The fourth meeting of the Standing Committee of the 12th People's Congress of Jiangxi Province considered the Proposal on Dismantling zhou wenbin's Qualification as a Representative of the 12th National People's Congress put forward by the meeting of directors of the Standing Committee of the 12th People's Congress of Jiangxi Province, and decided to remove zhou wenbin's qualification as a representative of the 12th National People's Congress, and reported it to the NPC Standing Committee for the record and announcement. Trial of first instance
On the morning of February 9th, 20 14, the case of zhou wenbin's alleged bribery and misappropriation of public funds was heard in the first instance of Nanchang Intermediate People's Court.
On February 9, 20 14, 14, the zhou wenbin case was heard in Nanchang Intermediate People's Court. The prosecution accused him of accepting bribes of more than 20 million yuan and misappropriating public funds of more than 58 million yuan. Zhou wenbin almost completely denied it, summing up himself, "This is the biggest economic unjust, false and wrong case in the history of Jiangxi Province."
Zhou wenbin only admitted accepting 654.38 million Hong Kong dollars and a watch, saying that most of the more than 20 million bribes accused by the procuratorate did not exist, and the money sent by the secondary institutions of the school belonged to the bonuses and benefits issued by the relevant departments of the school, which did not constitute bribery.
According to the prosecution's accusation, during his tenure as deputy secretary of the Party Committee of Nanchang University, deputy secretary of the Party Committee and dean of East China Institute of Geology (later renamed East China Institute of Technology), zhou wenbin took advantage of his position to seek benefits for others, and illegally accepted RMB22,665,438+RMB8,000, HKD300,000, USD65,438+RMB9,000, gift cards of RMB24,000 and others.
In addition, the procuratorate also accused that from April 2003 to July 2004, zhou wenbin personally decided to misappropriate 58.75 million yuan of public funds from Nanchang University for others to engage in profit-making activities. The case will be pronounced on another day.
Personal confession
On 20 14, 12 and 17, the prosecutor read out the repentance written by zhou wenbin on 20 14 and 18. The book says that he has a special feeling with Nanchang University, and he even regards it as his own' private field, private garden and independent kingdom', and he himself is the monarch here.
Zhou wenbin complained in his repentance book that his salary was too low.
Zhou wenbin said, "I always feel that my contribution is great, my salary is low, and my heart is very unbalanced. Therefore, when others pay tribute to me, I feel that it is a kind of compensation for my low income. I feel at ease and have no guilt and guilt. "
Trial progress
20 14, 14 On February 30th, the zhou wenbin case entered the eighth day of trial. On the same day, the prosecution produced my own confession, the testimony of several witnesses and documentary evidence, alleging that from 2003 to 20 1 1, it received 3.8 million yuan from Gong, the project leader of Nanchang Hongyu Construction Group, seven times. The prosecution and the defense fought fiercely around this accusation.
Most of them were invested by Shen and Qin.
On the morning of the same day, the relevant confession and testimony presented by the prosecution pointed out that Gong He met at the groundbreaking ceremony of the first teaching building in Qianhu Campus of Nanchang University. At that time, Nanchang First Construction Company, the predecessor of Nanchang Hongyu Construction Group, built the first teaching building of Qianhu Campus of Changda University. At that time, Gong was the project manager of the company. Since then, Gong Wei has settled the project payment as soon as possible, and won more construction projects in Changda. From 2003 to 20 1 1, he paid bribes for seven times, totaling RMB 3.8 million. In his confession, he mentioned that most of these bribes were given to Shen and Qin for investment, and the rest were given to their families for daily expenses.
Bribery has been hidden in fruit boxes many times.
Among them, Gong had dinner with him five times in the restaurant. After each meal, Gong bought several boxes of fruit, one of which was not fruit but cash, one box was 6,543.8+0,000 yuan, and the other four boxes were 500,000 yuan, the face value of each box was/kloc-0,000 yuan, and each box was tied into a bundle. In order to ensure that he can receive these bribes, Gong will specifically explain that a box of fruit is particularly fresh and delicious every time he "sends fruit" and tell himself to keep it. "So, I think he (referring to zhou wenbin) should understand what I mean and know that the fruit box is filled with cash." Gong said in his testimony.
One noon in 2007, Gong came to the new office of Qianhu Campus and gave a box in the name of room decorations. In fact, the box contains 500 thousand yuan in cash. In addition, one night after school started in the second half of 2009, Gong gave a bag to a restaurant in Hongjiaozhou after eating. In his confession, he mentioned that the bag sent by Jiang was deep and heavy. He later opened it and found that it contained 500 thousand yuan in cash.
