Academician Li Nings corruption trial: 10 defense opinions of refusing to plead guilty have been rejected

category:Hot
 Academician Li Nings corruption trial: 10 defense opinions of refusing to plead guilty have been rejected


The case of Li Ning and Zhang Leis corruption lasted five years after two trial sessions. On January 2, the intermediate peoples Court of Songyuan City, Jilin Province made a first instance decision: Li Ning was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for corruption and a fine of 3 million yuan; Zhang Lei was sentenced to 5 years and 8 months imprisonment for corruption and a fine of 200000 yuan.

In the trial, Li Ning refused to plead guilty, and his defender pleaded not guilty. Although Li Ning refuses to plead guilty, the procuratorial organ has produced a lot of evidence. There are clear and stable confessions from Zhang Lei, the defendant in the same case, testimony from two tellers of Li Ning Company and many other witnesses, as well as related documentary evidence for withdrawing funds. The evidences can be mutually corroborated and coincide with the judicial accounting appraisal opinions, said the chief judge of the case.

The judgment, published on March 3, presented the above-mentioned situation in court.

Prosecutors accused Li Ning of three illegal and criminal acts.

First, RMB 10179201.86 was embezzled from pigs, cattle, etc.

According to the judgment: during the period from July 2008 to February 2012, the relevant subjects purchased the pigs and cows needed for the experiment with the scientific research funds in the research process, and the defendant Zhang Lei asked Li Ning how to deal with the proceeds from the sale of the experimental receptor pigs, cows and milk eliminated in the research process. Li Ning instructs Zhang Lei to hand over the money to the tellers, ou and Xie, for safekeeping, instead of handing it in. Oumou A and Xie a then deposited the money into their personal bank cards, with the accumulated amount of 10179201.86 yuan.

Secondly, the balance of scientific research funds is 25591919.00 yuan.

Third, the service fee expense falsely reported was 6212248.51 yuan.

According to the judgment: in July 2009, Zhang Lei, the defendant, asked Li Ning for instructions on how to deal with the surplus of labor costs in the project funds; meanwhile, ou a, the teller, also asked Li Ning for instructions on how to deal with the surplus of labor costs. Li Ning said he would report all the extra labor fees and not hand them in. After that, the defendant Zhang Lei instructed ou a and Xie a to increase the amount of personal service fee and falsely list the service personnel, with a total of falsely reported service fee of 6212248.51 yuan.

The prosecution pointed out that of the above funds, 4416880.82 yuan was used for reasonable expenditure, and the rest were used by the defendant personally. RMB 19056129.00 has been seized and RMB 5220000.00 has been frozen.

Li Ning and his defenders put forward 10 defense opinions on the above prosecution charges.

After the court hearing, the prosecutions charges were adopted, and the defense opinions of Li Ning and his defenders were not adopted.

The first defense is that Li Ning and his defenders put forward that the cattle farms, pig farms, cattle, pigs and funds involved in the case are not owned by Agricultural University of China, but owned by jeplin company and jeplin company. The company was established for scientific research. There is no other operation, but to support this scientific research task. Pigs and cows are constantly eliminated, and the income is used for scientific research, and ordinary pigs, cows and heavy industry There is no relation between junior college and college, so there is no money to be withheld and eliminated from pigs, cows and milk. (Note: according to the court, jipulin company and jifulin company, with Li Ning and Zhang Lei as general manager and deputy general manager respectively, are the cooperative units of some of the topics and also undertake some of them.)

The court held that: witnesses such as ou, Xie (i.e. two tellers) proved that the pigs, cows and milk involved in the case were purchased with the subject funds, and the money sold after the experiment should be handed over to the original appropriation unit, which can be confirmed mutually with Zhang Leis confession, which is enough to confirm; Ou said that Li Ning directed the eliminated pigs, cows and milk sold money to be handed over to their off account separately Keep it, dont hand it in. The confession of Zhang Lei, the defendant, can prove the same content, and can be supported by the testimony of Xie Yujia and other witnesses, relevant documentary evidence and appraisal opinions, which are enough to identify the fact that the money for pig, cow and milk is withheld. Li Nings and his defenders explanations and defense opinions are not tenable.

Second, Li Ning and his defenders put forward that Zhang Lei made false invoices to several companies to get project funds from Li Ning, and Li Ning did not know that the two companies Li Ning contacted did not make false invoices, which is a normal scientific research task. The audit office told Li Ning that the above-mentioned behavior was a risk to the supervision of scientific research funds, not a corruption.

