Cases and analysis of criminal procedure law

Case 1 Defendant Wang Ming, manager of state-owned Hongyuan Co., Ltd. 1998, and the city procuratorate received a letter of accusation to expose the fact that the company evaded taxes 1 10,000 yuan. After investigation, the procuratorial organ believes that the company does have tax evasion and should be investigated for criminal responsibility according to law, so it is reported to the attorney general for approval to file a case for investigation. On July 2, 1998, the procuratorate approved the arrest of Wang Ming and sent investigators from the procuratorate to arrest him. On July 8, the lawyer hired by the suspect Wang Ming applied to the procuratorate for bail pending trial, and the procuratorate proposed to pay a deposit of 50,000 yuan and provide a guarantor. On July 9, the lawyer paid a deposit of 50,000 yuan to the procuratorate and provided a guarantor. Wang Ming was released on bail pending trial. After investigation, from 1996 to l998, the company evaded taxes of 500,000 yuan, and the procuratorate frozen the company's account and paid taxes of 500,000 yuan. The case was prosecuted in the District People's Court on 1 August 19991day. After trial, the court found that the company's behavior constituted a crime of tax evasion, and sentenced the defendant Wang Ming to three years' imprisonment with suspended sentence. He was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment for educating N Net, and the company fined 2 million yuan. The procuratorate believes that the court of first instance sentenced the defendant Wang Ming too lightly, and directly submitted a protest to the court of second instance. After the protest expires, the fine imposed on the company will be handed over to the court of first instance for execution. The court of second instance, without hearing the case, held that the court of first instance found the facts correct, but the sentence was too light, ruled to revoke the original judgment and sentenced the defendant Wang Ming to 7 years' imprisonment. Now ask questions: (Question 3 of Test Paper 4 in 2002, 10)

1. What are the illegal procedures of the people's procuratorate in this case?

Answer that the procuratorate's procedure is illegal:

(1) The investigation of tax-related cases of state-owned Hongyuan Co., Ltd. by procuratorial organs violated relevant regulations. Article 1 of the Regulations on Organs stipulates that tax-related cases shall be under the jurisdiction of the public security organs, and the public security organs shall file a case for investigation, and the people's procuratorate shall no longer accept them. Therefore, the practice of the procuratorate is wrong.

(2) It is illegal for the procuratorate to send prosecutors to directly arrest criminal suspects. Article 59 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that the arrest of a criminal suspect or defendant must be approved by a people's procuratorate or decided by a people's court and executed by a public security organ. Therefore, it is illegal for the procuratorate to send prosecutors to directly arrest criminal suspects. In addition, if the people's procuratorate needs to arrest a criminal suspect in investigating a case, the people's procuratorate should decide to arrest rather than approve the arrest.

(3) The procuratorate's requirement to provide a deposit of 50,000 yuan and a guarantor at the same time violates the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law. Article 53 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that when people's courts, people's procuratorates and public security organs decide to release a criminal suspect or defendant on bail pending trial, they shall order the criminal suspect or defendant to provide a guarantor or pay a deposit. Article 2 1 of the regulations on six organs clearly stipulates that it is not allowed to provide a guarantor and pay a deposit at the same time. In the title, the procuratorate demanded to provide 50 thousand yuan deposit and guarantor at the same time, which violated the above provisions.

(4) The people's procuratorate turned over the frozen deposits to the state treasury before the people's court made an effective judgment, which violated the Criminal Procedure Law and its interpretation.

(5) It is illegal for the procuratorate to lodge a protest directly with the people's court at the next higher level without going through the people's court that originally tried. Article 185 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that local people's procuratorates at all levels lodge a protest against the first-instance judgment or ruling of the people's court at the same level (lodge a protest with the people's court that originally tried, and send a copy of the protest to the people's procuratorate at the next higher level). The people's court that originally tried the case shall transfer the protest together with the case file and evidence to the people's court at the next higher level and send a copy of the protest to the parties. It is illegal for the procuratorate to lodge a protest directly to the people's court at the next higher level without going through the people's court that originally tried the case.

(6) It is wrong for the people's procuratorate to collect the deposit, which should be managed by the executive organ, that is, the public security organ.