The second-instance defense of Wu Ying's fund-raising fraud case
Wu Ying was accused of fund-raising fraud.
The first part is the mistake of ascertaining the facts and applying the law in the first-instance judgment.
The main contents of the first-instance judgment include six parts: first, the basic situation of the defendant, the process of accepting the case and the basic views of both the prosecution and the defense; Second, the basic facts and corresponding evidence ascertained through trial; Iii. Specific facts and corresponding evidence of borrowing from 1 1 creditors; The fourth is to judge the evidence of the defender; The fifth is the discussion of three controversial focuses between the prosecution and the defense; Sixth, comprehensive viewpoints and judgment clauses.
In order to highlight the key points and be concise, only the fourth and fifth parts are analyzed and discussed here.
I. Evidence provided by the defender
During the trial, the defender submitted a lot of evidence, including reading out the relevant contents of the evidence of the public prosecution agency, but the judgment only used one sentence, that is, "the witness did not know the source and destination of Wu Ying's funds, which was inconsistent with the testimony made at the investigation stage." This court will not accept it. There are four questions.
1. said that I didn't know that the funds in Wu Ying were not true, because there were witnesses who proved that the funds were used for business and were not squandered.
2. There are two problems in the judgment that are "inconsistent with what was testified in the investigation stage". First, the testimony before and after is basically the same, and there is no "inconsistency"; Second, assuming "inconsistency", why do we have to accept the testimony at the investigation stage? Obviously, there is no basis in law, because the law does not stipulate that the testimony of witnesses in the investigation stage must be more effective than that in the trial stage.
3. Defender's evidence proves that Wu Ying did not use deception when borrowing money, and there was no case of defrauding a large amount of money knowing that it could not be repaid. These problems just prove that Wu Ying does not use deception and has no purpose of illegal possession. The decision not to accept the letter on the grounds that the witness can't prove the source and destination of Wu Ying's funds not only violates the facts and laws, but also makes a logical mistake, that is, only the testimony that proves the source and destination of Wu Ying's funds can be accepted, but not the testimony that proves other issues. Don't other questions need to be proved?
4. The transcripts of 1 1 creditors read by the defender in the investigation file prove that the creditors are not the public and did not use fraudulent means when borrowing money. There is no legal basis for the judgment not to be accepted.
The contents of the evidence catalogue and proof of the original defender are shown in the following table:
figure
name
Proof content
1
Jiang Xinxing (Executive Vice President of Primary Color Group)
testimony
① The brochure of Bense Group was printed at the end of 2006, which was only used to talk about the Hubei project and had nothing to do with the loan;
(2) Wu Ying is not profligate;
3 Wu Ying borrowed money for the company's operation, and villas and cars were also owned by the company;
(4) when Wu Ying borrowed money, he did not think that he could not repay it, that is, he did not cheat a lot of money knowing that he was unable to repay it. The word "natural color group" alone can sell 300 million yuan;
Wu Ying didn't cheat when he borrowed money.
2
Rex Wu
Testimony of (Chief Financial Officer of Bense Group)
① The official seal of the company is not kept by Wu Ying, and there is no necessary connection between blank IOUs and Wu Ying;
② All the loans borrowed by Wu Ying are basically used for company operations;
③ The brochure of Bense Group is only used to talk about Hubei projects and has nothing to do with borrowing;
(4) Wu Ying didn't splurge.
three
Xu Binbin (Office Director of Bense Group) Testimony
The official seal of the company is not kept by Wu Ying, and there is no necessary connection between blank IOUs and Wu Ying.
four
Qiao Zhou
(Cashier of Bense Group)
testimony
① The official seal of the company is not kept by Wu Ying, and there is no necessary connection between blank IOUs and Wu Ying;
② All loans from Wu Ying are used for the company's operation;
(3) It is generally believed that the company has the ability to repay the loan, that is, there is no situation in which Wu Ying defrauded a large amount of funds knowing that he was unable to repay;
④ There is no profligacy in Wu Ying, and the cars purchased are owned by the company.
five
Testimony of Du Shenyang (driver of Bense Group)
① The official seal of the company is not kept by Wu Ying, and there is no necessary connection between blank IOUs and Wu Ying;
(2) Wu Ying didn't splurge.
six
Xu Yulan
Testimony (of a friend)
Wu Ying didn't cheat when he borrowed money;
(2) Wu Ying is not profligate;
(3) When Wu Ying borrowed money, he did not think that he could not repay it, that is, there was no situation of defrauding a large amount of money knowing that he could not repay it, and there was no situation that he could repay it as if nothing had happened.
seven
1 1 Creditor's testimony
(1) Wu Ying and creditors are friends, not the public;
② Wu Ying did not use fraudulent means when borrowing money;
(3) Wu Ying was honest and was still actively repaying the loan before the incident.
