A Public Security Commissioner in Guizhou said the 2 retrial of torture cases was undecided.

category:Global
 A Public Security Commissioner in Guizhou said the 2 retrial of torture cases was undecided.


In April 8th, Jiang Yongrong, 44 years old, stood on the dock again because he was accused of receiving 350 thousand yuan of equipment. Jiang Yongrong served as deputy director of the traffic control department of the Guizhou Provincial Public Security Bureau, and was arrested in January 2014 on suspicion of taking bribes. Since then, he has received two judgments and two rulings. In first instance, the court found that the crime of accepting bribes was established, and Jiang Yongrong was sentenced to 10 years. When he was retrial, he was again convicted of a crime of accepting bribes, sentenced to 3 years in prison, and 200 thousand yuan for punishment. Jiang Yongrong insisted on appeals. In March 30, 2017, he received the notice of the Guiyang intermediate peoples court to send the case back to the retrial again. In April 3, 2018, the case was heard in the peoples Court of Nanming District, Guiyang. The direct evidence of Jiang Yongrongs conviction includes the confession statement of Jiang Yongrong submitted by the public prosecutor and the testimony of the witness. The Chinese Youth Daily News Online reporter found that, in fact, the guilty confession excluded by the original trial was adopted by the court in the first retrial, while the court ruled out the confession that was adopted by the original trial; and the confession of the bribe in the details of how to send money and the amount of money had changed many times. At the same time, Jiang Yongrongs terms of reference are directly related to the business of briber. After two years in custody, Jiang Yongrong was released on bail pending trial after the two trial in October 2016 and was temporarily restored to freedom. He repeatedly told the China Youth Daily Zhongqing online reporter that he was innocent. I believe in law, and I believe that the law will return justice to me. Jiang Yongrong said. After 3 days trial on April 3rd, 4 and 8, the peoples Court of Nanming District of Guiyang announced that the case will be adjudged sentencing. A sudden accusation after the detention house In January 17, 2014, Jiang Yongrong, who was inspecting vehicle management work in Guiyang, suddenly received a call from the head of the Corps. At 2:30 in the afternoon, Jiang Yongrong came to the provincial public security bureau discipline inspection office to cooperate with the investigation. Several investigators of the Nanming peoples Procuratorate arrived and took Jiang Yongrong away. Jiang Yongrong recalled that he had been confined to personal freedom after the handling of the case area. On the 21 day, Jiang Yongrong began to write his own material in the designated surveillance site; on the afternoon of 22, he was transferred to the peoples Procuratorate of Nanming district and made a written record. On the afternoon of 23, he was transferred to the detention house. After the examination, he was interrogated and recorded. Jiang Yongrong said that in February 5th, when the peoples Procuratorate of Guiyang city came to the news and made a record of arrest, he had already made a confession, insisting that he was innocent. In April 2015, the first instance of the peoples Court of Nanming District, Guiyang, found that during the period from 2012 to 2013, Xie Bao, the chairman of the motor vehicle testing equipment supplier, Guizhou Hanno Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hanno) chairman Xie Bao was given a total of 350 thousand yuan for the benefits of 3 times, and Jiang Yong accepted the total. Jiang Yongrong was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for committing bribery. Jiang Yongrong subsequently appealed. In July 2015, the Guiyang intermediate peoples court returned the retrial with unclear facts and insufficient evidence. In June 28, 2016, the Nanming District Court retried the first trial; in October, after the retrial of the second court, the Nanming District Court decided that Jiang Yongrong was guilty of bribery, sentenced to 3 years in prison, and a fine of 200 thousand yuan. Jiang Yongrong appealed again. In March 2018, he received a ruling from the Guiyang intermediate peoples court again that the original judgment was contrary to the legal procedure. In fact, in the original trial and retrial, Jiang Yongrongs guilty confession is the direct evidence of the courts conviction. The evidence came from Jiang Yongrongs January 18, 2014, January 21st in designated surveillance sites, the peoples Procuratorate in Nanming District in January 22nd, and the confession in January 23rd. But these confessions were denied by Jiang Yongrong shortly after he left the designated place of surveillance. Jiang Yongrong said that these materials were forced to confession by torture. Before the trial, he made an application to the court to identify the guilty confession as illegal evidence exclusion. Jiang Yongrong said that when he was in detention house, he was threatened by investigators and scratches at the elbow. The court said the daily uninterrupted video showed that the investigative