Wuhan Day and Night (defendant Wuhan Day and Night in the original trial) Xu was one of the days and nights actually controlled by Zhongrong Minxin Capital Management Co., Ltd. before the case; He was criminally detained on 20 18 10 15 on suspicion of illegally absorbing public deposits. He was detained in criminal detention on the same day and arrested the next day; He is currently being held in Chaoyang District Detention Center in Beijing.
Among them, Wuhan Day and Night Defendant Xu started to join Zhongrong Minxin Company in 20 16. After the end of 20 16, 12 yuan participated in the overall operation and management of the company day and night as the actual person in charge, and illegally absorbed and raised more than 200,000 yuan in Wuhan Capital day and night. Later, the defendant Xu was chased and brought to justice by the public security organs day and night in Wuhan. After the incident, the public security organs sealed up, frozen and detained some assets for the record. After the incident and during the trial in our court, the defendant Xu Riye paid the filing fee of 9.26 million yuan in Wuhan, and the co-defendant paid the filing fee of 65,438 yuan +0.4055438 yuan +0.08 million yuan.
Judgment: 1. Xu Riye, the defendant in Wuhan, was convicted of illegally absorbing public deposits, sentenced to seven years and nine months in prison and fined RMB350,000. Two. Defendant Wuhan ordered Xu to pay back compensation day and night and raised funds to participate in Wuhan's economic losses day and night. 3. Freeze the change price of 3 1 computer, 1 16 servers deposited in the account of China Construction Bank Chain Home Talent Human Resources Service Beijing Co., Ltd., and apply for reimbursement of 233 15 108 yuan to participate in Wuhan's economic losses day and night. Four. Seal up some properties of Han in yongji city East Building (Times Square) and West Building, and deal with them according to law.
Wuhan Day and Night (defendant Wuhan Day and Night in the original trial) Zhang was the president of Zhongrong Minxin Capital Management Co., Ltd. before the incident; Suspected of illegally absorbing public deposits, he was detained in criminal detention 17 yuan, Jurassic World 3, coronavirus pneumonia-19, and was detained in criminal detention on the same day. He was arrested in Yuan on 23rd of the same year. He is now being held in Chaoyang District Detention Center in Beijing.
In the * * * accomplice crime, the defendant Zhang Riye played a major role in Wuhan and was the principal offender; Defendant Zhang served as the president of Zhongrong Minxin Company day and night in Wuhan, responsible for the daily operation and management of Zhongrong Minxin Company, and participated in the illegal absorption of funds totaling RMB 654.38+0 billion; In Wuhan day and night, the defendant Zhang refunded RMB 1 1 ten thousand yuan.
Judgment: 1. The defendant, Wuhan Zhangye, was convicted of illegally absorbing public deposits, sentenced to four years and nine months in prison and fined 200,000 yuan.
Wuhan Riye (defendant Wuhan Riye in the original trial) Liu, who was the manager of the risk management center of Zhongrong Minxin Capital Management Co., Ltd. before the incident, was detained by-19 3 Building 16 yuan. He was detained in criminal detention that day, and 23 yuan was arrested in the same year. He is now being held in Chaoyang District Detention Center in Beijing.
Zuowei Liu, defendant of Wuhan Day and Night, manager of risk management center of Zhongrong Minxin Company, was responsible for reviewing the information borrowed from Wuhan by Zhongrong Minxin Company day and night, and participated in the illegal absorption of funds amounting to RMB 500 million;
Judgment: 2. Defendant Liu, a native of Wuhan, was convicted of illegally absorbing public deposits, sentenced to three years and five months in prison and fined RMB 150,000.
Wuhan Day and Night (the defendant in the original trial, Wuhan Day and Night) was the deputy general manager of the operation management center of Zhongrong Minxin Capital Management Co., Ltd. before the incident; Suspected of illegally absorbing public deposits, he was detained in 20 yuan, No.3 Jurassic World, with coronavirus pneumonia-19, and was detained on the same day. He was arrested in Yuan on 23rd of the same year. He is now being held in Chaoyang District Detention Center in Beijing.
Defendant Geng stayed in Wuhan all night and worked in the sales service department and the comprehensive operation department successively.
Ma, the defendant in the original trial, was the manager of human resources department of Minxin Jinkong Capital Management Group Co., Ltd. before the incident; Suspected of illegally absorbing public deposits, he was detained in criminal detention 17 yuan, Jurassic World 3, coronavirus pneumonia-19, and was detained in criminal detention on the same day. He was arrested on 23rd and released on bail on 27th. Hurry up&; Fury 9 in the same year. Ghostbusters 3 was placed under surveillance on February 20 10 17 17.
