On September 7, 2002, Fuqing City Procuratorate decided to criminally detain Huang for the crime of privately dividing state-owned assets.
In September 2002, Fuqing City Procuratorate held that Huang's translation fee was a state-owned asset and accused him of corruption and abuse of power. Lin, who helped Huang collect translation fees and translation fees, was prosecuted for the crime of privately dividing state-owned assets and corruption; Sue Fuqing Notary Office for dividing state-owned assets privately.
On September 13, 2002, Fuqing City Procuratorate decided to arrest Huang on suspicion of embezzling state-owned assets and corruption.
In February 2003, Fuqing City Procuratorate sued Huang He Notary Office, and the indictment found that Huang "abused his power, causing heavy losses to public property" and "used his position to embezzle 1783 18 yuan".
In March 2003, Huang was released on bail pending trial. At that time, the Fujian Provincial Department of Justice sent a letter to the Ministry of Justice asking for instructions on the translation of notarized documents. The reply said that the Ministry of Justice sent a joint investigation team composed of China Notary Association and the Attorney Notarization Work Guidance Department of the Ministry of Justice to Fuzhou for investigation.
On May 10, 2003, the investigation team decided that the translation behavior in this case should be defined as a civil contract between the translator and the parties, not a notary office. The notary office does not provide translation services and cannot charge fees, so the translation fees belong to the legitimate income of workers, not the income of the notary office, and do not belong to state-owned assets. Fuqing City Procuratorate's accusation lacks policy and legal basis and evidence support, and cannot be established.
Subsequently, the China Notary Association also replied to the Fujian Provincial Department of Justice, explaining that translation is not the legal duty of the notary office. The notary office does not have the translation ability and cannot provide this service. When translation is needed, it can be handled by the parties and translators according to the civil contract. No matter whether the notary office provides assistance or not, it cannot be regarded as notarization. Translation fee should belong to the translator's labor income, and it can't be defined as state-owned assets. The translation fee of Fuqing Notary Office shall be handled in accordance with the above spirit.
On May 23, 2008, Fujian Notary Association sent a letter to Fuqing City Court, arguing that the legal representative of the notary office did not preside over, decide or authorize others to divide the translation fee, nor did the notary office bear the responsibility of receiving, translating, charging, sending, settling accounts and corresponding faults in the name of a legal person, and the staff of the notary office were only intermediaries in translation activities. The mode of collecting a certain amount of remuneration through the translation work involved in the case does not violate the law.
Since then, the local political and legal system in Fujian has held several meetings to discuss the case, but there is no clear conclusion. The case dragged on for six years.
After being released on bail several times, Huang was arrested again on April 7, 2009. However, because the police did not find Huang at that time, on April 8, 2009, Fuqing City Public Security Bureau pursued Huang online.
20 1 1 Huang was detained after being brought to justice.
After Huang arrived at the case, the court resumed the trial.
On March 29th, 20 12, Fuqing City Court decided to release Huang on bail for six months due to his extended detention. 1 year later, Huang was thrown into prison again before the trial.
20 14 On March 27th, Fuqing City Court decided to arrest Huang;
Huang was arrested on May 29th, 20 14;
14 In June, Fuqing City Court sentenced Huang to fixed-term imprisonment 1 1 year. The court held that the translation was entrusted by the applicant to the notary office, rather than directly entrusted to the translator Huang et al. When the notary office handles foreign-related notarization, the text that needs to be translated is directly handed over to the notary office by the applicant, and then the notary office entrusts Huang to translate. The notary fee represents the notary office, and the notary office and the translator belong to the entrusted relationship and the entrusted relationship.
The court held through trial that 40% of the translation fee belongs to the translator and 60% to the notary office, which is the default agreement between the translator and the notary office. 60% of the expenses are off-balance-sheet property owned by the notary office, and Huang has no right to dispose of them. He privately divided and occupied 60% of the expenses belonging to the notary office, which constituted the crime of corruption.
The Huang case was pronounced in Fuqing City Court on June 6, 2065438 +07. Huang was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment by Fuqing City Court at first instance 1 1 year. The court held that Huang, as a national staff member, took advantage of his position to embezzle public property170,000 yuan with others, and privately divided more than 90,000 yuan of it, which constituted a crime of corruption. The sentence of first instance is 1 1 year. After Huang appealed.
Fuqing Notary Office, also accused of illegally dividing state-owned assets, did not participate in the first-instance judgment. Before Huang's verdict was pronounced in the first instance, Lin, a staff member of the notary office, was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment and suspended for 5 years in 2009.
On June 25th, 20 14, Huang appealed to Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court;
20 14 10 15 Fuzhou intermediate people's court held its second trial. In the court, Huang's defense lawyer believed that at the trial of first instance, the director of the notary office appeared in court to testify, but the court did not explain whether his testimony was credible.
At 201May 18 in the morning 1 1 30, Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court made a second-instance judgment on this case. The court held that Huang's behavior did not constitute a crime of corruption, so the first-instance judgment was revoked and Huang was acquitted in court.