Liu Gang, Wang Xiaojun, and Zhuang Zhide financial certificate fraud case
1. Basic facts of the case
Defendant Liu Gang, male, 45 years old, was formerly the manager of Yixing Everbright Economic and Trade Company. He was arrested on 20 November 1997 on suspicion of financial certificate fraud.
Defendant Wang Xiaojun, male, 35 years old, was formerly the person in charge of the Chengbei Branch of Yixing Shili Credit Cooperative. He was arrested on 20 November 1997 on suspicion of financial certificate fraud.
Defendant Zhuang Zhide, male, 57 years old, was formerly the director of the Fangqiao Office of the Yixing City Branch of the Agricultural Bank of China. He was arrested on 20 November 1997 on suspicion of financial certificate fraud.
The People's Procuratorate of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province, filed a public prosecution with the Wuxi Intermediate People's Court on the grounds that defendants Liu Gang, Wang Xiaojun, and Zhuang Zhide committed the crime of financial voucher fraud, and that the defendant Zhuang Zhide committed the crime of illegally issuing loans.
Defendant Liu Gang did not raise any objection to the charges. His defender submitted that Liu Gang had surrendered voluntarily and made meritorious contributions, and was able to actively return the stolen goods, and asked for a lenient sentence.
Defendant Wang Xiaojun argued that his conduct was a mistake at work and that he did not conspire with Liu Gang to defraud. His defender submitted that there was insufficient evidence to determine that Wang Xiaojun participated in the fraud by altering bank deposit receipts.
Defendant Zhuang Zhide argued that he was deceived by Liu Gang and did not conspire with Liu Gang to defraud, and that the bank had already dealt with the illegal issuance of loans, and requested a lenient sentence at sentencing. His defender submitted that there was insufficient evidence to determine that Zhuang Zhide participated in the fraud by altering bank deposit receipts.
The Wuxi Intermediate People's Court ascertained through open trial that:
In September and October 1996, defendants Liu Gang and Wang Xiaojun conspired to have Liu Gang use a high interest discount as a bait to pull "deposits", Liu Gang first deposited a small amount of deposits from the Yixing Shili Credit Cooperative, and Wang Xiaojun deliberately widened the word spacing when issuing the deposit receipts, and Liu Gang then added characters to the second copy of the deposit receipts, causing a huge amount of deposit receipts to be handed over to the depositors to defraud the money.
On September 11, 1996, defendant Liu Gang, together with defendant Wang Xiaojun, lured Yang Yuqin to introduce Yuan Zhongliang to Yixing with a deposit of 300,000 yuan with a high interest discount. Defendants Liu Gang and Wang Xiaojun used the above-mentioned method of adding words to turn the 30,000 yuan deposit receipt into a 300,000 yuan deposit receipt and handed it over to Yang Yuqin and Yuan Zhongliang. After deducting the 14.53% discount and a deposit of 30,000 yuan, the defendants Liu Gang and Wang Xiaojun actually defrauded Yuan Zhongliang of 226,410 yuan.
On October 4, 1996, defendant Liu Gang and defendant Wang Xiaojun lured Tan Haozeng and Tan Manzeng to Yixing with a high interest discount. Defendants Liu Gang and Wang Xiaojun used the above-mentioned method of adding words to turn a deposit receipt of 50 yuan and a certificate of deposit of 140 yuan into a certificate of deposit of 500,000 yuan and 1.4 million yuan. Due to the obvious traces of alteration of the 500,000 yuan deposit receipt, Wang Xiaojun reopened a real deposit receipt of 500,000 yuan, together with a 1.4 million yuan deposit receipt that was altered, to Tan Haozeng. After deducting the 17% discount and the deposit of 140 yuan, the defendants Liu Gang and Wang Xiaojun actually deceived Tan Haozeng and Tan Manzeng of RMB 1,076,860.
In November 1996, defendant Liu Gang and defendant Zhuang Zhide conspired to have Liu Gang use a high discount as a bait to solicit "deposits", and Liu Gang deposited a small amount of money at the Fangqiao Office of the Yixing City Branch of the Agricultural Bank of China.
