Defendant Cao Wenzhuang. He was criminally detained on June 25, 2006 on suspicion of accepting bribes and arrested on February 8 of the same year;
Defender Gao Zicheng, lawyer of Beijing Kangda Law Firm.
Defender Zeng Zhijun, lawyer of Beijing Kangda Law Firm.
The first branch of Beijing Municipal People's Procuratorate accused the defendant Cao Wenzhuang of accepting bribes and neglecting his duty with the indictment No.283 (2006) J.C.Chu.Zi, and filed a public prosecution with our hospital on June 8, 2007. Our court formed a collegial panel according to law and heard the case in public. The First Branch of the Beijing Municipal People's Procuratorate appointed prosecutor Wang Jun and lawyer Fang Jie to appear in court to support the public prosecution. Defendant Cao Wenzhuang and his defenders Gao Zicheng and Zeng Zhijun participated in the lawsuit. The case has now been closed.
The First Branch of the Beijing Municipal People's Procuratorate accused that from June 5438+February 2003 to September 2005, the defendant Cao Wenzhuang took advantage of his position as the director of the Drug Registration Department of the State Food and Drug Administration of the United States to accept the drug approval and approval of the former Jilin Weiwei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (now renamed Weiwei Runsheng Pharmaceutical Jilin Co., Ltd.), Jilin Weiwei Company and Guangzhou Baiyunshan Pharmaceutical Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Guangzhou Baiyunshan Company). Therefore, the trustee received RMB 6,543.8 yuan+RMB 5,000 yuan, US$ 654.38 yuan+RMB 065.438 yuan+RMB 0,000,000 yuan (equivalent to RMB 906.746 million yuan), * * yuan. The specific criminal facts are as follows:
(1) From February 2003 to February 2005, the defendant Cao Wenzhuang took advantage of his position as the director of the National Drug Registration Department and accepted the request of Wei Wei (handled separately) to help Yanduqing Injection produced by Jilin Weiwei Company pass the national review. To this end, Cao Wenzhuang has received US$ 90,000 (equivalent to RMB 744,902) and RMB 165438+ 10,000 from Wei Wei five times.
(2) In September 2005, the defendant Cao Wenzhuang took advantage of his position as the director of the Drug Registration Department of the State Food and Drug Administration of the United States to accept the entrustment of Liu Yuhui, the shareholder of Guangzhou Baiyunshan Company, to help speed up the registration and approval of the "antivirus soft capsules" declared by the company. To this end, Cao Wenzhuang has twice accepted RMB 400,000 and US$ 20,000 from Liu Yuhui (equivalent to RMB 16 18440). Defendant Cao Wenzhuang, while serving as the director of the Drug Registration Department of the State Administration of Pharmaceutical Products (hereinafter referred to as the State Administration of Pharmaceutical Products), issued the Provisions on Regulating the Packaging, Labeling and Instructions of Drugs (Provisional) in the State Administration of Pharmaceutical Products by Order No.23, and in the absence of in-depth investigation and study, asked Zheng Xiaoyu, then director of the State Administration of Pharmaceutical Products (handled separately) in March 20001year, and hastily proposed Executive Order No.23 to unify drug approval. With the consent of Zheng Xiaoyu, the special work of uniformly renewing the drug approval number (hereinafter referred to as the special work) was carried out nationwide with the document of State Drug Administration Note (200 1) 187. Due to poor planning and poor organization in the early stage of the special work, the defendant Cao Wenzhuang instructed the members of the special working group to draft the Notice on Doing a Good Job in the Uniform Renewal of Drug Approval Number on February 5438+0 65438, 2006, and submitted it to Zheng Xiaoyu for approval.
Defendant Cao Wenzhuang neglected his duty, causing great losses to the interests of the country and the people: First, drug supervision was out of control. In 2006, the State Food and Drug Administration of the United States conducted spot checks on pharmaceutical production enterprises in some provinces and cities, and found that a large number of drug approval numbers were obtained by fraud during the unified renewal of drug approval numbers, which have now been cancelled; The second is to increase the risk of people using drugs. In the inventory, it is found that individual drugs with renewal approval numbers have been identified as counterfeit drugs; Third, it has seriously damaged the credibility of state organs and caused a bad social impact. In order to eliminate hidden dangers, the State Food and Drug Administration of the United States decided in September 2006 to thoroughly clean up all the extended drug approval numbers.
The First Branch of the Beijing Municipal People's Procuratorate collected documentary evidence and witness testimony from our hospital accusing Cao Wenzhuang of accepting bribes and dereliction of duty, arguing that the defendant Cao Wenzhuang, as a staff member of a state organ, took advantage of his position to seek benefits for others and illegally accepted other people's property, which was extremely huge and the circumstances were particularly serious; Serious irresponsibility in work and failure to perform duties seriously, resulting in heavy losses to the interests of the state and the people and adverse social impact, especially if the circumstances are serious. His behavior has violated the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 385, the first paragraph of Article 386, the first paragraph and the second paragraph of Article 383, the first paragraph of Article 397 and Article 69 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), and should be regarded as the crime of accepting bribes. Submitted to our hospital for punishment according to law.
