⇢⇢⇢ TOPIC ⇠⇠⇠
Netizen "Li Silai's friend" said that he had a quarrel with his cousin over the ownership of the critical wall two years ago, and had a physical altercation, resulting in a broken rib, which was later identified as a minor injury by forensic medicine.
After the case, netizen "Li Silai's friend" called the police and asked the public security organs to investigate his cousin's criminal responsibility in accordance with the law. However, the public security organs did not file the case in time, but have been coordinating the settlement between the two sides. Due to factors such as time and business needs, netizen "Li Silai's friend" reconciled with his cousin, and his cousin compensated some money, and the two parties signed a settlement agreement. Subsequently, when the public security organs transferred the case, they made a recommendation to the people's procuratorate for leniency, and in the end, his cousin was not criminally prosecuted.
Recently, netizen "Li Silai's friend" heard that the police who handled the case two years ago were friends of his cousin, and it was under the protection of the police who handled the case that his cousin avoided criminal prosecution.
Netizen "Li Silai's friend" asked: Can his case be overturned? And what was the nature of the police who handled the case back then?
⇢⇢⇢ Topic Answers ⇠⇠⇠
First, can the case of netizen "Li Silai's friend" be overturned?
First of all, the netizen "Li Silai's friend" only heard that the police handling the case were his cousin's friend, and there was no evidence, so it was hearsay and could not be used as a basis for overturning the case.
Second, in the case of minor injuries caused by disputes between family members, friends, neighbors or colleagues, if both parties can reach an agreement on compensation and obtain the victim's forgiveness, the judicial organ may consider reducing or waiving the criminal punishment for the victim
Basis of laws and regulations
Article 333 of the "Provisions on Procedures for the Handling of Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs" shows that in the following public prosecution cases, where the criminal suspect sincerely repents and obtains the victim's forgiveness through methods such as compensating the victim for losses or making formal apologies, and the victim voluntarily settles, it may be handled as a public prosecution case in which the parties settle in accordance with law with the approval of the responsible person at the public security organ at the county level or above:
(1) Cases arising from civil disputes that are suspected of crimes provided for in Chapters 4 and 5 of the Specific Provisions of the Criminal Law, and might be sentenced to up to three years imprisonment;
(2) Cases of crimes of negligence other than crimes of dereliction of duty that might be sentenced to up to 7 years imprisonment.
Article 338 of the "Provisions on the Procedures for the Handling of Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs" shows that in cases where a settlement agreement has been reached, with the approval of the responsible person of the public security organ at the county level or above, the public security organ may make a recommendation for leniency when the public security organ transfers the case to the people's procuratorate for review and prosecution.
Second, what was the nature of the police who handled the case of netizen "Li Si's Lai Friend" back then?
In the absence of any evidence to prove that the police handling the case "were friends of his cousin", in order not to exacerbate the conflict between relatives and neighbors, the police handling the case brought about a settlement, and the cousin received compensation, and the cousin was not pursued for criminal responsibility, which was a performance of duties in accordance with the law.
The most important thing is that the settlement agreement was signed voluntarily by netizen "Li Silai's friend", and was not coerced or coerced by the police handling the case, let alone coerced by others.
Therefore, judging from the available evidence, the case of netizen "Li Silai's friend" cannot be "overturned".
⇢⇢⇢ New topics ⇠⇠⇠
If the netizen "Li Silai's friend" has evidence to prove that the police who handled the case back then were indeed his cousin's friends, and deliberately did not file the case in order to shield his cousin, deliberately delayed the handling of the case, and even forced or coerced the netizen "Li Silai's friend" to sign a settlement agreement, so as to achieve the goal of not subjecting his cousin to criminal prosecution, then what was the nature of the police who handled the case back then?
If the above conditions are completely consistent, then the nature is completely different, and the police handling the case may have mixed personal feelings in the process of handling the case, and there is a suspicion of bending the law for favoritism, and may be suspected of bending the law for personal gain.
1. Correctly understand the crime of perverting the law for personal gain:
"Perverting the law for personal gain" refers to the act of a judicial functionary deliberately distorting facts for the sake of personal gain or personal feelings, violating the law by prosecuting a person who he knows to be innocent, deliberately shielding a person who he knows to be guilty from prosecution, or deliberately violating the facts and the law in criminal trial activities to arbitrarily adjudicate the law.
II. Standards for filing cases of the crime of perverting the law for personal gain:
The prerequisite for the crime of perverting the law for personal gain must be that it occurred in criminal proceedings. The perpetrator must have committed an unlawful act for the purpose of greedy money, favoritism for family members and friends, venting anger and revenge, or other personal interests. The following conditions must be met in order to open a case.
Basis of laws and regulations
The "Provisions of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on the Standards for Filing Cases of Dereliction of Duty and Torts" The crime of perverting the law for personal gain refers to the act of judicial personnel bending the law for personal gain or favoritism, causing a person who he knows to be innocent to be prosecuted, deliberately shielding a person who he knows to be guilty and not allowing him to be prosecuted, or deliberately violating the facts and the law in criminal trial activities to make arbitrary judgments.