The postgraduate apartment construction project has not been invited for bidding.
Six shareholders, including Gong Mou and Jiang Mou, later participated in the construction of Nanchang University Life Science Building, three graduate apartments (BT project) and the East Gate Project of Qianhu Campus in the name of Nanchang Hongyu Construction Group. The testimonies of Gong and Jiang both show that Gong is mainly responsible for promoting the settlement and outreach of project funds in the construction management of these projects, while Jiang is mainly responsible for project construction. Bribery was agreed by both of them, and the bribes were given by Gong respectively. Bribery is mainly paid from the project funds in the name of migrant workers' wages and materials costs.
Gong and Jiang said that under their "care", even when Nantah was short of funds, the project funds they undertook were paid in full and on time. Without zhou wenbin's help, they could not have successfully obtained the Life Science Building, three graduate apartments (BT project) and the project of the East Gate of Qianhu Campus. Among them, three graduate apartment construction projects were directly shortlisted without bidding.
Reasons for accepting bribes in the certificate of the person in charge of Changda Infrastructure
In addition, the prosecution also presented the testimony of six people, including Li, the financial officer in charge of infrastructure projects of Nanchang University, Zhou, director of infrastructure department of Changda University, Dong, chief accountant of Changda University, and Xia, director of audit department of Changda University, confirming that during his tenure, he often convened meetings of relevant responsible persons of Nanchang University, and even when Nanchang University was short of funds, he would ask them to report to Hongyu Group, Shantou Jian 'an, Luying Company and Hong Kong.
Zhou wenbin questioned this evidence with probability theory.
In the trial of 20 14120, zhou wenbin pointed out that according to the confessions of the briber and the briber, the bribe was paid in May, but it was later found that there was no source of the bribe in May, and the transcripts of both parties were changed to about 10. According to the error theory, two people were interrogated separately, and the error rate changed dramatically at the same time. zhou wenbin concluded that "if there is no illegal evidence collection, it takes more than 20,000 transcripts to make two consistent mistakes at the same time" —— zhou wenbin: The case handlers colluded with each other.
At the court hearing on June 20, 65438, zhou wenbin said that both the briber and the bribee confessed that the bribe took place in May, but it was later found that the bribe money in May had no source, and the transcripts of both sides were changed to June 10 or so. According to the error theory, the absolute error of 10 from May to June is 5 months, and the relative error is 50%. The second error is from 1 to 10, the absolute error is 10 days, and the relative error is 2.8%. Two people are interrogated separately, and the error rate changes at the same time. Zhou wenbin said, "It can only be said that the investigators colluded with each other.".
He calculated further in court, and both the briber and the briber admitted that it happened in May, but it was later found that they were all wrong. The probability is1140. When it is found that there is no withdrawal record in May, both parties change it to 10 month at the same time, and the probability is 1/20700. Conclusion: If there is no illegal evidence collection, it takes more than 20,000 transcripts to make two consistent mistakes at the same time.
Zhou wenbin also quoted Marx's viewpoint to express his cross-examination opinion: "Any science can only be considered perfect after successfully applying mathematics". His defense lawyer said that Zhou carefully demonstrated the "absurdity" of the accused evidence by using probability theory, mathematical statistics, permutation and combination and error theory. (According to Southern Network)
Witness's testimony
2065438+On February 9, 2005, the case of zhou wenbin, former president of Nanchang University, continued to be heard in the Intermediate People's Court of Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province. Hu Biaobin, a representative of Nanchang Municipal People's Congress, testified in court and presented evidence, saying that he had never paid bribes to zhou wenbin. He also produced a bank transfer bill to refute the prosecution's allegations. Zhou wenbin, who was accused of accepting bribes and misappropriating public funds, said in court that his case was the biggest unjust, false and wrong case in Jiangxi Province, and revealed that the investigation was the revenge of Su Rong, former vice chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, when he took office as secretary of the Jiangxi Provincial Party Committee. On February 9, 20 15, the trial began, and the presiding judge announced that the case had entered the stage of witnesses appearing in court to testify. Hu Biaobin, a representative of Nanchang Municipal People's Congress who was released on bail pending trial, testified in court.
Take off your prison uniform in court
20 14 12 9. the case of zhou wenbin, former president of Nanchang university, accepting bribes and misappropriating public funds was heard in the first court of Nanchang people's court. 20 15 65438+ 10/0/2, zhou wenbin continued to be tried in Nanchang Intermediate People's Court.
