Jiang is suspected of dereliction of duty, why was the case withdrawn?
Author/Lawyer Jin Xiaoning
【Brief Facts of the Case】
In March 2021, the investigating agency accused Jiang, as the leader and organizer of the criminal police squadron, of violating the law by not prosecuting the case after the release on bail pending trial of four criminal suspects suspected of intentional destruction of property, when the facts of his crime were clear, the evidence was credible and sufficient, and he should be transferred to the procuratorate for review and prosecution and criminal responsibility in accordance with the law, causing the four criminal suspects to go unpunished for a long time. The investigating organs held that Jiang's conduct caused some suspects to continue to violate the law and commit crimes, and that all four suspects were unable to pursue their criminal responsibility because the statute of limitations for prosecution had expired, and held that Jiang should be investigated for criminal responsibility for the crime of dereliction of duty.
After the investigation of Jiang's suspected crime of dereliction of duty was concluded, the investigating organ transferred the case to the procuratorate for review and prosecution.
【Verdict】
The procuratorate made a decision to withdraw the case.
[Lawyer's Interpretation]
According to article 397 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, where a staff member of a state organ neglects his duties, causing major losses to public property or the interests of the state or the people, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or short-term detention; where the circumstances are especially serious, the sentence is to be between three and seven years imprisonment.
Lawyer Jin Xiaoning carefully analyzed the case file materials, investigated and collected evidence from relevant witnesses, and guided and assisted the parties in obtaining relevant documentary evidence, discovered the loopholes alleged in the "Indictment Opinion", and put forward the following defense opinions on Jiang's innocence:
1. Calculated from the date of occurrence of the harmful result, the statute of limitations for prosecution has expired in this case.
According to point 6 (2) of the Supreme People's Court's "Notice on Printing and Distribution<全国法院审理经济犯罪案件工作座谈会纪要>" on the crime of dereliction of duty, if the major losses caused by the dereliction of duty did not occur at that time, but occurred a certain time after the dereliction of duty, the time limit for prosecution for the crime of dereliction of duty shall be calculated from the date on which the harmful result occurred. Article 6 of the "Interpretation (1) of the Supreme People's Court and Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Cases of Dereliction of Duty stipulates that the time limit for prosecution of crimes of dereliction of duty conditional on harmful results is calculated from the date on which the harmful results occur; Where there are several hazard outcomes, it is calculated from the date on which the last hazard result occurs. In this case:
1. Even if Jiang X was negligent in his duties in the course of investigating the original intentional destruction of property case, the consequence was that the four suspects could not be investigated for criminal responsibility because they exceeded the prosecution period. However, the date of occurrence of the harmful consequences of the four suspects in the original case was October 2, 2013, and the harmful consequences have been continuous since then, so the statute of limitations for the prosecution of Jiang's suspected crime of dereliction of duty ended on October 2, 2018. Therefore, when this case was filed in 2021, the statute of limitations for Jiang's suspected crime of dereliction of duty had expired.
2. If the suspect in the original case, Du, was not placed on file for investigation because his identity was unknown, and it was also counted as the harmful consequence of Jiang's dereliction of duty, then the date on which the harmful consequences occurred should be the date on which the original case was filed and investigated, that is, October 2, 2008, and Du X has not been filed for investigation since then. Therefore, Jiang's prosecution period ended on October 2, 2013, and by the time the procuratorate filed the case in 2021, the statute of limitations for prosecution had already expired.
II. Huo, the criminal suspect in the original intentional destruction of property, committed crimes continuously after the completion of the prosecution period, and there is no criminal law causal relationship with Jiang's dereliction of duty.
1. After the prosecution period of the original case expired, Huo X committed three more crimes of intentional injury in a row. Because Huo's original case of intentional destruction of property has passed the prosecution period and the case has been concluded, Huo X committed a new crime after the original case was concluded, and there is no criminal law causal relationship between him and Jiang's dereliction of duty.
2. Jiang did not transfer Huo for review and prosecution during his term of office, and did not have the power to dominate or cause Huo's continuous crimes after the completion of the prosecution period. Even if Huo was criminally prosecuted, he had already been released from prison at this time, and the most fundamental factor in his three consecutive acts of intentional harm was his subjective malice and strong sense of crime. Jiang could not foresee, nor could he prevent Huo from committing a new crime after the prosecution period expired.
3. Jiang's conduct does not meet the constitutive elements of the crime of dereliction of duty.
To constitute the crime of dereliction of duty, the following conditions should be met: state organ functionaries + as duties and obligations + serious irresponsibility + causal relationship in criminal law + harmful consequences, and only when the above conditions are met can the crime of dereliction of duty be constituted.
The four suspects in this case exceeded the prosecution period after October 2013, when Jiang had been transferred from the criminal police squadron for more than three years. After the transfer, Jiang no longer had the duty and obligation to continue the investigation of the case, and the serious consequences of this case occurred while others were serving as squadron leaders, and there was no criminal law causal relationship with Jiang's dereliction of duty.
4. Jiang X should only bear the leadership responsibility for causing the release of four criminal suspects on bail pending trial to expire and not prosecute during his term of office, and his conduct is a dereliction of duty.
Judging from the case file, since the interrogation of the suspect in April 2009, there has been no later appearance of the suspect in the case, interrogation records, and relevant legal formalities for release on bail pending further investigation. According to the principle of "doubts are beneficial to the defendant", Jiang should not bear direct responsibility.
After two withdrawals and supplements, with the unremitting efforts of the lawyer, the procuratorate finally adopted lawyer Jin Xiaoning's defense opinion, believing that the statute of limitations had expired, and then issued a "Decision to Withdraw the Case".