Two, about the three points of dispute between the prosecution and the defense.
1. On Wu Ying's subjective intentional problem of illegally occupying other people's property.
(1) About the so-called "no economic foundation, unable to repay the huge amount of high-interest fund-raising" in the judgment. Defenders believe that, first of all, whether Wu Ying has "no economic foundation" is controversial. Wu Ying claimed that he had assets of 25 million yuan at that time, and the court only judged that the actual investment basis was insufficient based on the registered capital; Secondly, to take a step back, even if there is no economic foundation, debt management is a very common and not illegal phenomenon. Isn't it normal to borrow a chicken to lay eggs and a boat to go to sea? Insolvency at the beginning does not prove that it can't be repaid in the end; Moreover, objectively, it is impossible to repay the loan, nor can it prove that the loan had the purpose of illegal possession at the beginning.
(2) About the so-called "fabricating facts, concealing the truth and defrauding huge sums of money" in the judgment. A lot of evidence shows that when Wu Ying borrowed money, few people asked in detail about the purpose of the loan, because creditors cared about interest; Wu Ying's description of the purpose of borrowing is generally only business, but in fact, except for part of the loan principal and interest, almost all of it is used for business; As for the loan, it was said that it was to invest in shops in Baima Clothing City and buy hotels in Jingmen, Hubei Province, but it was not actually invested in it. Only in rare cases, I did have this idea at first, but later the situation changed unsuccessfully. The verdict says that "false propaganda in society" is false, unfounded and inconsistent with the facts. In other words, regardless of the transcripts submitted by lawyers or the transcripts obtained by investigation organs, the victims basically claimed that Wu Ying did not cheat money, which was a normal private loan. I'm curious why the court decided to "cheat" huge sums of money. Of course, Bense Group has printed more than a dozen brochures, which are somewhat exaggerated, but the brochures are used for bidding, not for borrowing; Moreover, the brochure was printed in June 5438+February 2006, and the last loan in Wu Ying was in June 5438+065438+ 10 of the same year, which means that the brochure has nothing to do with the loan after it was lent.
(3) About the so-called "arbitrary disposal of investment funds" in the judgment. The basis of this judgment is mainly the false registered company; Sign a jewelry contract with a payment of 100 million yuan and dispose of jewelry at will; Buy a lot of cars that have no practical use; Spend 4 million on brand-name clothes, watches, etc. None of this is true. First, the so-called false registered company does not exist, because "false registered company" means that the applicant falsely reports the registered capital, submits false materials or adopts other fraudulent means to conceal important facts to obtain company registration, which does not exist in Wu Ying; Second, buying jewelry is not necessarily an investment, which means that the basis for arbitrary disposal is insufficient, and "arbitrary disposal" is not the same as "profligacy and waste" as stipulated in judicial interpretation; Third, buying a car is for the work of the heads of various departments; Fourth, there is no such thing as individuals spending 4 million yuan on designer clothes and watches. This is just a false statement made by Wu Ying under the guidance of others (Ying Xiaohua, an informant who was arranged by Dongyang Public Security Bureau under the pseudonym of Zhang Hua, threatened and deceived Wu Ying in Wu Ying prison from February 8 to June 6.65438+April 2007, making him fabricate the fact that all the money had been spent), and there is no other evidence. According to the Criminal Procedure Law,
Recently, the Supreme People's Court made a judicial interpretation, which clearly defined the criteria of "illegal possession". Defenders thought it necessary to compare the judicial interpretation to see whether Wu Ying had the purpose of illegal possession. Article 4 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Illegal Fund-raising stipulates that under any of the following circumstances, it can be regarded as "for the purpose of illegal possession": (1) after fund-raising is not used for production and business activities, or it is obviously disproportionate to the scale of fund-raising, so that the fund-raising cannot be returned; (two) wantonly squandering fund-raising, so that the fund-raising can not be returned; (3) fleeing with funds; (4) The funds raised are used for illegal and criminal activities; (5) Evading, transferring funds, concealing property or evading the return of funds; (six) concealing or destroying accounts, or engaging in fake bankruptcy or bankruptcy to escape the withdrawal of funds; (seven) refused to account