On November 26, 1996, defendant Liu Gang and defendant Zhuang Zhide lured Tan Haozeng and Tan Manzeng to bring 1.2 million yuan to Yixing with a high interest discount. Defendants Liu Gang and Wang Xiaojun used the above-mentioned method of adding words to turn the 120 yuan deposit receipt into a 1.2 million yuan deposit receipt and handed it over to Tan Haozeng. Later, the defendant Zhuang Zhide conspired with the defendant Liu Gang to use the method of drawing out the second copy of the deposit receipt (the depositor's copy), and Liu Gang changed the deposit receipt by filling in the number on the blank second copy. On the 28th of the same month, Liu Gang deposited 30,000 yuan from the Fangqiao Office, and together with Zhuang Zhide, drew out the second copy of three deposit receipts, and Liu Gang filled in 10,000 yuan on each deposit slip and three copies, and turned one of the second copies of the drawn deposit receipt into a deposit receipt of 1.2 million yuan, and exchanged it for a deposit receipt of 1.2 million yuan that was altered by adding words. After deducting the 17% discount and the deposit of 10,000 yuan, the defendants Liu Gang and Zhuang Zhide actually defrauded Tan Haozeng and Tan Manzeng of RMB 986,000.
On December 18, 1996, defendant Liu Gang, together with defendant Zhuang Zhide, lured Tan Haozeng and Tan Manzeng to Yixing with a high interest discount to bring 1.2 million yuan to Yixing to make deposits. Defendant Liu Gang used one of the first copies of the above three deposit receipts of 10,000 yuan to convert 1.2 million yuan to Tan Haozeng in the Fangqiao office. After deducting the 17% discount and the deposit of 10,000 yuan, the defendants Liu Gang and Zhuang Zhide actually deceived Tan Haozeng and Tan Manzeng of 986,000 yuan.
On January 6, 1997, defendant Liu Gang, together with defendant Zhuang Zhide, lured Tan Haozeng and Tan Manzeng to deposit 1.3 million yuan in the Fangqiao office with a high interest discount, and used one of the second copy of the deposit receipts drawn from the above three deposit receipts of 10,000 yuan to convert it into 1.3 million yuan for Tan Haozeng. After deducting the 17% discount and the deposit of 10,000 yuan, the defendants Liu Gang and Zhuang Zhide actually defrauded Tan Haozeng and Tan Manzeng of RMB 1.069 million.
To sum up, defendant Liu Gang engaged in 5 cases of financial certificate fraud and actually defrauded RMB 4,344,270, defendant Wang Xiaojun participated in two cases of financial certificate fraud and actually defrauded RMB 1,303,270, and defendant Zhuang Zhide participated in 3 cases of financial certificate fraud and actually defrauded RMB 3,041,000. Defendant Liu Gang, defendants Wang Xiaojun and Zhuang Zhide respectively used the stolen money obtained by fraud, and Liu Gang used part of the stolen money to purchase real estate and repay personal debts. After the case was discovered, the public security organs recovered more than 4.21 million yuan of stolen money and goods from the defendant Liu Gang and others, causing economic losses of more than 10 million yuan.
During his tenure as director of the Fangqiao Office of the Yixing City Branch of the Agricultural Bank of China, from March to May 1996, the defendant Zhuang Zhide issued loans of RMB 6,100,000 to Liu Gang on three occasions by issuing certificates of deposit to absorb deposits and issuing loans without recording them in the accounts, and in addition to recovering part of the loans and real estate worth 885,529 yuan, 4,014,471 yuan could not be recovered, causing particularly heavy losses to state property.
The Wuxi Intermediate People's Court held that the defendants Liu Gang, Wang Xiaojun, and Zhuang Zhide jointly altered bank deposit receipts to defraud others of money, and the amount was particularly huge, and constituted the crime of financial certificate fraud. Among them, the defendant Liu Gang is the principal offender in the joint crime, and the defendants Wang Xiaojun and Zhuang Zhide are accomplices and should be given a lighter punishment. Defendant Zhuang Zhide, as the director of the Fangqiao Office of the Yixing Branch of the Agricultural Bank of China, violated laws and regulations by granting loans to persons other than related parties, causing particularly heavy losses, and his conduct constituted the crime of illegally issuing loans. The prosecution's indictment alleging that defendants Liu Gang, Wang Xiaojun, and Zhuang Zhide committed the crime of financial voucher fraud, and that defendant Zhuang Zhide committed the crime of illegally issuing loans, is correctly characterized, and the reasons for the sentencing in accordance with law are established and should be adopted.