authorities provided him with the necessary diet, rest and medical services, and did not extorting a confession by torture. Two verdicts have shown that the guilty confession excluded from the original trial was adopted by the court during the first retrial, while the court ruled out the statement that was adopted by the original trial. The court accepted the confession of Jiang Yongrongs detention house in Xiuwen County, Guizhou in January 23, 2014. It is worth noting that the audio and video recording of the confession is only picture without sound. The procuratorate said it was a technical failure. After viewing the video, the court held that the statement was not seen physically or mentally restricted and further confirmed that the statement was legally binding. Jiang Yongrongs first defender, lawyer Zhou Ze of Beijings law firm, believes that the procedure of collecting evidence by procuratorial organs is illegal. At the time of the retrial, the court found that the investigative organs did not synchronize the recording in the investigative video, and did not comply with the statutory procedures. However, when the court first reexamined, it was found that it was Jiang Yongrongs transcript in January 22nd when he was in the peoples Procuratorate of Nanming district. In the original trial, the record was ruled out because of long time interrogation before being arrested and unable to exclude the case of guilty confession due to the suppression of his spirit. At the time of the retrial, the court said that the detention procedures, video materials and transcripts of the procuratorate were mutually corroborated on the same day, the legal formalities were all ready, the procedures of the interrogation sites were legal, and the confession was not subjected to torture, so the collection was collected legally. It is worth noting that in this second retrial, all of Jiang Yongrongs above guilty confessions were found to be legally collected, and were not ruled out in court as illegal evidence. Mr. Shen, a second defender of Jiang Yongrong and a lawyer in Guiyang branch of Beijing China silver law firm, said that the witnesses who testified in court were not all law enforcement officers, and these testimonies were not complete as fact evidence. Moreover, the investigators do not remember the specific details, and the credibility of the testimony is open to question. The only direct evidence is testimony, bribery and demographic changes. In fact, in the original trial or the retrial decision, the only direct evidence of the bribery case is the confession of both parties. Guizhou Provincial Public Security Commission for discipline inspection showed the cadres basic situation table, in 1996, Jiang Yongrong entered the Guizhou Provincial Public Security Department Traffic Police Corps as a police officer. In May 2011, he began to serve as deputy director of the traffic police headquarters. Li Weihong, director of the traffic control office, said Jiang Yongrong was mainly responsible for the business guidance of the 9 cities and cities in Guizhou Province, and supervised the driving school and the motor vehicle detection station with the relevant departments. As Jiang Yongrong recalls, at a working conference in October 2011, as a representative of the traffic control office, he made a speech and left a way of contact, and Xie Baocheng realized himself. Subsequently, Xie Baocheng founded Guizhou Hanover Technology Co., Ltd. as chairman of the company. The main business of the company is to sell motor vehicle safety inspection equipment. According to Xie Baochengs statement in January 7, 2014, he talked to Jiang Yongrong many times in 2012 and 2013 in order to connect the new motor vehicle detection station to the Internet. I told him, now my company has basically completed the motor vehicle safety inspection line, and I hope Jiang Yongrong will help me to connect to the Internet as soon as possible. But Jiang Yongrong retorted that in the past two years, he had only passed a telephone call with Xie Baocheng. In August 2015, two investigators from the Nanming District Peoples Procuratorate went to Guiyang mobile communication company to get the call records from two people from 2011 to 2013. But Mobile Corporation said, customer call records are only kept for half a year and cannot be retrieved. During the interrogation of investigators, Xie Baocheng said he gave Jiang Yongrong 350 thousand yuan in cash in the summer of 2012, at the end of 2012, and in the summer of 2013 in the backdoor of the police headquarters of the Public Security Department of Guizhou Province, near the Dongshan tea house. However, the financial vouchers of the traffic administration bureau of the Public Security Bureau of Guizhou Province in August 9, 2013 and 20, which were transferred by investigators, showed that in the summer of 2013, Jiang Yongrong and his colleagues went abroad to take part in the management training. From April 2011 to January 2014, the Guizhou provincial police office of the police headquarters of the Guizhou public security department also showed that from June 21, 2012 to June 28th, July 31st to August 3rd and June 20, 2013, Jiang Yongrong went out on business. Zhou Ze believes