for the whereabouts of funds, to escape the return of funds; (8) Other circumstances under which the purpose of illegal possession can be determined. "Since the third to eighth of the eight cases listed here are not controversial, we only need to look at the first two. The fact is very clear, there is no situation in Wu Ying that funds are not used for production and business activities or are obviously disproportionate to the scale of fund-raising, but most of them are used for production and business operations, such as buying a large number of real estate (as we all know, real estate has grown rapidly in recent years, and some have increased by four or five times), cars and starting more than ten companies. As mentioned above, there is no wanton fund-raising in Wu Ying. To put it another way, if Wu Ying's fund-raising money is not used for production and operation, where has all this money been spent? Have you squandered it all? How did you spend it? Did you gamble, take drugs, build a mansion, or spend a lot of money on eating, drinking and having fun? Obviously, none of them exist. Thus, Wu Ying does not have the purpose of illegal possession.
2. About whether this case is a unit crime or a natural person crime.
There are three main reasons for judging a natural person's crime. First, the company is essentially an individual company in Wu Ying, and it does not have the legal person qualification to bear legal responsibility; Second, the company has few business activities; Third, the purpose of Wu Ying's fund-raising is not for the company.
Defenders believe that these reasons are untenable. First, even if the company is an individual company, it cannot be concluded that the company does not have legal personality, because one-man company is also a form of limited liability company, and company and natural person are different concepts; Second, it is said that the company's business activities have no basis. Judging from the evidence, it can be said that there is little profit in the short term, and it cannot be said that there are few business activities. Before Wu Ying's personal freedom was restricted, there were more than a dozen companies in normal operation (including trial operation) or in preparation; Third, it is also groundless to say that the purpose of Wu Ying's fund-raising is not for the company, because most of the loans are paid into the company's account, the fixed assets are owned by the company, and the car is in the company's name and used by the company's responsible person. How can we say that the purpose of raising funds is not for the company?
3. Whether Wu Ying's behavior conforms to the crime of fund-raising fraud.
There are three main reasons why the judgment conforms to the crime of fund-raising fraud. One is to mislead the public through false propaganda and paying high interest. Second, knowing that Lin Weiping and others are engaged in financing business, illegally absorbing and depositing their funds, and many people participate; III. In addition to raising funds from the victims in this case 1 1, they also illegally raised funds from Wang Xiang Bangle and others.
Defenders believe that this determination is contrary to facts and laws. First, Wu Ying did not mislead the public through false propaganda. All the evidence proves that Wu Ying communicated with a single creditor (relatives and friends) when borrowing money, but did not publicize it to the public. Therefore, misleading the "public" has no factual basis; Moreover, a large amount of evidence proves that when Wu Ying borrowed money, he only said that he was doing business or lacked funds, so there was no problem of "false propaganda". Second, although Lin Weiping and others illegally absorbed funds, Wu Ying did borrow money from Lin Weiping and others. As for whether the money of Lin Weiping and others is raised from the public, it is another legal relationship, and the two cannot be confused. Lin Weiping's illegal absorption of public deposits does not belong to Wu Ying's behavior. From the perspective of contract law, this is called the relativity of contract. Third, the so-called illegal fund-raising from Wang Xianghuan and others other than 1 1 the victim in this case does not mean fund-raising from the public, because Wang Xianghuan and others are also relatives and friends of Wu Ying, specific personnel, and do not belong to the unspecified public at all.
The second part of the first instance procedure error
1. Serious problem of excessive trial
According to Article 168 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the people's court shall make a judgment within one and a half months after accepting a case of public prosecution. With the approval or decision of the Provincial Higher People's Court, it can be extended for another month, that is, the longest trial period is two and a half months. However, cases were accepted from 1.4 in 2009 to 1.8 in February. People often say that "justice that is late is injustice", so injustice that is late is even more unjust.
