Netease Finance and Economics, April 10, this morning, the concerned Gu Xiaojun case was pronounced in the First Circuit Court of the Supreme Peoples Court at 1036 Hongling Middle Road, Futian District, Shenzhen. As in the public trial in June 2018, Gu Xiaojun and Dai Xiao appeared in court.
The court decided to revoke the Guangdong Provincial Higher Peoples Court (2008) criminal ruling No. 101 on the second final word of the Guangdong Higher Law Penalty and the first criminal judgment No. 65 on the second final word of the Foshan Intermediate Peoples Court (2006) criminal judgment on the plaintiffs defendant, Gu Xiaojun, who committed the crime of false reporting of registered capital, the conviction and sentencing part of the crime of violating rules and disclosing important information, and the sentencing part of the crime of misappropriating funds. The first conviction part of the crime of misappropriating funds for the defendant Gu Xiaojun, who was tried by the first criminal judgment No. 65 of Foshan Intermediate Peoples Court of Guangdong Province (2006), was sentenced to five yearsimprisonment for the crime of misappropriating funds for the defendant Gu Xiaojun. (Executed)
The Supreme Peoples Court publicly adjudicated Gu Xiaojun and other retrial cases according to law
After retrial, the Supreme Peoples Court held that the fact that Gu Xiaojun, Liu Yizhong, Jiang Baojun and Zhang Xihan had used false certificate documents to replace intangible assets with 660 million yuan of false currency in the process of applying for registration change in Greencore, Shunde, existed in the original trial, but this action was the continuation of the local governments support for the illegal registration of Shunde Greencore, which had no serious consequences and had no serious consequences. Relevant laws have been amended in the original trial, so that the proportion of intangible assets that exceed the statutory limit replaced by false currency in this case has been reduced from 55% to 5%. Therefore, the behavior of Gu Xiaojun and others is not harmful and does not consider it a crime. The original trial found that the fact that Kelong Electric Appliances added false profits to the financial report to disclose between 2002 and 2004 exists, which is contrary to it. Legal acts can be punished according to law, but because the evidence in the case is insufficient to prove that the acts of Kelong Electric Appliances providing false financial reports have resulted in the consequence of seriously damaging the interests of shareholders or others stipulated in the Criminal Law, the criminal responsibility of the relevant personnel should not be investigated. The fact that Gu Xiaojun and Jiang Baojun misappropriated 63 million yuan of Yangzhou Yaxing Bus to Greenkel in Yangzhou is unclear in the original trial. Insufficient evidence and incorrect application of law should not be dealt with as a crime. However, the original trial found that Gu Xiaojun, Zhanghong misappropriated 250 million yuan of Kelong Electrical Appliances and 40 million yuan of Kelong in Jiangxi Province for personal use. The facts of profit-making activities are clear and the evidence is solid and sufficient. Gu Xiaojun and his defendersopinions that the Kelong Group owes a large amount of funds to the Greencore Company are inconsistent with the facts and cannot be established. u3002 Gu Xiaojun and Zhang Hongs actions have constituted the crime of misappropriating funds, and the amount of misappropriation is huge. In view of the short time of embezzlement of funds and the fact that it has not caused significant economic losses to the unit, Gu Xiaojun and Zhang Honghong may be leniently punished according to law. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law and the Criminal Procedure Law, the above-mentioned judgment is made.
The Supreme Peoples Court answered reportersquestions on Gu Xiaojun and other retrial cases
1. What is the significance of retrial and Adjudication of Gu Youjuns case according to law?
A: The CPC Central Committee, with Comrade Xi Jinping as its core, attaches great importance to the protection of property rights. This case is a representative case involving property rights brought to trial by our hospital. All parties pay great attention to it and its social impact is tremendous. It is of great significance for our hospital to revise its judgment after retrial according to law.
(1) The retrial of this case is a concrete practice and typical example of comprehensively promoting the rule of law and realizing social fairness and justice. In the original trial, Gu Xiaojun was found guilty of false reporting of registered capital, illegal disclosure of important information and misappropriation of funds. He was sentenced to 10 yearsimprisonment for several crimes and a fine of 6.8 million yuan. Other co-defendants were also sentenced to unequal penalties of less than four years imprisonment for one or more of the above crimes. After the retrial was initiated, the court conducted a thorough and meticulous comprehensive trial of the case, based on the facts and the law, and made a final fair judgment. From the substantive point of view, the misjudgement of the original trial has been corrected. Now, Gu Xiaojun and Zhang Hong have been convicted of the crime of embezzlement of funds only, Gu Xiaojun has been sentenced to five yearsimprisonment, Zhang Hong has been sentenced to two years imprisonment and two yearsprobation. All other plaintiff defendants have been convicted of innocence. From a procedural point of view, the case is strictly conducted in accordance with legal procedures from the decision to bring the case before trial to the retrial and retrial. The Supreme Peoples Court constitutes a collegial panel of five persons according to law, ranging from interviewing the defendants and defenders at the original trial to holding a pre-trial meeting, from the open hearing, the live broadcasting of the whole court trial, to todays public verdict, the whole process is orderly, open and transparent according to law, and the prosecution of the defendants at each trial is open and transparent. The litigation rights are fully guaranteed, and the retrial process has become an open lesson of the rule of law, which conveys the positive energy of governing the country by law to the whole society. The retrial and retrial of this case fully reflects the strong determination of the peoples court to faithfully perform its statutory duties, safeguard human rights according to law and build a socialist country ruled by law.
A Review of Gu Xiaojuns Military Case: Originated from the Lang Gu Debate
In August 2004, the Langgu dispute broke out. Lang Xianping, a professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, questioned Gus mergers and acquisitions. He said that Gu had misappropriated a large amount of cash flow from Cologne Electric Appliances to complete the acquisitions, and the Lang-Gu dispute was thus launched.
On April 4, 2005, the Securities Regulatory Bureau of Hubei, Jiangsu, Anhui and Guangdong provinces jointly investigated four listed companies of Greencores ST Xiangzhou, Yaxing Bus, Meiling Electrical Appliances and Kelong Electrical Appliances. More than 20 working groups led by the inspection department of the Securities Regulatory Commission formally stationed in Kelong to investigate the suspected embezzlement of Kelong Electrical Appliancesfunds by Greencore.
In May 2005, Gu Xiaojun was put on file for investigation. At the end of July, Gu Xiaojun was taken away by the police at Beijing Capital Airport, and then nine senior Koron and Greencore executives, including Gu Xiaojun, were formally arrested on suspicion of false capital contribution, false financial statements, misappropriation of assets and occupation.