⇥⇥⇥ topic ⇤⇤⇤
▶▶▶ Netizen "Li Silai's brother" said: In the process of handling the case of his injury, he grasped clues that the investigators were suspected of bending the law for personal gain, so he reported the relevant clues to the discipline inspection and supervision organs in accordance with the law. However, the staff of the discipline inspection and supervision organs replied that "such cases are under the jurisdiction of the procuratorate" and told them to report to the municipal people's procuratorate.
Netizen "Li Silai's brother" sent relevant clues to the municipal people's procuratorate in the form of a letter in accordance with the reply of the discipline inspection and supervision organ. However, after receiving the relevant clues, the people's procuratorate at the municipal level replied by text message, saying, "The xxx (investigators) you reported are suspected of violating discipline and law and other related issues, in accordance with the law and relevant provisions, it is recommended that you report to the discipline inspection and supervision department of the unit where the accused person belongs].
Netizen "Li Silai's brother" asked: Which unit is in charge of investigators suspected of crimes abusing public office?
⇥⇥⇥ Topic extension ⇤⇤⇤
First, how to correctly understand "judicial personnel"?
▶▶▶ Regarding the "investigators" referred to by netizen "Li Silai's brother" in the question, strictly speaking, they should be called judicial workers. The term "judicial personnel" here generally refers to staff members who have investigative, procuratorial, adjudicatorial, and supervisory duties.
Legal and regulatory basis:
Article 94 of the Criminal Law stipulates that the term "judicial personnel" as used in this Law refers to personnel who have the duties of investigation, prosecution, adjudication and supervision.
Second, does the people's procuratorate have the right to investigate the issue of "judicial personnel" suspected of abusing public office?
Combined with relevant laws and regulations, the people's procuratorate may file a case for investigation if a judicial functionary abuses his authority to commit a crime that violates citizens' rights or harms judicial fairness that is discovered by the people's procuratorate in the course of exercising legal supervision of litigation activities.
Legal and regulatory basis 1:
Article 19 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that the people's procuratorate may file a case for investigation if it discovers in the course of exercising legal supervision over litigation activities that judicial personnel abuse their authority to commit crimes that infringe on citizens' rights and undermine judicial fairness, such as illegal detention, extortion of confessions by torture, illegal searches.
According to the content of the Criminal Procedure Law, it can be seen that for judicial personnel suspected of crimes abusing public office, it is only stated that "the people's procuratorate may file and investigate", but not "the people's procuratorate must file and investigate" or "the people's procuratorate shall file and investigate".
Legal and regulatory basis 2:
The Supreme People's Procuratorate's "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Filing and Investigation of Cases of Crimes Abusing Public Office by Judicial Personnel in the People's Procuratorate" I. Scope of Case Jurisdiction
In the course of exercising legal supervision of litigation activities, people's procuratorates may file and investigate cases in which judicial personnel are suspected of abusing their authority to commit the following crimes that infringe on citizens' rights or harm judicial fairness:
the crime of illegal detention (Article 238 of the Criminal Law) (except for non-judicial personnel);
Illegal search (Article 245 of the Criminal Law) (except for non-judicial personnel);
extorting confessions by torture (article 247 of the Criminal Law);
the crime of gathering evidence by violence (article 247 of the Criminal Law);
the crime of abusing a person in custody (Article 248 of the Criminal Law);
Crimes of abuse of power (Criminal Law article 397) (except in cases where non-judicial personnel abuse their power to infringe on citizens' rights or harm judicial fairness);
The crime of dereliction of duty (article 397 of the Criminal Law) (except in cases where non-judicial personnel derelict their duties, violates citizens' rights or harms judicial fairness);
Perverting the law for personal gain (Criminal Law Article 399, Paragraph 1);
Crimes of perverting the law in civil and administrative cases (Criminal Law article 399, paragraph 2);
Enforcement of judgments or rulings on the crime of dereliction of duty (Criminal Law article 399, paragraph 3);
enforcing judgments or ruling on crimes of abuse of power (Criminal Law article 399, paragraph 3);
the crime of privately placing persons in custody (Article 400, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law);
The crime of dereliction of duty causing a detainee to escape (Article 400, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law);
Commutation of sentence, parole, or temporary service of sentence outside of prison for personal gain (Criminal Law article 401). Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the People's Procuratorate's Filing and Investigation of Cases of Crimes Abusing Public Office by Judicial Personnel
The Provisions of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Filing and Investigation of Cases of Crimes Abusing Public Office by Judicial Personnel by the People's Procuratorate not only clarifies that "judicial personnel suspected of crimes abusing public office may be filed and investigated by the People's Procuratorate", but also refines 14 specific types of crimes.
Based on the content of the above-mentioned laws and regulations, it can be seen that although the jurisdiction over the issue of judicial personnel suspected of crimes abusing public office is expressed as "the case may be filed and investigated by the people's procuratorate", it is not stated that "the case must be filed and investigated by the people's procuratorate" or "the people's procuratorate shall file and investigate". However, it can be made clear that the people's procuratorate has jurisdiction over judicial personnel with investigative, procuratorial, adjudicatory, and supervision duties who are suspected of crimes abusing public office.
Third, do discipline inspection and supervision organs have the right to investigate the issue of "judicial functionaries" suspected of crimes abusing public office?
Discipline inspection and supervision organs are the special organs responsible for discipline enforcement and supervision and investigation of the Party and the state, and supervision commissions at all levels are the special organs for exercising state supervision functions, and have the right to supervise all public employees exercising public power in accordance with the law, and also have the right to investigate the suspected violations and crimes abusing public office by all public employees exercising public power.