The court held that Zhang Leis statement is that Zhang Lei asked Li Ning for instructions on whether to withdraw the remaining project funds. Li Ning agreed and asked to contact a reliable and familiar large company for operation. Li Ning himself also contacted Suichuan Jiayu company and Yingxiong dairy company to discuss the issue of false invoice; the testimony of witness ou a also proved that he asked Li Ning for instructions on how to deal with the remaining project funds, Li Ning Ning asked Zhang Lei to prepay the money, how to deal with it and ask him to find Zhang Lei, and then let Zhang Lei take back the money. Li Ning knew the source and the destination of the money. Zhang Lei confessed that he could confirm each others testimony with one of Europes as, and supported it with the witness testimony and documentary evidence of Zhang Lei and Li Nings relevant personnel who falsely issued invoices, It is enough to confirm that Li Ning and his defenders defense and opinions are not tenable.

Thirdly, Li Ning and his defenders put forward that Zhang Lei did not ask Li Ning for instructions on how to deal with the surplus labor cost. Although Europe a said this problem, Li Ning only said that the labor cost should follow one principle, not to eat a pot of rice. It is not Li Nings instruction to falsely report the labor cost, nor the situation of falsely reporting the labor cost.

The court held that the testimony of witness ou a is consistent with the confession of the defendant Zhang Lei, proving that they asked Li Ning for instructions on how to deal with the surplus labor fees, and Li Ning asked them to report the surplus labor fees, not to hand them in, which is enough to determine that Li Ning and his defenders defense and defense opinions are not tenable..

In the fourth defense, Li Ning and his defenders put forward that jipulin company and jifulin company are scientific research funds obtained according to the technology development contract signed with China Agricultural University, and the funds shall be owned by the company.

The court held that according to the regulations on the management and use of the funds for related subjects, the statements of Zhang Lei, the defendant, and the testimony of the leaders of Agricultural University of China, the researchers and the tellers of Agricultural University of China, all unanimously proved that the funds for scientific research must be used in accordance with the regulations, and the actual expenses must be reported to the financial department of Agricultural University of China for actual sale, so the funds for the subject are not owned by the company.

The fifth defense opinion is that Li Ning and his defenders put forward that for the relevant company materials in volumes 39 to 55 of the investigation file, the investigators initially took away the materials without detaining procedures, and then took them back to the company for the seal of Oujia. The procedure is seriously illegal and cannot be used as the basis for the final decision.

According to the court, the evidence materials of 39-55 volumes of investigation files are all copies signed by ou and Xie, the main financial personnel of jeplin company, to confirm that they are consistent with the original and stamped with the official seal of the unit. It is not illegal to collect evidence..

The sixth defense opinion was put forward by Li Ning and his defenders. The appraisal opinion did not distinguish whether the pigs and cattle involved in the case were from Agricultural University of China or the company; the source of the inspection materials needed for appraisal was illegal; the appraiser in this case did not record the appraisal process in real time, which was a procedural violation; the appraisal document was not stamped with the special seal for judicial appraisal, nor signed by the appraiser, which could not be used as the basis for finalizing the case.

The court held that whether the pigs and cattle involved in the case are owned by Agricultural University of China or by the company is not a matter of identification, all the inspection materials required for identification are legally obtained by the investigation organ, and the records made in the identification process are not the contents of the identification opinions. The front page of the forensic accounting identification provided to the court by the public prosecution organ when initiating the public prosecution is stamped with the special seal for forensic identification of the identification organ, and the back page is stamped with a tape There is no factual and legal basis for Li Nings and his defenders explanations and defense opinions, and their explanations and defense opinions are not tenable.

The seventh defense opinion is that Li Ning and his defenders put forward that the testimony of witnesses ou and Xie are not true, and they are made under the circumstances of being illegally detained. The testimony of Ou cannot be formed in such a short period of time and can not be used as the basis for the final decision.

The court held that the testimony of Ou and Xie and the confession of Zhang Lei, the defendant, are corroborated by each other, and supported by the testimony and documentary evidence of relevant witnesses, which is enough to prove the authenticity of their testimony. The testimony of Ou and Xie is investigated by investigators through legal procedures, and the written testimony is signed by ou and Xie for confirmation. Li Ning and his defenders do not hold this defense and defense opinion .

In the eighth defense opinion, Li Ning and his defenders put forward that the contents of Zhang Leis confession that accused Li Ning of being guilty were made under threat and could not be used as the basis for finalizing the case.