Defendant Liu Gang's defender put forward a defense opinion that Liu Gang had circumstances of voluntary surrender, meritorious service, and active return of stolen goods, and requested a lenient sentence, and upon investigation, it was found that after defendant Liu Gang was brought into the case, he only confessed the facts of the crime of joint fraud with Wang Xiaojun, and did not truthfully confess the main facts of his crime, so it cannot be found that he surrendered voluntarily; It is a fact that defendant Liu Gang assisted correctional cadres in the detention center to do a good job of supervision work, but it cannot be found to be meritorious service; It is true that defendant Liu Gang was able to cooperate with the public security organs in recovering stolen money and goods after the case was discovered, so he may be given a lighter punishment at sentencing. Defendants Wang Xiaojun and Zhuang Zhide both denied participating in the criminal facts of joint fraud at trial, and the defense counsel of the two defendants put forward a defense opinion that the evidence of the two defendants' crimes was insufficient, which was inconsistent with the facts ascertained in court and could not be sustained, and was not adopted. Defendant Zhuang Zhide submitted that the bank had dealt with the section on his illegal issuance of loans and requested a lighter sentence at sentencing, but upon investigation, it was found that it was obviously improper for the bank to impose only administrative sanctions on him for his criminal acts, so his defense opinion was not adopted. In accordance with the provisions of Article 12, Paragraph 1, Article 177, Paragraph 1 (2), Article 194, Paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 25, Paragraphs 1 and 4, Article 27, Paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 57, Paragraph 1, Article 56, Paragraph 1, Article 55, Paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 69, Paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 52, and Article 53 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, and Article 9, Paragraph 2 of the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Punishing Crimes Undermining Financial Order, Rendered on 31 March 1999, it was awarded as follows:
1. Defendant Liu Gang committed the crime of financial certificate fraud and was sentenced to life imprisonment, deprivation of political benefits for life, and a fine of RMB 300,000;
2. Defendant Wang Xiaojun committed the crime of financial certificate fraud and was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, deprivation of political rights for 2 years, and a fine of 50,000 yuan;
3. Defendant Zhuang Zhide committed the crime of financial certificate fraud and was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment, deprivation of political rights for 2 years, and a fine of 50,000 yuan; He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 yuan. It was decided to enforce a fixed-term imprisonment of 18 years, deprivation of political rights for two years, and a fine of 70,000 yuan.
After the first-instance verdict was announced, defendants Liu Gang, Wang Xiaojun, and Zhuang Zhide all accepted the verdict and did not appeal.
Second, the main issues
Where the intentional content of the crime is inconsistent, can it constitute a joint crime?
III. Grounds for the Trial
(1) The criminal intent that each joint offender should have constituted a joint crime
To constitute a joint crime, there must be both subjective and objective elements, that is, joint criminal intent and joint criminal conduct. In this case, the defendants Wang Xiaojun and Zhuang Zhide either deliberately widened the word spacing when issuing the deposit receipts, or pulled out the second copy of the deposit receipts (depositors' copy) to provide substantial assistance to the defendant Liu Gang in altering the deposit receipts (depositors' copies), and objectively had committed a joint criminal act. The problem is that the crime of financial certificate fraud subjectively requires the perpetrator to have the purpose of illegal possession. In this case, all the stolen money obtained by fraud was used by defendant Liu Gang, and defendants Wang Xiaojun and Zhuang Zhide only created opportunities and provided assistance to Liu Gang's fraudulent acts, and did not share the stolen money obtained by fraud, and subjectively did not have the purpose of illegally appropriating it for themselves. The answer to this question depends on a proper understanding of the intent to commit a joint crime.
