Former CSRC officials were punished: 7.78 million bribes, 27 chairman of the board of directors paid bribes in person

category:Society
 Former CSRC officials were punished: 7.78 million bribes, 27 chairman of the board of directors paid bribes in person


The bribe amount is nearly 7.78 million yuan, involving 45 listed companies

On August 23, 2019, the peoples Court of Jinping County, Guizhou Province, made a first instance judgment on the case of sun Xiaobo accused of bribery by the peoples Procuratorate of Jinping County.

Trial of the original judgment: Sun Xiaobo, the defendant, was employed as a full-time member of the first, second and third gem development and review committee of the CSRC from August 2009 to August 2012. He used his position convenience to provide help and seek benefits for a number of enterprises to be listed for the first time and apply for listing on the gem through the review of the development and review committee meeting; or he took advantage of the convenience formed by his authority or position Favorable conditions, to introduce and contact the members of the development and Review Commission and relevant personnel of the enterprises to be listed, to provide assistance for the enterprises passing through the meeting, and to illegally receive money and materials sent by the personnel of relevant enterprises and recommendation institutions for many times.

According to the original judgment, sun Xiaobos bribery finance includes RMB 3.305 million (including a shopping card worth RMB 105000), USD 290000 (equivalent to RMB 1886575), EUR 255000 (equivalent to RMB 2137059), and HK 550000 (equivalent to RMB 452746), a total of RMB 7781380.

After combing the specific facts of sun Xiaobos bribery, Zhongxin Jingwei found that from the Spring Festival in 2010 to June 2012, sun Xiaobo collected bribes from 45 companies to be listed, and 27 directors paid bribes in person. The places of bribery are mostly located in teahouses, hotels and restaurants near the financial street of Beijing. Since then, 42 companies have successfully listed on GEM, 2 companies have been denied, and 1 company has been terminated due to false listing.

In terms of specific amount, sun Xiaobos bribery amount is about 100000-200000 yuan. The largest amount of bribery comes from Guangdong Xindi company. From October 2011 to April 2012, Guangdong new earth Biotechnology Co., Ltd., a company to be listed, was able to pass the examination of the development and review committee meeting for the purpose of IPO application. Huang Yujiang, chairman of the company, asked sun Xiaobo to take care of the company when it was reviewed. Sun Xiaobo also recommended and introduced Gong, Chen and Li, members of the development and review committee, and asked for care when it was reviewed. Before the companys meeting, sun Xiaobo, the defendant, twice received 200000 Hong Kong dollars and 1 million yuan from Huang, chairman of new earth.

In June 2012, Guangdong new earth IPO application was terminated due to suspected fake listing, and was filed and checked by CSRC in October of that year. In October 2013, the CSRC disclosed the punishment decision on Guangdong Xindi, and found out that the company had major omissions in the prospectus report and the last meeting draft pre disclosed on April 12, 2012, which were falsely recorded in the annual report from 2009 to 2011.

The first trial was sentenced to 11 years, and the second trial upheld the original judgment

In August 2019, sun Xiaobo was convicted of bribery by the court and sentenced to 11 years imprisonment and a fine of 2.5 million yuan. The stolen money obtained from the bribe was converted into 7781380 yuan and confiscated according to law, of which 5.93 million yuan was returned and 1225063 yuan was seized. The peoples Procuratorate of Jinping County turned over the stolen money to the state treasury, and the rest 626317 yuan was recovered.

After the judgment of the first trial, sun Xiaobo refused to accept, and appealed on the grounds that the facts of the original judgment were wrong, and he did not identify the circumstances of his surrender. The appellant actively returned the stolen goods, paid the fine, and the additional punishment was obviously abnormal.

After reviewing sun Xiaobos appeal reasons and defense opinions one by one, the court held that:

1u3001 During the second trial, the reason why the seventh fact of the original judgment proposed by the appellant should be 15000 US dollars instead of 20000 US dollars, and the forty third fact should be 40000 US dollars instead of 40000 euros. After checking and reviewing the files, the confirmation of 20000 US dollars in the original judgment was evidenced by the testimony of Xie SONGFENG, the briber, and the confirmation of 40000 euros in the original judgment was evidenced by the foreign currency exchange documents of the enterprise Therefore, the appellants defense of the two facts cannot be established.

2u3001 Sun Xiaobo, the appellant, was arrested and brought to justice after being chased off the Internet, which does not belong to the initiative. Before that, in 2014, the Ministry of public security investigated 9 criminal facts, but only 7 facts related to the accusation in this case were disclosed, and the main criminal facts were not disclosed. According to the opinions of the Supreme Peoples court and the Supreme Peoples Procuratorate on Several Issues concerning the determination of circumstances of voluntary surrender and meritorious service in handling duty crime cases, it does not constitute a true confession.

3u3001 The original penalty shall be within the range prescribed by law. During the second trial, the money and fine paid by the appellant are the active performance of the judgment, which does not constitute a new circumstances of sentencing. Dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

The court said that sun Xiaobos reasons for appeal and the defense opinions of the defenders could not be established and the court would not adopt them. The facts of the original judgment are clearly identified, the evidence is indeed sufficient, the charges are accurate, and the sentence is appropriate. In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 236 of the criminal procedure law of the peoples Republic of China, the appeal shall be rejected and the original judgment shall be upheld.

(function() {vars = + Math. Domain(). ToString (36). Slice (2); document. Write (< divstyle = id = + S + > < div > ); (window. Slotbydup = window. Slotbydup| []). Push ({ID: u5811557, container: s});}) (); source of this paper: Li Chao, editor in charge of China new economy and latitude