2. Refuse to identify the problem
There are two issues in this case that need judicial expertise. First, the exact amount borrowed by Wu Ying, the capital flow, the asset value of Wu Ying and Bense Group, etc. Because it is directly related to the nature of the case, the defender applies for entrusted appraisal; Second, the appraisal conclusion made by Dongyang Price Certification Center is not objective and comprehensive to the asset prices of Wu Ying and Bense Group. Defenders applied for re-appraisal, but they were all rejected, which violated the "the Supreme People's Court on execution"
Attachment: The main contents of the defender's application for re-appraisal.
First, the evaluation price is obviously low.
1. The automatic car washing machine purchased and installed by Zhengdao Automobile Service Center of Bense Group was about 300,000 yuan at the time of purchase, but the second-hand car washing machine was only estimated at 6,543,800 yuan (lower than the price of selling scrap iron), and the idle car washing machine was 70,000 yuan.
2. The commodity price in the natural color group reflected in the evaluation sheet is obviously lower than the market price. For example, the estimated price of plywood in the warehouse is only RMB 2 yuan per piece. There is no such cheap three-in-one board on the market!
3. The real estate price of Bense Group was rated as about 3,800 yuan per square meter and 7,000 yuan for houses facing the street. At present, the market price is: the real estate price is about 6500 yuan per square meter, and the house facing the street is 1 more than ten thousand yuan.
Second, there are major omissions in the evaluation project.
Because the judiciary did not give Wu Ying and Bense Group a list of confiscated property; Moreover, all the account books have been detained in the judicial organs, and Wu Ying, Bense Group and the applicant can't consult and check them, so we can't list the missing specific items, but we know that there are many omissions, such as the boiler and generator of the hotel, which are not reflected in the evaluation form.
Three, the losses caused to the public security organs shall be borne by the public security organs.
The property of the applicant and Bense Group was sealed up on February, 2007 10. During the detention period, due to the neglect of management and protection by public security organs, many items were stolen, moldy, deteriorated and depreciated. These losses should be borne by the public security organs.
The third part assumes that it constitutes a crime, and the sentencing in the first instance is also improper.
In the current judicial practice, the death penalty is not uncommon. However, when Wu Ying was sentenced to death in the first instance, it caused an uproar in the society. In the words of the media, it is called "Should Wu Ying die?" There are different opinions among the people. Even inside Jinhua Intermediate People's Court, there are different voices. Especially on the Internet, it is one-sided to sympathize with Wu Ying and think that his crimes are unfair. " Ma Guangyuan, a famous financial commentator and economist, said: Wu Ying's case is very different from the seven situations stipulated by the Supreme People's Court when determining the standard of fund-raising fraud. "The verdict in this case is really far-fetched." (20 10 June10 phoenix network finance) Lang Xianping, a famous corporate governance and financial expert, even called Wu Ying's death sentence a cover-up! (Guangdong Satellite TV's "Billionaire's Crime and Punishment") An ordinary criminal case has caused such a great response that it cannot but make people think deeply.
Defenders believe that folk views are not unreasonable. Of course, the defender's fundamental view is that Wu Ying does not constitute a crime. Here, it just took a step back. Even if the court thinks it constitutes a crime, it should not be sentenced to death. The following quotes some folk views as defenders' opinions, hoping to attract the attention of the court.
1. The social harm of Wu Ying's lending behavior is not so serious that it must be killed.
Although the amount is huge, most of the victims are usurers, not ordinary people who lack money to support the elderly and wait for money to treat diseases, and their ability to take risks is relatively strong; Besides, the victim was at fault. According to article 18 of the State Council's Measures for Banning Illegal Financial Institutions and Illegal Financial Business Activities, Wu Ying's punishment should be mitigated.