that Jiang Yongrongs alibi is likely to coincide with Xie Baochengs specific time of bribery, and the procuratorate has no clear evidence to prove the exact time for Xie to take bribes. The procuratorate said it did not prove that Jiang Yongrong had no time to commit crimes. In addition, Jiang Yongrong thought that the place of bribery that Xie Baocheng called was not true. I have many acquaintances in the traffic administration bureau and the public security department. It is impossible to accept Xie Baochengs bribes in public places close to the unit. It is noteworthy that, as the only major witness testimony, Xie Baochengs several statements before and after there are no small changes. In the way of bribery, Xie Baocheng said in January 7, 2014 that he was calling Jiang Yongrong to make an appointment to send money again. In February 24th, he changed his name, I went to Jiang Yongrongs office first, and I saw him, and he said, yes? What day? After the agreement, waiting for each other in the old place. According to Jiang Yongrong, in fact, it was one and a half years before the crime was reported. At that time, the Discipline Inspection Commission of the Guizhou Provincial Public Security Bureau had also investigated this matter. In September 2, 2013, Xie Baocheng denied to the Provincial Discipline Inspection Commission of the Provincial Public Security Bureau bribing Jiang Yongrong, and said that the content of the report was not true. In January 7, 2014, when he received a public prosecution investigation, he said he had sent money to Jiang Yongrong for 3 times, totaling 350 thousand yuan. In February 20th, he also said he had a fluke in the Commissions investigation, and made a false statement. In the original trial, the prosecutor said, it is not possible to overthrow the statement of Xie Baocheng with details and principles. The relationship between bribery and bribery is a problem between the bribe and the bribe. Xie Baochengs existence of different confessions indicates that investigators are from real records. Xie Bao cost man has testified in court by video in the second trial of the first retrial. He said that the way he sent money was making phone calls and going directly to the office, mainly listening to Jiang Yongrongs suggestion. When the counsel inquired about the specific process of sending money, he said, I cant remember clearly. In the evidence of the procuratorate, Jiang Yongrongs testimony and Xies testimony were proved only by Jiangs confession. But these statements differ from each other, contradict or contradict each other, and the confession of the two is formed in the case of the loss of personal freedom, and the suspicion of being forced to confess and false statements. Zhou Ze said. Whether there is a business relationship between bribes and bribes The prosecution of Jiang Yongrongs bribery allegations said that in 2012, Xie Baocheng, the chairman of Hanno, was able to pass the inspection of the Guizhou public security office traffic police station as soon as possible for the 3 motor vehicle security stations of the 3 companies built by his company, and to connect with the remote security inspection sign system to recover the funds as soon as possible. To Jiang Yongrong. Jiang Yongrong promised to help, later Hanno new motor vehicle security inspection equipment smoothly through the relevant project acceptance and networking, Xie Baocheng in order to thank Jiang Yongrong for help, 3 times a total of 350 thousand yuan for the benefits of Jiang Yongrong, Jiang Yongrong all to receive. According to the report on the acceptance of the inspection center of Hua Yi motor vehicle inspection center in Xi Shui county, qualification certification certificate, inspection qualification license of motor vehicle safety technical inspection institution, and other documents, it is shown that in Guizhou, a motor vehicle inspection station is required to pass through the County Municipal Quality Supervision Bureau in order from the establishment to the business. Report planning, the Provincial Bureau of quality supervision and approval and public planning, calibration, metrology certification, qualification accreditation, local price departments to verify the charge standards, local police detachment reported, and finally the provincial police general team acceptance and network access to remote security inspection sign system. One is the unit to supervise the inspection of the vehicle inspection station, one is to sell the motor vehicle security equipment to the new motor vehicle inspection station, and the peoples court in Nanming District of Guiyang has identified the business relationship. In 2011, after the establishment of Hanover company of Xie Baocheng, as a party B, he signed a contract with a number of companies to sell related vehicle safety inspection equipment. In addition to the transaction of hardware and equipment, Hanno has to check the qualification of Party A with the competent department and stipulate the payment method as Party Bs installation, commissioning and demarcation after the payment. Will the vehicle management department successfully connect the motor vehicle inspection station to the test station? Xie Baocheng said that