Where any of the following circumstances are suspected, a case shall be filed:
1. Employing fabrication, concealment, or destruction of evidence, or other means to conceal facts, or violate the law, for the purpose of pursuing criminal responsibility, for the purpose of pursuing criminal responsibility, for persons who clearly know that there are no facts of a crime or that should not be pursued for criminal responsibility in accordance with law;
2. Employing fabrication, concealment, or destruction of evidence, or other means of concealing facts or violating the law, to intentionally shield persons who clearly know that there are facts of a crime that need to be pursued for criminal responsibility, and deliberately shield them from being filed, investigated, prosecuted, or tried;
3. Employing methods such as fabricating, concealing, or destroying evidence, or other means of concealing facts or violating law, intentionally causing a person with a serious crime to be prosecuted for a lesser offense, or a person with a lesser offense to be prosecuted for a heavier offense;
4. After filing a case, employing methods of fabricating, concealing, or destroying evidence, or other means of concealing facts or violating the law, compulsory measures shall be employed but not employed, or where compulsory measures are employed but the investigation is interrupted or no measures are taken beyond the legally-prescribed time limit, and actual unemphasis, as well as illegally revoking or modifying compulsory measures, causing the criminal suspect or defendant to actually escape from the judicial organs' investigation and prosecution;
5. Intentionally violating the facts and law in criminal trial activities by making judgments or rulings that pervert the law, that is, a verdict of not guilty, a verdict of not guilty, or a light sentence for a serious crime, or a heavy sentence for a misdemeanor;
6. Other situations where criminal responsibility should be pursued for bending the law for personal gain.
III. Sentencing standards for the crime of perverting the law for personal gain:
Once found to have committed a crime of perverting the law for personal gain, the maximum sentence may be 10 years or more imprisonment.
Basis of laws and regulations
Article 399 of the Criminal Law shows that a judicial functionary who bends the law for personal gain or favoritism, causes a person who is innocent to be prosecuted, deliberately shields a person who he knows is guilty and prevents him from being prosecuted, or deliberately violates the facts and the law in criminal trial activities and makes a judgment in violation of the law, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years or short-term detention; where the circumstances are serious, a sentence of between 5 and 10 years imprisonment is to be given; where the circumstances are especially serious, the sentence is to be 10 or more years imprisonment.
IV. Jurisdiction over the crime of perverting the law for personal gain:
The crime of perverting the law for personal gain is a type of duty-related crimes committed by judicial personnel, and the jurisdiction for such crimes is as follows:
1. The people's procuratorate at the districted-city level may file a case for investigation;
2. The Supervision Commission may directly conduct a supervision investigation, and if it is verified to be true, criminal proceedings shall be initiated.
Basis of laws and regulations
(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 a judicial functionary abuses his or her authority to commit crimes that infringe upon citizens' rights and undermine judicial fairness, such as illegal detention, extortion of confessions by torture, illegal searches.
(2) The "Provisions on Strengthening Cooperation and Restraint in Handling Cases of Crimes Abusing Public Office by Judicial Personnel in the People's Procuratorate" issued by the Supreme People's Procuratorate states: "Illegal detention, extortion of confessions by torture, illegal searches, and other crimes that infringe on citizens' rights and undermine judicial fairness are discovered by procuratorial organs in the course of exercising legal supervision over litigation activities, and the department responsible for the arrest and prosecution of crimes abusing public office shall file and investigate the case for investigation, and the department responsible for the arrest and prosecution of crimes abusing public office shall perform the review and arrest, review for prosecution, initiation of public prosecution, and investigation supervision. Duties such as trial supervision. ”
(3) According to 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 in the People's Procuratorate, the People's Procuratorate may, in the course of exercising legal supervision over litigation activities, file and investigate the following cases of crimes that infringe on citizens' rights and undermine judicial fairness committed by judicial personnel suspected of abusing their powers, including the crime of bending the law for personal gain.
(4) 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 laws and regulations:
(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;
(5) According to the "Opinions on Strengthening and Improving the Mechanism for Linking Supervision and Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (for Trial Implementation)" 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.
⇢⇢⇢ Summary ⇠⇠⇠
The constitutive elements of the crime of perverting the law for personal gain are mainly divided into two parts: favoritism and perversion of the law.
Favoritism can be summarized as for the sake of personal feelings and interests, which is usually manifested in accepting invitations to eat, accepting property, or taking into account personal feelings and venting personal anger.
Arbitrarily speaking, it means not pursuing criminal responsibility in accordance with the law.
Whether it is the acceptance of property or private interests from the victim or the criminal suspect, it can be found to be the private feelings and private interests of the case-handling personnel, and there is no difference between the two situations. As long as it leads to the result of perverting the law, it can be found to be the crime of perverting the law for personal gain.
To put it simply, because it favoritizes the suspect's selfish interests, he tries all means to deliberately shield the suspect from being prosecuted or to reduce the punishment, which is to bend the law for personal gain. In the same way, it is also perverting the law for personal gain to do everything possible to prosecute a person who does not constitute a crime because of favoritism on the victim's side, or to prosecute a person who has committed a less serious crime.
However, it is very difficult to obtain evidence for the crime of perverting the law for personal gain, especially the evidence of "favoritism" is difficult to obtain, and everything that involves "private" is hidden. It is almost impossible for ordinary parties to obtain evidence in this regard.
In many cases, although the result is "perverting the law", it is difficult to have evidence to relate it to "favoritism", and it is impossible to characterize the result of the relevant actor causing the perversion of the law as the crime of perverting the law for personal gain. In the end, it can only be characterized as flaws in handling cases, low professional standards, poor case-handling ability, and some other characterizations that have nothing to do with crimes, which cannot be avoided.
In a word: As long as there is no evidence to prove that the case-handling personnel engaged in "favoritism and favoritism" in the course of handling the case, even if the result is perverted the law, it cannot be characterized as a crime of bending the law for personal gain.
Note: In order to protect the privacy of netizens and ensure that this article does not have any pertinence, the so-called "friend of netizen Li Silai" and related cases in this article are fictitious, and any similarities are purely coincidental.