Defendant Ma, as the human resources center of Zhongrong Minxin Company, sat in Wuhan day and night, in charge of the company's human resources management, and participated in the illegal absorption of funds totaling RMB 1 100 million. Defendant Ma returned RMB 30 yuan only.
Judgment: 5. Defendant Ma was convicted of illegally absorbing public deposits, sentenced to three years in prison, suspended for three years, and fined RMB 150,000.
Defendant Ma Moumou successively served as the manager of the wealth management department and the person in charge of the asset side, responsible for the assessment of the company's business manager, and participated in the illegal absorption of funds of RMB 1 100 million. Defendant Ma Moumou refunded RMB 10000 Yuan in RMB 20 yuan, and filed a case.
Judgment: 4. Defendant Ma Moumou was convicted of illegally absorbing public deposits, sentenced to three years in prison and fined RMB 150,000.
First, the reason for calling Wuhan day and night is:
1 yuan. He is not the actual controller of Wuhan Day and Night Company, but a nominal director, who is only responsible for the company's rectification business, does not involve other internal business of the company, and does not control the whereabouts of funds; Champions League. The period and amount of the crime determined in the original judgment were wrong; Jurassic world 3. He has no salary and other profits in Zhongrong Minxin Company; 4。 The original sentence is too heavy.
Defender Xu's defense opinion is: 1 yuan. The first trial wrongly identified Xu's subjective position and role, and Xu was not the principal offender; Champions League. The original judgment found that the amount of Xu's crime was 20 billion yuan, lacking legal evidence; Jurassic World 3 Xu has little subjective malice. After arriving at the case, he confessed truthfully, was keen on charity, made outstanding contributions to the society and had a great influence, and actively returned the compensation. His day and night in Wuhan won the understanding of many investors, and the original sentence was too heavy.
The basis of the judgment of the Third Intermediate People's Court: all rejected.
After investigation, the reasons and defense opinions about Xu's position and role put forward by Xu and his defenders in Wuhan day and night are mutually confirmed with the testimony of witnesses Fu, Zhai and Wang, which proves that Xu has been the highest decision-making authority of Zhongrong Minxin Company in Wuhan day and night since 20 16 12, and is responsible for and participates in the overall management and financial examination and approval of the company. Xu plays a major role in the crime of * * * and should not be regarded as an accessory, so Xu and it.
The relevant appeal reasons and defense opinions put forward by the defender have no factual and legal basis, and this court will not adopt them;
As for the appellant Xu and his defender's appeal reasons and defense opinions about the amount of crime, after investigation, Xu, as the actual controller of the company, should be responsible for illegally absorbing the amount of funds of Zhongrong Minxin Company during his tenure. The original judgment is based on audit reports and other archived evidence, which has sufficient legal basis. Therefore, the relevant appeal reasons and defense opinions put forward by Xu and his defenders are not accepted by our court.
After investigation, the appellant Xu and his defender's appeal reasons and defense opinions that the sentence in the original trial was too heavy were fully considered. If they actively returned compensation and truthfully confessed some criminal facts, there was nothing wrong with sentencing within the statutory scope. Therefore, the reasons for Xu and his defenders' appeal lack factual and legal basis, and our court will not accept them.
To sum up, the judgment made by the court of first instance according to the facts of the crime, the nature and circumstances of the crime and the degree of harm to society is clear, the evidence is true and sufficient, the conviction and applicable law are correct, the sentencing is appropriate, and the trial procedure is legal, which should be maintained. Accordingly, in accordance with the provisions of Item (1) of Paragraph 1 of Article 236 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), our court ruled that Xu's appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.
Two, the appellant Zhang's appeal reason is:
1. He is the nominal president, and no employees report to him, only responsible for the newly developed business of the company, not the original business of the company; 2. The company neither knows nor participates in the way of absorbing funds; 3. He is not the principal offender; 4. It has returned all its illegal gains. To sum up, it is considered that the facts of the original judgment are unclear, the evidence is insufficient and the sentence is too heavy.
The defense opinion of appellant Zhang's defender Gan Yulai is: 1. Zhang is the nominal president, not in charge of related businesses suspected of illegally absorbing public deposits, and has always emphasized compliance management in the company. The original judgment found that Zhang constituted the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits, with unclear facts and insufficient evidence; 2. The original judgment found that there was insufficient evidence that Zhang was involved in illegally absorbing funds of more than 654.38 billion yuan; 3. Zhang did not play a major role, and the first-instance judgment found that he constituted the principal offender, and the applicable law was wrong; 4. Zhang has lenient circumstances such as actively returning stolen goods, surrendering, pleading guilty and repenting, and playing a secondary role. The sentence in the original trial was too heavy, and it was requested to reduce the punishment for Zhang.
