Lawyer Xiao L is worrying about the return of stolen goods in a telecommunications network fraud case.
The nature of this case is not in dispute. The client himself confessed to the crime, and his family members were reasonable. They are willing to face the fact that their loved ones did commit crimes.
In the context of the comprehensive rollout of the leniency system for confessions, the importance of returning stolen money and stolen goods as soon as possible is self-evident.
But in the matter of returning stolen goods, unexpected changes occurred.
Several young men who committed crimes were distant relatives. At the beginning of the crime, the adults in the family said it was no big deal to return the stolen goods. In any case, several families have to settle the accounts first, and then settle the accounts in detail after solving the case.
However, when it came time to retreat, differences emerged. * * *For the same crime, it is difficult to break down the amount of the crime to an individual. All in all, in one sentence, there is no discussion.
When his family encounters difficulties, Xiao L is at a loss.
At this moment, Xiao L received a call from the Procuratorate. The prosecutor hoped that the case would lead to a plea and punishment process. Xiao L took the opportunity to reflect to the prosecutor the difficulties his family encountered in coordinating the return of stolen money and property. The prosecutor immediately stated that the hospital was considering organizing a meeting for the defender and family members at an appropriate time, and the issue of the return of stolen goods would be coordinated at that time. If coordination fails, the amount of stolen goods will be divided directly according to their respective status and roles, and sentencing recommendations will be considered based on the final situation of the stolen goods.
Hearing this, Xiao L and his family breathed a sigh of relief.
Scene 2:
Old M is a middle-aged man who is very arrogant. Because of my son Xiao M’s telecom fraud case, I met lawyer Xiao L.
When something happens to his son, the father will inevitably get anxious and angry and cannot sleep at night. One year younger, although old M still walks briskly, the silver strands on his temples have quietly climbed up a bit.
"Lawyer L, thank you very much for your concern for Xiao M, but I will not refund the money. Let's not talk about it for now. I just don't understand this account now. My son is the team leader, They had to retire based on the performance of the entire group. But the salespeople in the group also resigned based on their performance. They resigned once, and my son resigned once. Wasn’t that the case that the company’s top management had bosses and department heads? How much will they pay back in the end? The company's performance is only one million, so if you withdraw, you have to refund three to four million? I don't understand this account, and I won't refund it." On the eve of the trial and the verdict, Xiao L once again asked for a refund. Regarding the stolen goods, Old M once again gave a decisive answer.
Actually, Lao M is not unwilling to return the stolen goods. Shortly after the trial, he also tried to mobilize the families of those involved in the case, meaning that everyone would work together to collect the stolen goods and then return the stolen goods first.
However, this is an impossible task.
So far, few people involved in the case have returned the stolen goods. Perhaps most of the family members have the same doubts as Old M.
Scenario 3:
Little Z’s situation was very similar to that of Little M, but when he found lawyer Little L, the first-instance verdict had already been made, and they wanted a second trial.
The key information that convinced them that the second trial had a "head start" was that many people in the company who had a higher status than Xiao Z were finally relieved because they returned the stolen goods in all the recognized amounts. Now everyone All went home. Among these slow-starters, there is even a company shareholder who is a senior leader, although he is less involved in management and operations. The leader spent hundreds of thousands of yuan to return the stolen goods, which also gave Xiao Z's family hope.
Little L also asked Little Z’s family inexplicably why the money was not returned in the first instance. The family always avoids this issue, but in fact, Xiao L also knows in his heart that he is still a worry for old M.
Little L carefully studied the judgment of the first instance and made a calculation. Although several people returned the stolen goods in full according to the determined amount, in the end, none of the company owners returned a sufficiently determined amount.
"Experience" is not always valuable. If it cannot be updated in a timely manner, experience will become a burden.
"Judicial experience" obviously cannot effectively answer the questions in Old M's mind, let alone solve the dilemma of returning stolen goods in the cases of Little M and Little Z
Compared with the past "case" Compared with "one person", most of today's economic crimes are gang crimes, or even group crimes and corporate crimes.
Take the case of Little M as an example. Their company is divided into four levels: the boss, the head of the branch, each business group, and ordinary salesmen.
Judging from the determination of the amount of crime and criminal liability, they are successively responsible for the performance of the entire company, the performance of branches, the performance of business groups and the performance of individuals, and there is no dispute.
But does this mean that on the specific issue of returning stolen goods, everyone must also return stolen goods according to the above caliber?
I think it is obviously not the case, and no in-depth theoretical explanation is needed. The old M’s have answered this question with their own practical actions.
First, the amount of criminal liability and the amount of stolen money that should be refunded are not the same thing. The prerequisite for returning the stolen money is to obtain the stolen money. In most corporate economic crimes, the salary of ordinary employees is the basic salary, plus performance bonus at most. This amount is often far from the amount for which they were found criminally responsible. I came out to work hard, accidentally joined a criminal group, and had to pay money in it. I was confused no matter what I thought.
Second, it is difficult to achieve basic logical self-consistency in returning stolen goods according to the amount of criminal liability. Just like the question raised by Old M, according to this withdrawal method, there are several levels of the company, and the total amount of stolen goods returned in the end is several times the crime amount of the entire company. Take Little M's case as an example. The total crime amount in the whole case was only RMB 6,543,800, but according to the wishes of the court and the Procuratorate, RMB 4 million can be refunded. What’s the extra 3 million?
Third, the identification of a simple machine for returning stolen goods has a direct consequence that it cannot be recovered and social relations cannot be repaired. According to our experience, almost all family members of the parties concerned do not refuse to return the stolen goods, even if they have expressed innocence. The Chinese's simple sense of obedience tells them that there is never any harm in retreating. As for cases with less controversial characterizations, incentives to return stolen goods are stronger, as was the case with the families in the three scenarios described. "Don't worry about losses but worry about gains and losses; worry about gains and losses but worry about gains and losses." This is the true mentality of family members. Once the judicial authorities are "troublesome", "confused" and "afraid of taking the blame" in the matter of returning stolen goods, the direct consequence is that the vast majority of family members have lost their willingness to return stolen goods, and the actual amount of stolen goods returned is far from being able to make up for the victim's losses. , naturally cannot repair social relations. Even if a few people grit their teeth and back out, they do so reluctantly and are even suspected of "paying money to buy punishment."