Public security administrative omission case1:On the evening of July 5, 2007, it was kidnapped by a group of local black forces such as Yuan Youbin, You, Wu and so on. After many alarms, the defendant Qingcheng Branch of Jiujiang Public Security Bureau arrived at the scene after receiving the alarm, but failed to stop and rescue, resulting in the plaintiff being illegally detained for four days. During the plaintiff's illegal detention, on the afternoon of July 7, 2007, Yuan Youbin, You, Wu and a group of people fled to * * * Qingcheng Yuguang Garment Factory in an attempt to rob it, and the factory leaders and employees repeatedly called the defendant for protection. After the defendant received the police, six or seven policemen rushed to the scene, but failed to stop and protect them, resulting in the plaintiff's machinery, equipment and other property being looted. On July 10, 2007, the defendant Qingcheng Branch of Jiujiang Public Security Bureau took? Misappropriation of public funds? After the plaintiff was criminally detained on this trumped-up charge, the procuratorate decided not to prosecute.
Therefore, the defendant is required to:
1. Compensation for direct property loss of 4,379,850 yuan (property loss expenses after the clothing factory was robbed; After the plaintiff was injured, some expenses were lost because the defendant did not take compulsory measures for treatment in time. );
2. Compensate the plaintiff's father for medical expenses and disability expenses of 520,000 yuan caused by stimulation after being detained in criminal detention;
Third, bear all the expenses in the process of litigation.
Case of Public Security Administrative Inaction 2: 2011At the beginning of March, Wang, a county in Chifeng City, Inner Mongolia, found a lawyer Tang Fengyuan, saying that 1995, Liu, a girl of the same age as Wang in a foreign village, had no Mongolian identity (extra points for ethnic minority status) and wanted to borrow my account. Wang's mother considered the intimate relationship with the middleman, but she didn't love him. It was returned three days later, and the family didn't pay attention. In June 2007, Wang worked in Shenyang, Liaoning Province. When he returned to China to apply for a second-generation ID card, he found that his household registration had been cancelled, but the identity information of another woman appeared. His ID number and address were the same as Wang's, but the photos were different.
To this end, Wang and his family have repeatedly sought solutions from the local public security department. The local police quickly restored her account and applied for a second-generation ID card. When she went back to Liaoning to apply for a bank card, the bank verified that the photos on the Internet were still the woman's, so the bank refused to apply for a bank card. In recent years, she borrowed her sister's identity information to handle business, which brought great inconvenience to her life, and she was afraid of causing trouble when she went out to stay temporarily. I have also looked for the local public security organs many times. The public security organs let the parties find it themselves on the grounds that the information base of the public security department of the autonomous region is large and there is nothing they can do. The parties themselves contacted the public security department many times and only asked them to wait. In desperation, I want to solve it through legal channels.
Case No.3: At about 3 am on March 3, 2006, the victim Liu Weizhou was robbed by criminals Su, Wu, while passing in front of the Agricultural Bank Savings Office of Boyang Road, Qiaonan, Maiji District, Tianshui City, Gansu Province.
After being stabbed, Liu Weizhou called the police for help. Hu, the individual driver, and Liang, the manager of the beauty center, made three phone calls at 4: 02, 4: 13 and 4: 20 respectively? 1 10? Call the police? 1 10? The duty officer gave up? 120? Call? 120? To whom? 1 10? Call. 4: 24: 20 (79 seconds) beam again? 1 10? After calling the police? 1 10? At 6: 23: 35, the police on duty telephoned the Qiaonan police station to call the police.
At this point, the victim Liu Weizhou died of excessive blood loss. Forensic identification: the victim Liu Weizhou was punctured by others with a sharp instrument, resulting in hemorrhagic shock and death. In March 2007, the People's Court of Maiji District, Tianshui City made a criminal judgment, and found that the Maiji Branch of Tianshui Public Security Bureau? 1 10? Police officers on duty who commit crimes of dereliction of duty are exempted from criminal punishment. After the high appeal, the second instance upheld the original judgment. Tianshui Intermediate People's Court also made a criminal incidental civil judgment, and sentenced the defendants Su, Wu and Liu Weizhou to corresponding death compensation.
