? On June 4, 2022, Jaco received the reconsideration decision of criminal compensation made by baishan city Public Security Bureau 202 1 1. According to the document, baishan city Public Security Bureau thought that the decision made by Jiangyuan Public Security Bureau not to apply for criminal compensation was not in compliance with the regulations, and ordered Jiangyuan Public Security Bureau to continue to examine Jaco's application for state compensation.
? Earlier, it was reported that on 20 16, Jaco was arrested on suspicion of defrauding state fuel subsidies. A safe he left in the office was detained by Jiangyuan police and has not been recovered so far. In June, 20021year, Jaco filed an application for criminal compensation with Jiangyuan Public Security Bureau, demanding that Jiangyuan police return the safe. Jiangyuan police refused to accept it at first, and then rejected Jaco's application for compensation. Baishan police twice ordered Jiangyuan police to continue to examine Jaco's application for compensation.
? After the case was arrested, the safe was seized by the police.
? 20 16 At the end of September, Jaco was arrested on suspicion of defrauding state fuel subsidies. He claimed that a safe in his office was also seized by Jiangyuan police. After being released on bail and returned to the office, he found that the personal safe in the office was missing. Later, he learned that the police handling the case seized the safe on the day he was arrested.
? 2065438+In February 2008, Jaco was detained again. 20191211jiangyuan district court ruled the case and sentenced Jaco to two years and three months in prison for contract fraud. Jaco served his sentence until June 7, 2020. Since then, he once again asked the Jiangyuan District Public Security Bureau for a safe.
? Jaco said that there were some documents and at least 300,000 cash in the safe, but he couldn't provide evidence to prove: Who has nothing to do with taking photos of his safe and recording another video to save it? ? On the other hand, Jaco said that Jiangyuan police had told him that the safe was empty, but the police never issued a seizure procedure to him, and he or his family was not present when the police took the safe away.
? Two applications for compensation were rejected twice, and the superior police ordered it to continue the review twice.
? At the end of June, 20021,Jaco filed an application for criminal compensation with Jiangyuan Public Security Bureau, demanding that Jiangyuan Public Security Bureau return the safe. The decision made by Jiangyuan District Public Security Bureau on July 9 of the same year to reject the application for criminal compensation shows that it has fulfilled the safe return procedure advocated by Jaco according to law. Therefore, Jaco's claim for compensation does not belong to the scope of state compensation, and it is decided not to file a case.
? Jaco refused to accept, and applied to baishan city Public Security Bureau for reconsideration. On September 1 of the same year, baishan city Public Security Bureau made the Decision on Reconsideration of Criminal Compensation for the first time, and ordered Jiangyuan Public Security Bureau to continue to review Jaco's application for compensation on the grounds that the Decision on Rejecting Criminal Compensation made by Jiangyuan Public Security Bureau was not in conformity with the regulations.
? 202 1 10 year129 October, Jiangyuan district public security bureau made a decision on the rejection of criminal compensation application, and decided to reject the application on the grounds that the subject of the state compensation application was unqualified.
? Later, Jaco once again applied to the baishan city Public Security Bureau for reconsideration, demanding the return of the seized safe and its contents. 202 1, 12, 3 1 reconsideration decisions made by baishan city Public Security Bureau show that the decision made by Jiangyuan Public Security Bureau to reject the application for criminal compensation is not in compliance with the regulations, and ordered Jiangyuan Public Security Bureau to continue to review Jaco's application for state compensation.
? Zhang Xiangyu, Jaco's attorney and lawyer, believes that Jiangyuan police should bear the burden of proof on the legality of its seizure, and should provide synchronous audio and video recordings from seizure to opening the safe to restore the seizure process and prove the facts such as the quantity, name and characteristics of the property in the safe involved.
? As of press time, Zhang Guohui, director of Jiangyuan Public Security Bureau, has not responded to this matter.