2. The criminal circumstances in Wu Ying are not particularly bad.
Compared with violent crimes, corruption and other crimes, the circumstances of fund-raising fraud are relatively light, and the former is generally not sentenced to death. For example, Bi Yuxi, former deputy director of the Beijing Municipal Transportation Bureau, was sentenced to death with a suspended execution for accepting bribes of 6.5438+0.304 million yuan; Han Guizhi, former chairman of the Heilongjiang Provincial Political Consultative Conference, was sentenced to death for accepting bribes of 7.36 million yuan; Chen Tonghai, the former general manager of PetroChina, took bribes of 65.438+95 billion yuan and was only sentenced to death; "The first financial case in China", Shi, the chairman of Liaoning Dalian Securities Company, took advantage of his position to embezzle 260 million yuan of public funds, misappropriate nearly 65.438+0.2 billion yuan of public funds, forge financial vouchers in an attempt to defraud the central bank of 65.438+0.4 billion yuan, and illegally raise 2.4 billion yuan, only to get a reprieve. All these can not help but make people question "judicial injustice" and "different sentences for the same crime"
3. There is no clear distinction between fund-raising fraud, illegal absorption of public deposits and private lending.
When Wu Ying was arrested by Dongyang Public Security Bureau, he was charged with "illegally absorbing public deposits", and the main charge of Dongyang Procuratorate was "illegally absorbing public deposits". It was not until the Jinhua Procuratorate filed a public prosecution that the crime became "the crime of fund-raising fraud". Yang, Yang, Yang Zhiang, Xu Yulan, Luo Huamei, etc. The person involved in the Wu Ying case, which was handled in another case, was still charged with "illegally absorbing public deposits", and the sentence imposed by the court was only 1 year, ranging from 10 months to 6 years. All these show that the judiciary's own understanding of fund-raising fraud, illegal absorption of public deposits and private lending is vague and vacillating.
4. China's credit management system itself has huge defects.
Ye Tan, a well-known financial commentator, believes that the fierce dispute over whether Wu Ying should be executed is actually a long-term dispute over whether private lending is legal and reasonable. There is a big gap between the existing banking system in China and the market demand, and efficient private funds make up for this defect. What is certain is that as long as the unreasonable fund use system remains unchanged and the exploitative deposit-loan gap of state-owned financial institutions remains unchanged, private finance will not disappear. Xu Da, deputy director of the Public Prosecution Department of Jinhua City Procuratorate and prosecutor of Wu Ying case, said that there is a tradition of storing wealth among the people and a developed market economy in the southeast coast, and underground finance has always been developed. Objectively speaking, enterprises have a great demand for funds, but they lack effective and smooth channels, so normal bank loans are very difficult; On the other hand, people have more money in their hands, and it is urgent to solve the channel problem of investment and financial management. Money, like running water, is born in the right place, so it is better to block it than to drain it.
The fourth part others
1. On the Application of Law
During the trial of the second instance, the public prosecutor repeatedly mentioned that Wu Ying "cheated a lot of money knowing that he could not return it", which caused great controversy between the prosecution and the defense. In fact, from the perspective of law application, this clause comes from the summary of the symposium of the Supreme Court in September 2000. With the implementation of the new judicial interpretation "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Illegal Fund-raising", this clause has been replaced by the objective standard that "after fund-raising is not used for production and business activities, or it is obviously disproportionate to the scale of fund-raising, so that the fund-raising funds cannot be returned ..." (Article 4). In other words, the criterion of judging whether to take illegal possession is no longer the subjective criterion of "knowing that you are unable to return", but the customer management criterion of whether to use the raised funds for production and business activities. It is an indisputable fact that Wu Ying will use the raised funds for production and business activities. The inspector's point of view is that Wuying's enterprises are not profitable or even lose money. The defender made two points. First, at that time, Wuying's enterprise was in its infancy, just like land acquisition to buy saplings and plant fruit trees. In the first few years, they will inevitably invest more, output less or no output, but they will be rewarded in a few years; Second, according to the latest judicial interpretation, the actor is required to use the raised funds for production and business activities, but the production and business activities are not required to be profitable.
2. About meritorious service
Wu Ying once reported and exposed other people's illegal and criminal acts, and expressed his opinions as follows: First, it should be regarded as meritorious service, because although some of them are related to Wu Ying's bribery, some of them have nothing to do with it, such as asking for bribes and the unclear source of huge amounts of property; Second, although there was a report in the first instance, it was not verified at that time and was not involved in the judgment of the first instance; Third, although only three people were sentenced, the relevant departments have not yet investigated because of the premature time, and some of them may be sentenced in the future; Fourthly, according to the materials of the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Hubei Provincial Procuratorate, in the case of Li Tiangui and Liang Zhou, 2 cases1piece 2 1 person were investigated, including 2 cadres at the department level and 5 cadres at the department level, which caused great shock in the whole province and achieved good social effects. Therefore, the court is requested to recognize that they have made great contributions.