At the trial site, zhou wenbin pointed out that some provincial and ministerial officials and celebrities did not wear yellow vests when they appeared in court, and he also demanded equal treatment. After being rejected by the presiding judge, he took off his yellow vest himself.
Yesterday, zhou wenbin's attorney Zhu Mingyong told the Beijing Youth Daily reporter about this matter. In his view, the stipulation in the Fourth Five-Year Plan that the accused in criminal detention is forbidden to wear prison clothes for trial is a respect for judicial spirit and human rights.
Beiqing Daily: What was the situation at the trial site? Why did zhou wenbin take off his yellow vest?
Zhu Mingyong (Lawyer zhou wenbin): At that time, zhou wenbin's elder sister and younger sister went to the first row of the public gallery and asked the presiding judge to allow zhou wenbin to take off his orange vest (prison uniform). Zhou wenbin himself expressed the possibility of not wearing a yellow vest. The presiding judge's response at that time was: "Our hospital noticed that in some trials in Shenzhen, Henan, Beijing and other places in the past two years, the defendants were stopped from shaving their heads and wearing prison uniforms, but we did not receive formal notice." Therefore, zhou wenbin's suggestion was not adopted. Since then, zhou wenbin said: "Since there is no document saying that you can appear in court without wearing a yellow vest, is there any document saying that you must wear it?" He took off his prison uniform.
Beiqing Daily: Did the court staff stop it?
Zhu Mingyong: No, the court didn't stop it. From that day on, zhou wenbin no longer wore a yellow vest when he appeared in court, and the presiding judge no longer required to wear a formal dress.
Beiqing Daily: In your opinion, what is the significance of banning the wearing of prison uniforms for trial today?
Zhu Mingyong: Generally speaking, this is a manifestation of judicial progress. The yellow vest is the uniform of the detainees in the detention center. It has been "symbolized" for a long time and seems to imply that this person is a criminal. Even in the minds of the parties, subtle psychological hints will be produced. When he exercises his legitimate rights and interests, he will be subject to intangible restrictions, such as not saying anything in court. Under the background of ruling the country according to law, advanced judicial concepts such as no doubt and presumption of innocence have been put forward one after another. Not wearing prison clothes can be said to be a manifestation of the presumption of innocence system in the trial process. Zhang Zhonghou, deputy to the National People's Congress and president of Jiangxi Higher People's Court, said in an interview that the court will fully protect zhou wenbin's litigation rights in accordance with legal procedures.
The first trial of zhou wenbin case lasted for 23 days, which was the longest in the history of Jiangxi courts. Zhou wenbin defended himself in court for two and a half days, which was probably the longest time for the defendant to defend himself. The court will follow legal procedures and fully protect zhou wenbin's litigation rights. At the trial site of 20 1 5 1 1 October11,Hu Biaobin retracted his confession again and overturned the confession made in the last trial, claiming that he had given zhou wenbin110,000 yuan.
Judging from the whole case, there are three opinions about whether Hu Biaobin paid bribes to zhou wenbin and how to pay bribes.
The first version was during the trial of Yingtan City Procuratorate. Hu told the prosecutor that he asked the cashier to withdraw 6,543,800 yuan in cash and then handed it over.
The second version appeared in the trial on February 9 this year. Hu denied accepting bribes on the spot, saying that the previous confession was formed under the torture of the procuratorate.
The third version is the trial site of 165438+ 101. Nonsense, he gave 1 10,000 yuan, which is the cash in his tin cabinet. 2065 438+05 2065 438+05 The Intermediate People's Court of Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province made a first-instance judgment on zhou wenbin, the former president of Nanchang University, and sentenced him to life imprisonment for several crimes, deprived of his political rights for life, and confiscated all his personal property.
The court held that zhou wenbin, as a national staff member, used his position to seek benefits for others and illegally accepted other people's property, which was extremely huge and constituted the crime of accepting bribes; Taking advantage of his position, misappropriating public funds for others to engage in profit-making activities, if the circumstances are serious, constitutes the crime of misappropriating public funds, and does not have the circumstances of truthfully confessing, sincerely repenting and actively returning stolen money and goods as stipulated in the criminal law.
Accordingly, zhou wenbin was sentenced to life imprisonment for accepting bribes, deprived of his political rights for life, and confiscated all his personal property. He was convicted of misappropriating public funds and sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of 12 years. He decided to execute life imprisonment, deprive him of his political rights for life, and confiscate all his personal property; The seized illicit money and stolen goods of RMB 6,543,807,000 and HK$ 6,543,800 were confiscated and turned over to the state treasury.