The second instance of bribery case of governor of CITIC Bank Quanzhou branch: a bribe confession

category:Society click:463
 The second instance of bribery case of governor of CITIC Bank Quanzhou branch: a bribe confession


Peng Mei News previously reported that Li Yaodong, 43, was a native of Huangpi, Hubei Province. He was the former president of CITIC Bank Quanzhou Branch, and later became the president of the banks Changchun Branch. On March 24, 2016, Li Yaodong, who was in Changchun, was taken back to Nanan, Fujian Province by the investigators to live under surveillance at a designated residence for suspected bribery.

File information shows that the locality was investigating the bribery case of businessman Qiu Huizu and found that Li Yaodong had taken bribes. Seven months later, Li Yaodong was accused of accepting more than 3.4 million yuan bribes from Qiu Huizu and others by CITIC Bank Quanzhou Branch for a long period of time, and seeking their interests in the process of examining and approving related enterprises to apply for loans, renew loans or increase credit lines.

During the first instance, the prosecution accused Li Yaodong of 10 bribery facts, mainly based on witness testimony and Li Yaodong confession. Li admitted to receiving 100,000 yuan in cash, five liquor cards and 10,000 shopping cards during 2014, but denied bribing the remaining 3 million yuan, including 2 million yuan from businessman Qiu Huizu.

Peng Mei news listened to the scene of the first instance court, noticed that the prosecutor showed a number of business owners bribery testimony, and Li Yaodongs guilty confession and plea. Prosecutors believe that bribery and the defendants statements are stable and mutually verifiable, which is sufficient to prove the facts of Li Yaodongs crime.

The prosecution holds that Li Yaodong, as a state functionary, takes advantage of his position to illegally accept bribes from others and seek benefits for others. The amount is especially huge. His actions violate the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law. The facts of the crime are clear, the evidence is true and sufficient, and he should be investigated for criminal responsibility for the crime of accepting bribes.

Li Yaodong appealed against the first instance and appealed to the Quanzhou intermediate peoples Court of Fujian. In his appeal, he said that the first instance decision was made under the circumstances of procedural violation and insufficient evidence. Li Yaodong asked the Quanzhou intermediate peoples court to revoke the original verdict and change the sentence to no crime or to rehear the case.

The first instance found that Li Yaodongs largest bribery was 2 million yuan, and briber was Fujian businessman Qiu Huizu. Li Yaodong took bribes from Qiu Huizu, the boss of Xiamen Jiahua Import and Export Trading Company, totaling 2 million in four times between 2013 and 2014. He sought benefits from the examination and approval of Qiu Huizus enterprises and entrusted enterprises in applying for credit and loans, the judgment said.

At the first instance of the Li Yaodong case, the prosecution issued a verdict of the first instance of Qiu Huizus bribery case, which determined that Qiu Huizu paid 2 million yuan to Li Yaodong four times. However, Li Yaodongs defense attorney pointed out that Qiu Huizu had appealed and that the first-instance judgment was an invalid judgment and could not be used as evidence of conviction in Li Yaodongs case.

Peng Mei news also learned from Qiu Huizus attorney that, because Qiu refused to accept the first-instance judgment, he appealed on the grounds that he did not constitute a personal bribery crime and that the original judgment was too heavy. In the appeal opinion, Qiu Huizu indicated that he never bribed Li Yaodong. After the second trial, the Quanzhou Intermediate Court held that the facts of Qiu Huizus crime of bribery were unclear and the evidence was insufficient. It revoked the original judgment and sent it back to Nanan Court for retrial on December 29, 2017, and has not yet been pronounced. In the second instance of Li Yaodongs case on October 25, whether Qiu Huizu bribed Li Yaodong was established was one of the focuses of the second instance. Wang Shihua said that the court heard that the Qiu Huizu case was sent back for retrial without affecting the establishment of the charge. Lawyers believe that Qiu Huizu denied bribing Li Yaodong, Li Yaodong also denied accepting Qiu Huizus bribery, and there is no other evidence to prove the bribery, the prosecution can not establish the charge. The trial lasted for one and a half days, and the presiding judge did not pronouncement the sentence in court. The source of this article: surging news editor: Gu Ying _NN6577

Peng Mei news also learned from Qiu Huizus attorney that, because Qiu refused to accept the first-instance judgment, he appealed on the grounds that he did not constitute a personal bribery crime and that the original judgment was too heavy. In the appeal opinion, Qiu Huizu indicated that he never bribed Li Yaodong. After the second trial, the Quanzhou Intermediate Court held that the facts of Qiu Huizus crime of bribery were unclear and the evidence was insufficient. It revoked the original judgment and sent it back to Nanan Court for retrial on December 29, 2017, and has not yet been pronounced.

In the second instance of Li Yaodongs case on October 25, whether Qiu Huizu bribed Li Yaodong was established was one of the focuses of the second instance.

Wang Shihua said that the court heard that the Qiu Huizu case was sent back for retrial without affecting the establishment of the charge. Lawyers believe that Qiu Huizu denied bribing Li Yaodong, Li Yaodong also denied accepting Qiu Huizus bribery, and there is no other evidence to prove the bribery, the prosecution can not establish the charge.

The trial lasted for one and a half days, and the presiding judge did not pronouncement the sentence in court.