Joint criminal intent, which is a subjective element of a joint crime, refers to the psychological attitude of the joint offenders, through the criminal intent, to clearly know that their cooperation with others in jointly committing the crime will cause some harmful result, and to hope or allow such harmful results to occur. It can be seen that the communication between the co-offenders and the foresight of the harmful results of the act are the substantive contents of the joint criminal intent, while the attitude towards the harmful results can be hopeful or permissive. In other words, in the determination of joint criminal intent, it is not required that the content of the criminal intent of each joint offender be completely identical, nor does it require that each joint offender independently possess all the content of the subjective elements of a specific crime, such as a specific purpose, but only that the criminal intent of each joint offender is connected to each other and jointly forms the subjective elements of a specific crime as a whole. In fact, due to their different positions and roles, the content of the criminal intent of each joint offender is often different, for example, the intent to organize, the intent to carry out, the intent to instigate, and the intent to assist the abettor, all have their own different characteristics. For the determination of intent to help, it is only required to prove that the aider clearly knew that others were about to commit a crime, and actively provided assistance and created conditions for facilitation, and whether there was a specific purpose for the crime and whether the outcome of the crime was actively pursued does not affect the determination of intent to help. If a woman helps a man to commit rape, the woman can still be found to be an accomplice to the crime of rape even though she does not have the intent to rape. This point has also been fully reflected in the mainland's legislative precedents and judicial interpretations, such as the provisions on accomplices in the crime of smuggling in Article 156 of the Criminal Law, and the provisions on accomplices in the crime of producing and selling counterfeit and shoddy goods in Article 9 of the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases Involving the Production and Sale of Counterfeit and Shoddy Goods.
In this case, the defendant Liu Gang altered the deposit receipts, attracted deposits and used them for personal use, with the obvious purpose of defrauding others of deposits, which met the subjective composition of the crime of financial certificate fraud. Although the defendants Wang Xiaojun and Zhuang Zhide did not have the personal purpose of illegally taking possession of other people's money, they deliberately lengthened the second stroke of the word "yuan" or the first stroke of the character "10,000" when issuing a small-amount deposit receipt for Liu Gang, leaving room for Liu Gang to alter the deposit receipt with words and numbers, especially Zhuang Zhide, who was afraid of being exposed after issuing the first deposit receipt with added characters, conspired with Liu Gang to hang the second copy of the deposit receipt to facilitate Liu Gang's alteration of the deposit receipt. The two were fully aware of the consequences of this kind of behavior that could help Liu Gang realize the illegal possession of other people's deposits, but they still actively cooperated. This kind of behavior itself shows that Wang Xiaojun and Zhuang Zhide obviously had the intention of helping Liu Gang to defraud others of money.
(2) Those who alter bank deposit receipts and use them shall be convicted and punished as the crime of financial voucher fraud, and shall not be punished concurrently for multiple crimes
The three defendants in this case not only altered bank deposit receipts, but also used altered bank deposit receipts to defraud others of money. Alteration of bank deposit receipts constitutes the crime of altering financial documents in accordance with the provisions of Article 177, Paragraph 1 (2) of the Criminal Law; Those who use altered bank deposit receipts are to be convicted and punished as the crime of financial voucher fraud in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Criminal Law article 194. Although the Criminal Law does not stipulate how to deal with the act of altering bank deposit receipts and using them, from the perspective of the relationship between the perpetrator's alteration of bank deposit receipts and the use of altered bank deposit receipts, the use of altered bank deposit receipts to defraud money is the actor's purpose, and the alteration of bank deposit receipts is the method and means to realize the fraud of money. Except as expressly provided in the Criminal Law, the punishment of an implicated offender is generally a felony. In this case, the defendant Liu Gang et al. repeatedly altered financial documents, and the amount of the alteration was particularly huge, and it should be found that the circumstances of the alteration of financial documents were "especially serious", and that "a sentence of 10 or more years imprisonment or life imprisonment was given, and a fine of between 50,000 and 500,000 RMB or confiscation of property was to be given"; Defendant Liu Gang and others used altered financial vouchers to commit fraud, and actually defrauded more than 4.34 million yuan, causing economic losses of more than 10 yuan to the interests of the state and the people, and shall be found to be a fraud "the amount is especially huge", and "a sentence of 10 or more years imprisonment or life imprisonment is to be given, and a fine of between 50,000 and 500,000 yuan or confiscation of property is to be given." Although the statutory penalties for the two crimes should be the same according to the specific acts and harmful consequences of the defendants in this case in committing the crime of falsifying financial documents and financial voucher fraud, considering that the crime of financial voucher fraud is subject to the death penalty and the purpose of each defendant in falsifying financial vouchers is to commit financial voucher fraud, the acts of the three defendants in this case of altering and using financial vouchers should be characterized as the crime of financial voucher fraud and not punished concurrently.