Whether it is a judicial functionary referred to in the Criminal Law, a staff member of a state organ, or any other person exercising public power, is a public official, and if he is suspected of violating the law or committing a crime abusing public office, the discipline inspection and supervision organs have the right to conduct supervision and investigation.
Legal and regulatory basis:
Article 11 of the Supervision Law stipulates that the Supervision Commission shall perform its duties of supervision, investigation, and disposition in accordance with this Law and relevant legal provisions:
(1) Carry out education on clean government for public employees, and conduct oversight and inspections of their lawful performance of duties, impartial use of power, honest government practice, and ethical conduct;
(2) Conduct investigations into suspected violations and crimes abusing public office, such as corruption and bribery, abuse of power, dereliction of duty, power rent-seeking, benefit transfer, twisting the law for personal gain, and wasting state assets;
(3) Make governmental sanction decisions against public employees who violate the law in accordance with law; Hold accountable leaders who fail to perform their duties and are derelict in their duties; where crimes abusing public office are suspected, the results of the investigation are to be transferred to the people's procuratorate for review and prosecution in accordance with law; Submit supervision suggestions to the unit to which the subject of supervision belongs.
According to Article 11(2) of the Supervision Law, the Supervision Organs have the right to investigate all public employees' violations and crimes abusing public office. Therefore, as public employees, the discipline inspection and supervision organs have the right to directly investigate the issue of judicial personnel suspected of violating the law and committing crimes abusing public office.
⇥⇥⇥ Topic Answers ⇤⇤⇤
Regarding the question raised by netizen "Brother Li Silai", my opinion is that "if it is found that the staff of the judicial organ is suspected of committing crimes abusing public office, the relevant clues should be reflected to the discipline inspection and supervision organs first." It is the most correct procedure for discipline inspection and supervision organs to first accept relevant clues and then decide whether to conduct supervision and investigation on their own or transfer the case to the procuratorate for filing and investigation according to the needs of the investigation and handling of the case.
Legal and regulatory basis:
Article 32 of the "Regulations for the Implementation of the Supervision Law" shows that when Supervision Organs discover leads on violations or crimes that are within the jurisdiction of other organs in accordance with law, they shall promptly transfer them to the organ with jurisdiction.
In short, the whistleblower and accuser came with clues, and the supervision organs, as the special organs responsible for exercising the state's supervision functions, should not ignore the clues that public employees are suspected of violating the law or committing crimes abusing public office, let alone pass the buck to other organs.
Therefore, netizen "Brother Li Silai" has the right to ask the discipline inspection and supervision organs to accept the report and accusation he submitted.
⇥⇥⇥ Author's point of view ⇤⇤⇤
In the author's opinion, the relevant laws and regulations give the procuratorial organs the right to directly file and investigate "14 kinds of job-related crimes committed by judicial personnel who abuse their power to infringe on citizens' rights and undermine judicial fairness", and the source of clues is limited to "discovered in the course of supervision of litigation activities", and there is no clear indication that the source is from other sources.
The discipline inspection and supervision organs accept reports and leads from any organization or individual on violations and crimes abusing public office by public employees. In addition, the relevant laws and regulations also clearly give the discipline inspection and supervision organs the right to directly supervise and investigate judicial personnel's violations and crimes abusing public office.
Legal and regulatory basis:
According to the "Opinions on Strengthening and Improving the Mechanism for Linking Supervision and Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (Trial)" jointly issued by the State Supervision Commission, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security, the supervision organs are responsible for investigating suspected cases of corruption and bribery, abuse of power, dereliction of duty, power rent-seeking, benefit transfer, favoritism, and waste of state assets, including crimes committed by natural persons and units.
Both the Supervision Organs and the People's Procuratorate have jurisdiction over crimes that infringe on citizens' rights and harm judicial fairness, such as illegal detention, extortion of confessions by torture, and illegal searches carried out by judicial personnel abusing their authority. If judicial personnel suspected of the above-mentioned crimes are not suspected of corruption or bribery or other crimes abusing public office within the jurisdiction of the Supervision Organs, the people's procuratorate is generally to file a case for investigation, and when necessary, the Supervision Organs may also file a case for investigation. After the Supervision Organs file a case for investigation and the people's procuratorate files and investigates the case, they shall promptly report it to the other party. The Supervision Organs have jurisdiction over crimes that infringe on citizens' rights or harm judicial fairness, such as illegal detention, ill-treatment of persons under supervision, and illegal searches carried out by public employees other than judicial personnel, abusing their authority.
Based on the above-mentioned "Opinions", it can be seen that both the discipline inspection and supervision organs and the people's procuratorate have jurisdiction over judicial personnel suspected of crimes abusing public office.
Combined with other laws and regulations, procuratorial organs are more suitable to have jurisdiction over "the issue of judicial personnel suspected of crimes abusing public office discovered in the course of supervising litigation activities", while discipline inspection and supervision organs have jurisdiction over judicial personnel suspected of crimes abusing public office in any case.
⇥⇥⇥ Epilogue ⇤⇤⇤
It is necessary to be very cautious about the accusations of public officials, and there must be accurate and valuable clues. It is not possible to make a report or accusation based solely on clues such as suspicion, speculation, abnormal feelings, or hearsay, let alone fabricate facts and use fabricated clues to make a report and accusation.
False accusations are illegal, and if the circumstances are serious, they may constitute a crime and be imprisoned. Although false accusations and false reports are not crimes, they can also be criticized and educated, so why bother?
Note: In order to protect the privacy of netizens and ensure that this article does not have any pertinence, the "brother of netizen Li Silai" in this article is fictitious, and any similarities are purely coincidental.