Wang Gengdong, former secretary of the Yingde Municipal Party Committee under the jurisdiction of Qingyuan, Guangdong, was sentenced to 10 years in the first instance and fined 3 million yuan.He believes that the sentencing is too heavy, and one of the reasons for the appeal is that most of the facts of the bribery are not actively asking for bribery but passively charged. They all occur before the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. The nature of bribery is relatively bad.The second instance was sentenced to five years in prison and fined less than 500,000 yuan.
Recently, the China Truth Document Network published a criminal ruling of Wang Gengdong's bribery in the second instance, and disclosed the above content.
Wang Gengdong was born on May 7, 1967. He has a postgraduate postgraduate culture. Since 2000, he has successively served as the Standing Committee of the Xingxin County Party Committee, Executive Deputy County Party Committee, Deputy Secretary of the County Party Committee, Director of the Land Development and Reserve Bureau of Qingyuan City, and Qingyuan CityThe director of the director, the deputy secretary -general of the Qingyuan Municipal Government, and the secretary of the British and German Municipal Party Committee were announced in April 2018.
The original trial determined that since 2003, Wang Gengdong has used the convenience of his position to seek benefits for others in terms of land development, engineering acceptance, operating permission, project cooperation, and promotion of positions.RMB 802363.28, HK $ 58,500,000, USD 44,000.On December 26, 2019, Wang Gengdong was sentenced to ten years in prison for bribery and fined 3 million yuan.
According to the ruling: Wang Gengdong appealed that the first instance determined that his major merit performance did not reduce the punishment of it, and the sentence was too heavy; after the case was returned, he actively refunded the stolen goods and had a frank and regretful plot.Instead, it is passive and occurred before the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. The nature of bribery is relatively bad, and the social harm is relatively small; the fine of 3 million yuan in the first instance is too high;Both the prison and the additional punishment are too heavy.In summary, the second trial was requested to be sentenced to five years in prison and a fine of less than 500,000 yuan.
Wang Gengdong's defender's defense proposed that the judgment of the first instance determined that the facts were clear. After Wang Gengdong returned to the case, he truthfully confess his crimes and actively refund the stolen goods. He has major merits. There are statutory, depending on, and reducing punishment.The social harm of this case is relatively small, and the facts of bribery basically occur before the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. It is significantly different from other corruption behaviors that are still not closed.The nature is relatively bad.Wang Gengdong confessed all the criminal facts during the restriction period, including some facts that the task force had not mastered, and actively cooperated with the investigation.Wang Gengdong's report revealed that the person who was extremely influential in the same area had a strong deterrent effect on the social atmosphere and corrupt elements in the region.Compared with the published typical cases, it is recommended that Wang Gengdong sentenced to five years in prison for five years, giving him a chance to regret and reward the society.
After the trial of the second instance, it confirmed the fact that Wang Gengdong's bribery was determined by the court. From 2003 to 2018, it received and obtained 19 bribes, which was about 14 million yuan.
For example, from 2008 to 2009, Wang Gengdong used the convenience of serving as the director of the Qingyuan Municipal Estate Bureau to help the development of Qingcheng Rishang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. to develop the Lottery No. 1 in Donggang Street, Fengcheng Street in Qingyuan City, and accept the company's owner Liu Mou.Changbi bribery was 1.3 million yuan. In addition, Liu Mouchang paid 280,000 yuan for Wang Gengdong for Wang Gengdong.
Also from 2014 to 2018, Wang Gengdong used the convenience of serving as the deputy secretary -general of the Qingyuan Municipal Government and the secretary of the Yingde Municipal Party Committee to help Liu's company and Qingyuan City De Sheng Investment Group Co., Ltd., which helped the driver's examination business to helpLiu has obtained the engineering construction project of Yingde City, and has received 65,000 yuan in bribes, a Honda Odyssey car (the purchase price is 328,000 yuan), a batch of high -end clothing (the purchase price is 71933.28 yuan), and helps the driver Zheng ZhengSome (treated) purchase parking spaces and repaid housing funds in advance, asked Liu to bribe RMB 400,000, and also arranged his mistress Chen (handled) to eat empty for a total of 264,000 yuan in Liu's company.
The fact that most of the above reasons for Wang Gengdong's bribery are not actively asking for bribery but passive collection, and they have occurred before the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. The nature of bribery is relatively bad and the social harm is relatively small.Although there are differences in the subjective malignancy of the perpetrators, it does not affect both the two actions should be identified as a crime of bribery. The difference between subjective malignant between the two should be reflected in the specific use of punishment.From heavy punishment, not being able to consider passive bribery as a plot that can be performed from light punishment.In the same way, whether the corruption case occurs before a specific historical node, it does not affect the nature of the nature of corruption cases. The corruption cases that are still not closed are strictly handled.Reasons for wide treatment.Moreover, the appellant Wang Gengdong's bribery crime has a large span and a large number of crimes, which is enough to reflect its long -term criminal subjective malignancy and the seriousness of sustainable harm to society.
The court of second instance held that Wang Gengdong's above reasons showed that Wang Gengdong did not deeply understand the social harm of his crime, the attitude of repentance was not thorough, and related appeals and defense opinions could not be established.
In response to its other reasons, the first instance determined that it had a significant performance but did not reduce the punishment of it, and the sentence was too heavy.The clues of the improper economic exchanges, after verification of the relevant departments, have been transferred to the Zhongshan People's Procuratorate for review and prosecution, and stated that Wang Gengdong played a positive role in the smooth investigation of other cases.However, this situation shows that the amount of bribes of Bei Moumou has not stated whether Wang Gengdong reports to the main part of the whole criminal facts of Beimou.In the first trial, the original public prosecution agency pointed out that the case of Betta involved more criminal facts. Wang Gengdong's report was only part of it, and he could not be identified as a major merit.The verification of Wang Gengdong was verified as a major performance of major merits, and the basis was insufficient.
The court of second instance believes that Wang Gengdong's bribery amount is about 14 million yuan. Although he has refunded the stolen goods after the case, it is not enough to determine that he has refunded most of the stolen money.Wang Gengdong's bribery amount is particularly huge, with the legal plot of bribery, and the legal confession of truthfully after the case, refund part of the stolen money, and the performance of other people's crimes.During the first instance, the specific circumstances of the case had been considered in the first instance, but because of the mistake, Wang Gengdong had a major performance performance, which eventually led to the lighter sentence against Wang Gengdong.
In view of the fact that the appeal was not prison, while correcting the error in the first instance, the second instance could only be maintained on the first instance. The court of the second instance made a final judgment that rejected the appeal and maintained the original judgment on May 19.
Political Affairs (xjbzse) writing/Beijing News reporter Wang Yan