According to the court, after investigation, Zhang Lei made it clear in the pre court meeting and trial that there was no extortion of confessions by torture or other illegal acts at the time of interrogation by the investigation organ, which was enough to confirm that the evidence collected by the investigation organ was legal, and Li Ning and his defenders defense and defense opinions were not tenable..

For the ninth defense opinion, Li Nings defenders provided Li Nings mobile phone messages with Li Yibing, Tang Yijia and Zhang Lei, Li Nings Diaries the first chapter of the year of snake, the first chapter of the year of horse, Li Nings mind warning of thinking and Rethinking and self analysis and rectification materials of four wind problems, explanation of Li Nings scientific research work and achievements by Research Institute of science and technology of China Agricultural University and Li ning2 On March 18, 2012, an email was sent to Director Guo of the audit department and Zhang Leis review, as well as the decision of jiplin company to remove Zhang Leis deputy general manager, according to which Li Ning was not aware of the facts of the alleged crime.

According to the court, through investigation, the above materials were written by Li Ning after he was audited by the audit office in 2012 and dealt with Zhang Lei according to the audit problems, which does not prove that Li Ning did not know the facts of the charges..

The 10th defense opinion, Li Ning and his defenders put forward that the occurrence of this case was closely related to the unreasonable management system of scientific research funds at that time, as well as the opinions on improving and strengthening the management of scientific research projects and funds of the central government issued by the State Council in 2014, and the opinions on giving full play to procuratorial functions, safeguarding and promoting scientific and technological innovation issued by the Supreme Peoples Procuratorate in 2016, Li Nings behavior does not constitute a crime.

According to the court, after investigation, Li Ning, together with Zhang Lei, conspired to intercept and falsely report scientific research funds by taking advantage of Li Nings position, and deposited them into the personal bank card controlled by Li Ning, which was at Li Nings personal disposal. Most of them were used for the reinvestment of Li Ning or its holding company to set up other companies, and a small part of them were used as the business income of jipulin company and jifulin company, or stagnated The bank cards left in the people or companies who falsely issued invoices for Li Ning and Zhang Lei, as well as the personal bank cards such as Ou Jia and Xie Jia, were not carried forward for further use in the next year or used for scientific research activities under the overall arrangement of the unit. And the above money has been settled in Agricultural University of China, and Agricultural University of China has lost its control. It has become the corporate property of Li Ning holding or controlling the company, that is, it has illegally occupied the state-owned property, and its behavior has constituted the crime of corruption. Although the national policy has been continuously adjusted since 2014, they are all for the purpose of being more conducive to scientific research and the supervision and management of scientific research funds. The above-mentioned regulations of the State Council and the documents of the Supreme Peoples Procuratorate stipulate that the annual funds can be carried forward to the next year for continuous use. After the project is completed, the eligible direct expenditures for scientific research activities can be arranged by the unit as a whole It is no longer recovered, but it is also stipulated to increase the punishment of illegal acts, strengthen the supervision of scientific research projects and funds, seriously deal with illegal acts, and transfer the illegal crimes to the judicial organs for handling; for the crime of fraudulently obtaining the investment of national scientific research projects in the name of scientific and technological innovation, which seriously endangers the development of innovation, it shall be cracked down on according to law. Therefore, no matter at that time or after the laws, regulations, rules, national policies and judicial interpretations, Li Nings behavior constitutes the crime of corruption.

The court finally found that the amount of embezzlement by Li Ning and Zhang Lei was 34109933.18 yuan, Li Ning played a major role in the joint crime and was the principal offender, so he should be punished according to law. In view of the partial recovery of the embezzlement money, he can be given a lighter punishment as appropriate. Zhang Lei plays a secondary role and is an accomplice. After arriving at the case, he voluntarily confesses most of the same kind of criminal facts that the case handling organ does not have. He has a frank plot and pleads guilty to repentance. He can be given a mitigated punishment according to law. .

Li Ning, academician of the Chinese Academy of engineering, embezzled 37.56 million yuan of scientific research fees and was sentenced to 12 years in five trials

On January 3, 2020, the intermediate peoples Court of Songyuan City, Jilin Province publicly sentenced Li Ning, academician of the Chinese Academy of engineering, Professor of China Agricultural University, and Zhang Lei, the defendant in the same case, to corruption. Li Ning, the defendant, was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for the crime of corruption and was also fined 3 million yuan. Zhang Lei, the defendant, was sentenced to five years and eight months imprisonment for the crime of corruption and was also fined 20 yuan Ten thousand yuan; the embezzled property shall be recovered and turned over to the state treasury.