During his criminal detention, Mr. Zhai was temporarily withheld 12.4 million yuan by the Economic Crime Investigation Detachment of the Sanming Public Security Bureau of Fujian Province. Later, Mr. Zhai was decided not to prosecute by the procuratorial organ at the end of last year. Four months later, however, the temporary deduction, which should have been returned to Mr. Zhai, has not been heard from. Today (April 11) afternoon, the case management department of the Sanming Procuratorate in Fujian Province, prosecutor Peng Xing, told reporters in the Beijing News that the procuratorial organs never sue the case, so the public security organs should deal with the case and have urged the police to release the case. However, Mr. Zhai and his deputies said that there was still no news of repayment, and police officers could not be contacted. They were in an awkward situation.
When should this amount be repaid? In response, Hong Daode, professor of criminal procedure law at China University of Political Science and Law, said that repayment should be made when the non-prosecution decision came into effect. However, at present, there are no specific provisions on the time limit for repayment, which leads to similar incidents not uncommon in the country. I hope this case can arouse the attention of the legislature.
After receiving the money, the police issued Zhai a receipt and seizure list. Respondents Map
The suspect was not prosecuted after the police withheld 12.4 million yuan temporarily
Mr. Zhai said that he has been doing mineral business overseas for many years. Early in the morning of July 28, 2017, he was summoned to the Economic Investigation Detachment of Sanming Public Security Bureau, and later detained for contract fraud, involving 20 million yuan. During this period, his family and friends collected 12.4 million yuan through loans and other means, and transferred to the account provided by Sanming Public Security Bureau in September 2017. On September 20, the Economic Crime Investigation Branch of Sanming Public Security Bureau issued the Seizure List and the Financial Receipt of Fujian Provincial Administrative Seizure (or Freezing) on December 1, 2017. New Beijing News reporter saw that the receipt in the temporary withholding (or freezing) of financial cases is written in a column of contract fraud, the amount of a column is one hundred thousand yuan of shabby whole.
Mr. Zhais attorney, Li Na, partner of Beijing Yingke Law Firm, said that after Mr. Zhais arrest was approved, the police transferred him to the Peoples Procuratorate of Youxi County on December 13, 2017 for examination and prosecution. The prosecution returned the case to the supplementary investigation twice, and then extended the period of examination and prosecution in three times for half months. The evidence transferred by the public security organs to the procuratorate did not meet the prosecution standard. The evidence is insufficient. In June 2018, according to the law, Mr. Zhai could not be detained beyond the time limit. The public security organs changed the compulsory measures and Mr. Zhai, who had been detained for nearly a year, was released and kept under surveillance.
On December 20, 2018, the Youxi County Procuratorate decided not to prosecute Mr. Zhai for lack of evidence. In the Decision on Non-prosecution, it reads, After the examination and return of supplementary investigation by the court, the court still considers that the facts of the crime determined by the Sanming Public Security Bureau are unclear, the evidence is insufficient and does not meet the conditions for prosecution. In accordance with the provisions of Article 175, paragraph 4, of the Criminal Procedure Law of the Peoples Republic of China, it decides not to prosecute Zhai Mou.
The procuratorial organ said there was no response to urge repayment so far.
Im very happy to get the Non-prosecution Decision. I asked the police for this temporary deduction, but I havent come back yet. Zhai said the police had refused to repay the money for reasons such as the need for further investigation. Li Na said that in the meantime, agents had also sent letters to the public security organs asking for the refund of the temporary deduction in accordance with the law, but it had not been returned. She also went to the local public security bureau to find the police involved and further filed a written application to ask the public security organs to refund money in accordance with the law, but it was still not accepted.
Subsequently, Li Na sent a letter to the Peoples Procuratorate of Youxi County and its superior organ, Sanming Peoples Procuratorate, requesting that the county procuratorate be urged to inform the police of the refund. However, four months later, the 12.4 million yuan temporary deduction collected by the police has not yet been returned.
Today (April 11) afternoon, a reporter from the Beijing News contacted Peng, a prosecutor surnamed in the case management department of the Peoples Procuratorate of Sanming City, Fujian Province. He said that the case management department had urged the Peoples Procuratorate of Youxi County to send a letter to inform the public security organs to deal with property according to law. He introduced that Mr. Zhais case was suspected of non-prosecution. Before that, according to the feedback from the public security organs, the public security organs had to carry out further procedures. However, in view of this case, the procuratorial organs made a decision not to prosecute, and the public security organs should release the temporary deduction according to the decision not to prosecute. If the public security organs want to supplement the investigation, they can go through the legal formalities to seize and detain in the future.
Li Na said that although the prosecution has urged repayment, but she called the police concerned, so far there is no response. Zhai also said that the public security organs did not take the initiative to contact their own refunds.
Beijing News reporter tried to contact the police by phone and text message today (April 11) afternoon, but no response was received as of the time of publication. Part of the tens of millions of dollars was borrowed from friends, and now I have to hide from them. Another part is the usurious loan, which I dare not calculate, and I dare not face. Zhai said helplessly.
Expert: There are many similar cases. Legislation should pay attention to them.
When should the public security organ refund the money after the party is not prosecuted? Hong Daode, professor of criminal procedure law at China University of Political Science and Law, told reporters in Beijing News that, according to common sense, any kind of non-prosecution is innocent after the procuratorial organ has made the decision of non-prosecution, which means that more than 10 million yuan detained does not belong to stolen money or stolen goods, and the public security organs have lost the legal conditions for the continued detention of more than 10 million yuan, so the local public security organs will not. Its obviously wrong to give a refund.
But if the public security organs are dragging their feet, there are really not many legal means to urge him to return them. From the level of the Criminal Procedure Law, there is no clear stipulation, only to rely on public opinion to supervise. Hong Daode believes that there must be no legal basis for the public security organs to still seize the case money. Even if there are disputes, the case money of more than 10 million yuan belongs to civil disputes, which has been out of the scope of the public security organs to deal with.
So this case has been delayed by the public security organs for a long time. From what channels should the parties appeal? Hong Daode said that there is really no better means at present, the procuratorial organs send letters to supervise soft suggestions at most, the public security organs can do it if they attach importance to it, and drag it on if they do not attach importance to it. Strictly speaking, he said, in this case, the law had better give the parties the right to illegally occupy the legitimate property by the public security organs, to the court to sue for return. At present, the criminal acts of public security organs can not be the object of administrative litigation, and in the area of civil infringement, it is not the infringement of rights disputes, it is difficult to be included in the civil category, and it is also not within the scope of state compensation. Hong Daode introduced that, like this case, there are quite a few cases in China. I hope the legislature can attach importance to this situation and find a way to solve it. Contradictions and disputes between equal subjects can be regarded as the way out. The way out is to go to the court to deal with them.
Source: New Beijing Daily Responsible Editor: Li Wan_B11284