To sum up, defenders have two views. First, there are indeed many problems in the first-instance judgment, and Wu Ying should not be convicted; Second, Wu Ying's case is full of controversy, and the folk view that Wu Ying is innocent or should not be sentenced to death has reached a one-sided level. Although the judge decided the case on the basis of law rather than public opinion, from the perspective of politics and justice for the people, this kind of case should at least be judged carefully, that is, the defender really thinks that Wu Ying is innocent, but if the collegial panel thinks that he is guilty, please ask the collegial panel to block the person under the knife to avoid the tragedy of white-haired people sending black-haired people!
thank you
Defender: lawyer of Beijing Kyoto Law Firm.
Zhang Yanfeng
April 7, 20 1 1
public notice
Wu Ying ruled in the second instance
Zhejiang Higher People's Court
The verdict of criminal proceedings
(20 10) Zhejiang Criminal Final Word No.27
Former Public Prosecution Organ Jinhua People's Procuratorate of Zhejiang Province
Appellant (defendant in the original trial) Wu Ying, female, was born on, and now she is in Jinhua Detention Center in Zhejiang.
Defendant Wu Ying appealed that he had no purpose of illegal possession, subjectively had no intention of fraud, and most of the borrowed funds were used for business, and there was no extravagance and waste; There is no fraud objectively, and no false propaganda is used to deceive creditors; The creditor in this case does not belong to the public, nor does it illegally raise funds from the society; The legal registration of Bense Group is not established for a crime, nor is it based on crime. This case is a unit borrowing behavior, not an individual behavior, and it requires acquittal. Wu Ying's second-instance defender defended him for the same reason, demanding that Wu Ying be acquitted. At the same time, it also said that even if Wu Ying constitutes a crime, it is not a particularly bad crime, and the social harm is extremely serious. The sentencing in the first instance is obviously improper; Wu Ying made great contributions by exposing other people's crimes. In the second trial of our hospital, Wu Ying also claimed that his behavior constituted the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits.
The prosecutor in court believes that the criminal facts of the defendant Wu Ying's fund-raising fraud are clear and the evidence is indeed sufficient; Wu Ying used fraud to illegally raise funds from the public, which was subjectively illegal, intentional and arbitrary, and squandered all the funds raised. His behavior has constituted the crime of fund-raising fraud, which is a personal crime. The original judgment was accurate and the sentence was appropriate. Neither the grounds for appeal nor the defender's defense opinion can be established. It is suggested that the appeal be dismissed and the original judgment upheld.
After the second trial in our court, the defendant Wu Ying applied in writing to withdraw the appeal.
It was found through trial that the defendant Wu Ying's fund-raising fraud as determined in the original judgment was stated by the victim, Yang, Yang Zhiang, Yang, Jiang Xinxing, Zhou, Ye Yisheng, Gong Yifeng, Ren Yiyong, Mao and Gong. Witnesses: Xu Yulan, Yu, Xia Yaoqin, Zhu Hangfei, Ying Fengyi, Ge, Zhao, Fang Hong, Jin Huafang, Du Shenyang, Wu Zhe, Liu An, Yang Jun, Luo Huamei, Hu Yingping, Xu Binbin, Bao Mingrong, Fu Lingling, Gong Hongxing and Wu Jianhong. Notebooks, bookkeeping books, borrowing and repayment lists, detailed statements of futures transactions, bank bills, payment vouchers, supplementary vouchers for fund remittance, deposit transfer letters, transaction confirmations, confiscated bills, search transcripts, seizure lists, property appraisal conclusions, etc. , was recorded, and a forged ICBC draft with a face value of 49 million yuan was extracted from Wu Ying for confirmation, and two special seals for business of Guangfa Bank Hangzhou Branch were privately carved. The defendant, Wu Ying, also confessed to the case, and the information provided was consistent with the above evidence.
