish ponds, and only about two acres were within the red line. At that time, Bai Zhigang told him that Cao Jun was an old comrade in the sub-district office and was about to retire, so he should make more compensation.
Although Bai Zhigang had made guilty confessions before, he denied this and defended himself in court in the interrogation transcript on June 8, 2015, saying that all the previous guilty confessions were the result of torture and inducement.Cao Jun and Fang Xiuzheng have been colleagues for many years. Cao Jun can go to Fang Xiuzheng directly. There is no need to go to me first and then to Fang Xiuzheng. This approach is unreasonable.
In April this year, the Hunnan District Court found the facts of the crime during the retrial.The retrial verdict stated that after investigation, Cao Jun’s multiple testimonies all stated that he gave Bai Zhigang 50,000 yuan in gratitude for Bai Zhigang’s help in the process of relocating his fish pond, and the main content of the testimony was stable, and it was consistent with other persons in the case.The evidence corroborates each other. Although Cao Jun's testimony differs from other evidence in some details, it has no effect on the determination of the fact that Bai Zhigang received money from Cao Jun.However, Bai Zhigang's confession in the investigative agency and his self-written materials are relatively stable about the facts of the crime.
According to the verdict, Bai Zhigang denied the facts of the crime on June 8, 2015, but on June 11 and August 14 of the same yearDuring the interrogation, he still confessed that he received 50,000 yuan from Cao Jun.During the trial, Bai Zhigang also denied the facts of the crime.However, the court determined that Bai Zhigang's confession in the investigation agency and the evidence in the case corroborated each other, so the court did not accept the opinions of Bai Zhigang and his defenders.
On September 25 this year, during the second trial of the Shenyang Intermediate People's Court, the defense lawyer of the Bai Zhigang case proposed that the retrial judgment of the first-instance court found that Bai Zhigang accepted 50,000 yuan in bribes, and there was an error in the factual determination;Fabrication is a false confession; Bai Zhigang pleaded not guilty during the original trial and the retrial trial, stating that he did not accept the 50,000 yuan from Cao Jun.
On September 25, Zheng Shi noticed at the trial site that at that time, both the appellant Bai Zhigang and the defense lawyer asked Cao Jun to testify in court regarding Cao Jun's bribe of 50,000 yuan.The public prosecutor said that the public prosecution agency could not contact Cao Jun.
However, in October this year, the key witness Cao Jun reported the situation to the Shenyang Intermediate People's Court, and submitted self-written testimonial materials to the court in November.At the trial on November 23, Cao Jun was unable to testify in court due to physical reasons.
On November 15, Cao Jun stated in his statement that he was unable to testify in court, that on June 4, 2015, the case investigator asked me to inquire, the main content of which was that I had not sent money to Bai Zhigang.I told them truthfully at the time that I did not give Bai Zhigang any money, nor did I ask Bai Zhigang for help, because my fish pond was expropriated according to the policy, and how to levy and how to compensate was determined by the collective research of the street leadership group.Same as the relocation of other fish ponds, they are all compensated according to the same policy standard.At that time, the investigators made an interrogation record.
Cao Jun said that over the past few years, this incident has caused great harm to my body and mind. I have suffered from severe depression, heart disease has become more and more serious, and I also suffer from high blood pressure and low blood sugar.Due to his physical condition, he was unable to testify in court.
In addition, Fang Xiuzheng also submitted self-written supporting materials to the court.Fang Xiuzheng said that the relocation of Cao Jun Yuchi was decided by the leadership team, not Bai Zhigang's personal decision, and Bai Zhigang did not greet him and ask him to take care of Cao Jun.
In the second instance, the protest and appeal were rejected, and the original judgment was upheld. On November 28, the Shenyang Intermediate People's Court made a judgment on the case.
The Shenyang Intermediate People's Court held that Bai Zhigang's multiple confessions and self-written confession materials all admitted the fact that he had received 50,000 yuan from Cao Jun, and the multiple testimonies and self-written materials issued by Cao Jun during the investigation stage also confirmed that they were sent to Bai Zhigang5The main content of the testimony is stable and consistent.There are also simultaneous audio and video recordings of Bai Zhigang's interrogation and Cao Jun's interrogation on file, confirming that the two expressed themselves naturally and fluently during the interrogation and interrogation, and the content of the testimony was specific and clear. The contents of the transcripts made by the investigators were checked and signed for confirmation.No signs of coercion.In addition, Bai Zhigang's physical examination form confirmed that Bai Zhigang had no trauma when he entered the detention center, and he did not confess any special discomfort.
The court believed that the two testimonies corroborated each other and could prove the fact that Bai Zhigang accepted 50,000 yuan in bribes from Cao Jun.Although Cao Jun testified that he did not ask Bai Zhigang and did not give him money for the relocation of Yuchi, and the witness Fang Xiuzheng also testified that Bai Zhigang did not ask him to provide assistance in the relocation of Cao Jun's Yuchi, but neither of them had any reasonable reason to testify.The provision of the original testimony was the result of illegal evidence collection such as torture by the investigative agency, and the proof lacks legitimacy and rationality. The two original testimonies have probative force and should be accepted.
Regarding the relocation of Cao Jun Yuchi proposed by Bai Zhigang and his defenders in line with the relocation policy and compensation standards at that time, the department’s leadership decided after research that Bai Zhigang did not seek benefits for Cao Jun. After investigation by the Shenyang Intermediate People’s Court, seeking benefits for others in the crime of accepting bribes refers to the actualOr promise to seek benefits for others, combined with the circumstances of this case, Bai Zhigang agreed to the purpose of the entrustment when he knew that Cao Jun asked him to use his power to seek benefits for him, and took advantage of his position to accept a relatively large amount of money, and let others do it for him.Cao Jun provided assistance, and Bai Zhigang committed to seeking benefits for others, and also carried out relevant acts, which should be found to constitute the crime of accepting bribes. Therefore, the reasons for appeal and defense opinions put forward by Bai Zhigang and his defenders are not accepted.
In the end, the Shenyang Intermediate People's Court held that Bai Zhigang, as a state employee, took advantage of his position to illegally accept other people's property and seek benefits for others. The amount was relatively large, and his behavior constituted the crime of accepting bribes.The court believed that the original conviction was accurate, the sentencing was appropriate, and the trial procedure was legal, so it ruled to reject the protest and appeal and uphold the original judgment.