only Hannos contract was completed by Jiang Yongrongs provincial car control station and the vehicle inspection station built by him to access the remote security inspection sign system. The payment voucher obtained by Zhou Zes lawyer shows that in fact, the payment of Hanover company and part of the inspection station has been paid or paid in full before the acceptance of the network. He said that almost all the customers surveyed paid the money to Hanover company, according to the contract. The network acceptance of Traffic Police Corps is neither the terms of payment nor the content of the contract. In his later confession, Xie Baocheng changed the recovery of payment to recover the money. But Zhou Ze believes that Hanno does not have any reason to bribe at all. The test station owes the Hano companys tail money is one hundred and eighty thousand, Xie Baocheng for one hundred and eighty thousand of the tail money many times more money than the tail money to Jiang Yongrong is obviously unreasonable. Jiang Yongrong insists that the provincial traffic police headquarters is only dealing with the inspection station, and Hanno is a business relationship at the other end of the inspection station. He has only the right to supervise and have no right to approve. The monitoring stations are connected to the internal networks of various teams. We are only responsible for testing, evaluating and supervising the data submitted by the detachment. The court accepted the testimony of the witness Chang Zhiqiang at the same time in the original trial and retrial. He is often the manager of another local security equipment distributor, Guizhou branch of Henan world Polytron Technologies Inc. He said, after the acceptance of the vehicle management department, the interconnection project will be completed and the testing station will be officially opened until the company receives the final payment. In the contract, Party B installs, debug, demarcate after payment one item, and Xie Baocheng and Chang Zhiqiang basically consistent statement, also can confirm the fact that the supplier needs to receive the tail money after the inspection test is qualified. Jiang Yongrong told the China Youth Daily, China Green online reporter, Chang Zhiqiangs Wanguo company, the only network equipment sales enterprise in Guizhou motor vehicle testing station. In early 2012, in order to achieve fair competition in the market, Jiang Yongrong proposed to introduce more enterprises to his leadership and eventually put another Internet company into the Guizhou market. Prior to the creation of Hanover, Xie Baocheng was the head of the Guizhou branch of Wanguo company. Jiang Yongrong has always insisted that the above 3 inspection stations of Xie Baocheng pass the check and accept the normal business hours, and there is no hello situation. In April 8th, again when the court was retrial, two of Jiang Yongrongs colleagues also testified. They said that the acceptance process was declared by the local traffic police, and the traffic police were divided in accordance with the division of labor and then went to the local area for final acceptance. The acceptance of the business trip needs to be approved by several leaders including Jiang Yongrong. Chiang Kai Shek did not have the right to decide. The Nanming District procuratorate said that no matter whether the alleged Jiang Yongrong help act was ultimately successful, it would not affect its bribery. There may be a bad information between Xie Baocheng and Jiang Yongrong. Xie Baocheng is a businessmans thinking. He is not clear about Jiang Yongrongs specific work arrangement. In his opinion, the adoption of the equipment in a relatively short period has been helped by Chiang. In April 8, 2018, on the third day of the second trial, Jiang Yongrong made a final statement in court: I believe in judicial justice, and I hope this is the last time I have made this statement. Source: China Youth Daily editor: Guo Ping _B7442 Jiang Yongrong has always insisted that the above 3 inspection stations of Xie Baocheng pass the check and accept the normal business hours, and there is no hello situation. In April 8th, again when the court was retrial, two of Jiang Yongrongs colleagues also testified. They said that the acceptance process was declared by the local traffic police, and the traffic police were divided in accordance with the division of labor and then went to the local area for final acceptance. The acceptance of the business trip needs to be approved by several leaders including Jiang Yongrong. Chiang Kai Shek did not have the right to decide. The Nanming District procuratorate said that no matter whether the alleged Jiang Yongrong help act was ultimately successful, it would not affect its bribery. There may be a bad information between Xie Baocheng and Jiang Yongrong. Xie Baocheng is a businessmans thinking. He is not clear about Jiang Yongrongs specific work arrangement. In his opinion, the adoption of the equipment in a relatively short period has been helped by Chiang. In April 8, 2018, on the third day of the second trial, Jiang Yongrong made a final statement in court: I believe in judicial justice, and I hope this is the last time I have made this statement.