With regard to the grounds of appeal and defense opinions, it was found that: (1) Wu Ying had incurred huge debts before the establishment of Bense Holding Group in April 2006, and then raised a large amount of funds at high interest rate regardless of the conditions and consequences, without considering its repayment ability at all, and there was no account or record for the huge fund-raising; At the same time, except for a small part of the funds obtained from illegal fund-raising in Wu Ying, which were used to register companies in traditional low-profit industries to cover up the truth, most of the funds were not used for production and operation, but used to pay the principal and high interest of the previous fund-raising, buy a large number of high-end cars and jewelry and squander them; Before the incident, Wu Ying dodged debts everywhere and was unable to repay them. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the original judgment that Wu Ying's behavior has the purpose of illegal possession. (2) The victim's statement on file and Wu Ying's confession confirmed that Wu Ying raised funds from overseas on various false grounds, such as investing in shops, doing coal and oil business, co-developing hotels and fund turnover. At the same time, in order to give the public the illusion of its strong economic strength, Wu Ying adopted a large number of falsely registered companies in a short time, and used these companies to dress up as a street in Dongyang. Often use fund-raising funds to buy a large number of real estate from a real estate company at one time and sign a large purchase agreement; Buy out the advertising space of Dongyi Road, focus on natural color advertisements, and make natural color brochures to make false publicity to the public; Accumulate a large number of jewels in the office to show off their wealth; In the case of serious futures losses, he still used the raised funds for high-interest dividends on the grounds of making big money. Wu Ying's above-mentioned behavior obviously adopts fraudulent means of fabricating facts, concealing the truth and making false propaganda to the public. (3) Wu Ying not only collected donations from the public himself, but also entrusted some people who didn't know the truth to collect donations from the public. Although the direct victims identified in the original judgment were only 1 1 person, among them, there were more than 20 people, including Yang, Yang Zhiang and Yang Ziji1person. The victims involved Dongyang, Yiwu, Fenghua, Lishui, Hangzhou and other places in Zhejiang. (4) The registered capital of Bense Group and its companies comes from illegal fund-raising, and most of them have not actually operated or operated at a loss after their establishment; Wu Ying used illegal fund-raising to register a number of companies for the purpose of false propaganda, giving the public the illusion that the natural color group is prosperous, thus defrauding more social funds. Moreover, Wu Ying raised a large amount of funds in his own name, and a large amount of funds entered his personal account, and the use was also decided by one person at will. Therefore, Bense Group and its affiliated companies are essentially tools for Wu Ying to raise funds illegally, and the original judgment correctly determined that this case was a personal crime in Wu Ying. To sum up, Wu Ying's appeal and his second-instance defender believe that Wu Ying has no purpose of illegal possession, no intention of fraud subjectively, no fraud objectively, and no use of false propaganda to deceive the public. This case belongs to a unit crime, and other reasons cannot be established and will not be adopted. The facts ascertained in the original judgment are clear and the evidence is true and sufficient. Wu Ying's so-called report and exposure of other people's crimes, after investigation, is that he paid bribes to others to obtain illegal benefits, which does not constitute a major meritorious service according to law.
We believe that the defendant Wu Ying used fraudulent means such as fabricating facts, concealing the truth and making false propaganda to the public for the purpose of illegal possession, and his behavior has constituted the crime of fund-raising fraud. Wu Ying argued in the trial of the second instance that it only constituted the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits, and Wu Ying's behavior proposed by the defender of the second instance did not constitute a crime, and the reasons for asking for innocence were inconsistent with the ascertained facts and legal provisions, so it was not adopted. The amount of fund-raising fraud in Wu Ying is extremely huge, which has caused particularly heavy losses to the interests of the country and the people. The circumstances of the crime are particularly serious and should be severely punished according to law. The reason why the second-instance defender demanded a lighter punishment for Wu Ying could not be established and was not accepted. The public prosecutor's opinion in court is valid and should be adopted. According to the "Reply of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on whether the defendant who appealed the death penalty proposed to withdraw his appeal before sentencing after the expiration of the appeal period", Wu Ying was not allowed to withdraw his appeal after the second trial. The original judgment, conviction and applicable laws were correct, the sentencing was appropriate and the trial procedure was legal. According to the provisions of Articles 192, 199, 57, paragraph 1 and 64 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and Item (1) of Article 189 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the ruling is as follows:
Reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
This is the final verdict. According to the provisions of Article 199 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the death sentence of the defendant Wu Ying was approved according to law.