Defendant Cao Wenzhuang made the following defense during the trial: 1. The public prosecution accused him of taking bribes, which was inconsistent with the facts. Except for the US$ 30,000 that the public prosecutor accused him of receiving from Wei Wei, he has returned to Wei Wei. During the time involved in other allegations, he never received money from Wei Wei and Liu Yuhui, nor did he take advantage of his position to help pharmaceutical enterprises in Wei Wei and Liu Yuhui. Due to the illegal acts of extorting confessions by torture or inducing confessions by investigators, the guilty confession made in the investigation process is not true, and the accusation of accepting bribes cannot be established. 2. The public prosecution accused him of dereliction of duty, which was inconsistent with the facts. The implementation of Bureau Order No.23 combined with the special work, the Notice on Doing a Good Job in the Uniform Renewal of Drug Approval Number and the Uniform Renewal of the Remaining Varieties of Drug Approval Number were not hastily put forward by him. After careful investigation and study, combined with the actual situation at that time, in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations, and after seeking the consent of relevant leaders, the drug registration department or special working group submitted it. There is no lowering of the auditing standards, and there is no dereliction of duty or dereliction of duty in special work. Accusing him of dereliction of duty cannot be established.
Defender Cao Wenzhuang put forward the following defense opinions on the fact that the public prosecution agency accused Cao Wenzhuang of accepting bribes: 1. There is insufficient evidence for the public prosecution to accuse Cao Wenzhuang of accepting bribes. The testimony of witnesses Liu Yuhui and Wei Wei is contradictory in key details. The testimony of witnesses and Cao Wenzhuang's confession in the investigation organ cannot be mutually confirmed. There are contradictions in multiple testimonies of the same witness, and the evidence is doubtful. 2. During the trial, Cao Wenzhuang pointed out that his guilty confession made during the investigation was caused by the investigators extorting a confession from him by torture, so the authenticity and legality of Cao Wenzhuang's confession were in doubt and could not be used as evidence; 3. Accusing Cao Wenzhuang of taking advantage of his position to declare the evaluation of Yanduqing injection for Weiwei's pharmaceutical companies, and speeding up the examination and approval of antiviral soft capsules for Liu Yuhui's pharmaceutical companies, with insufficient evidence to seek benefits; 4. It can be confirmed from the records of Cao Wenzhuang's partial rejection of gifts and articles that it is unreasonable to accuse Cao Wenzhuang of accepting bribes from Wei Yan and Liu Yuhui. There is no legal basis for accusing Cao Wenzhuang of taking bribes. Defenders put forward the following defense opinions on the fact that the public prosecution agency accused Cao Wenzhuang of dereliction of duty: 1. The introduction of the drug regulatory reform measures involved in the case was decided according to the historical background that the State Pharmaceutical Products Supervision Administration was faced with the confusion of drug number management, and Cao Wenzhuang should not be held responsible for dereliction of duty; 2. Cao Wenzhuang obeyed the arrangement of the bureau leaders, discussed and decided by the Drug Registration Office, and after the approval of the bureau leaders, he formed the Notice on Doing a Good Job in the Uniform Renewal of Drug Approval Numbers, instructing the Provincial Food and Drug Administration to conduct a review in accordance with national standards, which is in line with the working principles of the National US Food and Drug Administration relying on the Provincial Food and Drug Administration. Cao Wenzhuang correctly performs his duties and should not bear the responsibility of dereliction of duty; 3. Dealing with the remaining problems is based on the historical reasons of drug supervision. On the basis of multi-party investigation, the Drug Registration Department discussed and put forward a request report. With the approval of the bureau leaders, it decided to treat the remaining varieties differently, and did not put forward good manufacturing practice (GMP) as the only standard; 4. Some relevant personnel of the provincial food and drug administration perform their duties incorrectly and resort to deceit, and there is no causal relationship with Cao Wenzhuang, which does not constitute the crime of dereliction of duty. The defender also put forward Cao Wenzhuang's defense opinion that he exposed others suspected of committing crimes and made great contributions.
Defendant Cao Wenzhuang's defender provided the court with some information about Cao Wenzhuang's real estate and his wife Wang Yingwei's income from June 5438, 2006 to July 2006, in order to prove that Cao Wenzhuang's real estate purchased during this case was not purchased with the money obtained from bribery; The record submitted by the defender to the court that Cao Wenzhuang refused to accept other people's gifts and articles was intended to prove that Cao Wenzhuang refused a large amount of bribes and money from pharmaceutical companies in his daily work.