However, because the defendant Su has been executed, there is no property for execution; Defendant Wu was supported by his parents before serving his sentence, and there was no property available for execution. Tianshui Intermediate People's Court ended the execution with a civil ruling.
Therefore, in June 2009, five close relatives of the victim Liu Weizhou, Zhang Meihua, Liu Yu, Liu Pei, Liu Zhongyi and Zhang Fengxian, filed an application for administrative compensation with the Mackey Branch of Tianshui Public Security Bureau on the grounds of administrative inaction of the public security organ, and Tianshui Public Security Bureau made a decision not to grant administrative compensation.
Case 4: On July 9, 2004, the plaintiff reported to the defendant that the company operated by the plaintiff had business dealings with Genentech, and because Genentech issued a bad check to it, and the company was transferring and hiding its main assets, the company's responsible person and other employees had absconded or been dismissed, which was suspected of bill fraud, and demanded that the company be investigated for criminal responsibility. On the same day, the defendant accepted the plaintiff's alarm, launched investigation and evidence collection, and took lien measures against relevant personnel. The defendant thought that the existing evidence could not prove that Cai Zuli, the head of Genentech, and others had the subjective intention of bill fraud, so he did not take criminal compulsory measures. On June 4, 2004,165438+1October 4, the plaintiff filed an application for compensation for going abroad with the defendant on the grounds that the defendant did not immediately examine and file the case after receiving the report and did not take any emergency measures. On February 22, 2004, defendant 65438 made a confirmation decision and rejected the defendant's application. It was also found that on March 3, 2005, Kloc-0, the defendant made a Decision on Filing a Case and decided to file a case for investigation on the grounds of contract fraud. However, the defendant did not serve the plaintiff with the decision to file a case. The plaintiff thinks that the defendant's dereliction of duty and improper performance of his duties belong to administrative inaction, which directly caused his economic losses, so he filed a lawsuit on this case.
The original trial held that the focus of the administrative dispute in this case was: 1, whether the defendant carried out the act explicitly authorized by the Criminal Procedure Law; 2, whether the plaintiff sued the defendant for administrative omission; Whether the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for the loss. First of all, according to the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues of Implementation? If a citizen, legal person or other organization refuses to accept the following acts and brings a lawsuit, it does not fall within the scope of administrative litigation of the people's court? :? (2)? Acts explicitly authorized by public security, national security and other organs according to the Criminal Procedure Law? And article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC)? The public security organs are responsible for the investigation, detention, execution of arrest and preliminary examination of criminal cases? In this case, after accepting the plaintiff's criminal report on July 9, 2004, the defendant has started an investigation according to law, taken measures to detain the relevant personnel, and made a decision to file a case on March 3, 2005, and filed an investigation for contract fraud. The defendant's behavior belongs to criminal judicial behavior. Has the law been implemented? Acts explicitly authorized by the Criminal Procedure Law? Therefore, this case does not belong to the scope of administrative litigation of the people's court. Secondly, the defendant has performed his statutory duties according to law, and there is no administrative omission. The decision to inform the defendant but not the plaintiff whether to file a case was delayed in performing his duties. Because "People's Republic of China (PRC) Criminal Procedure Law" and "Provisions on Procedures for Handling Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs" have not set the relevant procedures for the public security organs to inform the accuser and the time limit for taking compulsory measures when investigating criminal acts, the defendant's law enforcement procedure does not violate the law, and the plaintiff's claim lacks legal basis and should not be supported.
Relevant retrieval contents of public security administrative omission cases;
1. On the State Compensation Liability for Illegal Administrative Omission
2. The experience that leading cadres' inaction is chaos.
3. What are the reasons for administrative inaction?
4. Talk about the experience of inaction and chaos.