Opinions of the Third Intermediate People's Court:
1. On the determination of whether the appellant Zhang constitutes the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits and its position and role in the company.
Upon investigation, the witness testimony and accomplice confession in this case can be mutually verified, which proves that Zhang was the president of Zhongrong Minxin Company from March 20 17 to February 20 18, responsible for the overall operation and management of the company, presided over the company's regular meeting and listened to reports from various departments. Knowing the business content and operation mode of Zhongrong Minxin Company, Zhang actively participated in and obtained high illegal income, which met the constitutive requirements of the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits. Judging from Zhang's position in the company and his role in joint crime, Zhang should not be regarded as an accomplice. Therefore, the relevant appeal reasons put forward by Zhang and his defenders lack factual and legal basis, and this court will not accept them.
2. On the determination of the amount of the appellant's crime.
After investigation, Zhang, as the president of the company and the manager of the risk management center of Zuowei Liu Company, was responsible for the amount of funds illegally absorbed by Zhongrong Minxin Company during his tenure. The original judgment is based on audit reports and other archived evidence, which has sufficient legal basis. Therefore, the relevant appeal reasons and defense opinions put forward by the defenders of Appellants Liu and Zhang are not sufficient, and our court will not adopt them.
Three, the appellant Liu's appeal reason is:
It should only be responsible for the funds raised by the financing projects approved by it. The original judgment found that the amount of the crime was wrong and the sentence was too heavy.
The Third Intermediate People's Court ruled that after investigation, Zhang, as the president of the company and the manager of the risk management center of Zuowei Liu Company, should be responsible for the amount of funds illegally absorbed by Zhongrong Minxin Company during his tenure. The original judgment is based on audit reports and other archived evidence, which has sufficient legal basis. Therefore, the relevant appeal reasons and defense opinions put forward by the defenders of Appellants Liu and Zhang are not sufficient, and our court will not adopt them.
Four, the appellant Geng's appeal reason is:
He was not in charge of the company's customer service department, and the sentence in the original trial was too heavy.
Jia Yongzhen, the defender of the appellant Geng, put forward the following defense opinions: 1. Geng is not a core member of Zhongrong Minxin Company, and * * * plays a secondary role in the same case; 2. Geng constitutes surrender; 3. Geng pleaded guilty to the punishment and has overpaid his illegal income. As a first-time offender, he was not subjective and vicious, and the sentence in the original trial was too heavy.
Opinions of the Third Intermediate People's Court:
Determination of Appellant Geng's position in the company
After investigation, the testimony of witnesses Zhai Mou, Meng Mou and Wang Mou and the confession of the accomplice confirmed each other, proving that the customer service department belongs to the branch of the operation management center. As the deputy manager of the operation management center, Geng is responsible for the company's customer service work, including grading the salary of the customer service staff and leading the customer service staff to answer customers' questions about the company's products, business content and capital scale. And the customer service staff reported directly to Geng, so the appellant Geng raised relevant questions.
About the sentencing in this case
After investigation, the original judgment was made according to the appellant's criminal facts and their respective sentencing circumstances, such as returning stolen goods, surrendering themselves and being an accomplice. There is nothing wrong with the punishment within the statutory scope. Therefore, the appeal reasons and defense opinions put forward by the appellant and the defender in this case are not accepted by our court.
The ruling is as follows: the appeals of Zhang, Liu and Geng are rejected and the original judgment is upheld. This is the final verdict.
Judge Bird, Judge Liu Ze and Judge Wang Haiguang.
March 4(th), 2002
The judge assisted.
Bookkeeper ding
The Court of Appeal directly assessed the appellant's appeal by finding out the facts. The appeal judge of this case made a targeted evaluation on the following four questions, which is also helpful for us to understand how Beijing No.3 Intermediate People's Court responded to the focus of the smoking ban case. If there is doubt, there must be a clear answer, which is also the orientation of judgment interpretation and reasoning at present. The four key questions in this case have been answered, which also provides guidance for the establishment of the identity of the principal offender, the determination of the amount of crime, the confirmation of the position and sentencing.
1. Determination of whether Appellants Xu and Zhang constituted the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits and their position and role in the company.
2. On the determination of the amount of the appellant's crime.
3. Identification of the appellant Geng's employment in the company.
4. Judgment on this case.
Related question and answer: 202 1 Any news about Zhongrong Minxin? Zhongrong Minxin was blocked on the afternoon of May 7, 20 18, and the Beijing Economic Investigation Department has been involved in the case. When the Beijing headquarters was investigated, the Shanghai company was also investigated, but at present, except for two leaders, everyone else has been released. However, there is no definite news yet, so we should pay close attention to it in the future.