As an ordinary person, in life, each of us may be violated at any time. When our rights are violated, some people choose to suffer silently, while others choose to take up legal weapons to fight for their rights or others'. However, you should know that safeguarding rights is often not easy. Sometimes, when you know that you are a victim, you may go to the business to ask for compensation, and you may face jail. "Li Guo's extortion case" is a typical case of "not defending rights and quitting".
Many times, we must examine who our laws serve. When the rights and interests are infringed, can our laws really be reliable?
The ins and outs of "Li Guo extortion case"
In 2008, the "melamine milk powder incident" broke out, and Li Guo's two-year-old daughter ate "American infant milk powder" for a long time. In September of that year, he took his daughter to Beitaipingzhuang Hospital in Haidian District, Beijing for examination. The examination results show that "there are several punctate strong echoes in the central collection system of both kidneys", which means that the renal function is damaged.
It is reported that on June 13, 2009, Li Guo reached a settlement agreement with milk powder manufacturer Shien (Guangzhou) Infant Nutrition Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Shien Company"), and Shien Company compensated Li Guo for 400,000 yuan. The next day, Li Guo published a written document, saying that since the problem had been properly solved, he would not pursue the case and give up the claim. After receiving compensation of 400,000 yuan, Li Guo once again claimed compensation from Mercy Corps.
During the negotiation, Li Guo said that the problem had not been properly solved and he demanded compensation of 3 million yuan (it was also said that after Li Guo was interviewed by the media, Mercy Company took the initiative to contact Li Guo and offered to compensate Li Guo again). Mercy Corps and its controlling shareholder Guangdong Yashili Group Co., Ltd. refused to pay and reported the case to the police on June 30 of the same year.
The court of first instance (Chaoan County Court) held that Li Guo's "compensation" of 3 million yuan was a "claim" made by all his relatives on the pretext of dissatisfaction with compensation, and there was no legal claim, so the purpose of illegal possession was clear.
Chao 'an County Court also held that, based on the fragile psychology of the public and milk powder producers after the nationwide "problem milk powder" incident, Li Guo's reporting methods in the media at this time will directly distort the efforts of the two companies to rebuild market credit, which is enough to damage the market reputation of the two companies, affect their normal operations and arouse their fears.
20 10 1, Chao 'an Court of First Instance convicted Li Guo of extortion and sentenced him to five years in prison. After Li Guo appealed, Chaozhou Intermediate People's Court upheld the original judgment in February of that year. On May 3 1 2065438, Guangdong Higher People's Court made a retrial decision, which showed that Guangdong Higher People's Court, after examination, considered that "this case did not conform to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law and was indeed wrong" and ordered Chaozhou Intermediate People's Court to retry. Chaozhou Intermediate People's Court ruled again at 65438 on February 30 of that year and upheld the original judgment.
Case Analysis —— Does Li Guo constitute the crime of extortion?
In this case, whether Li Guo constitutes the crime of extortion is the biggest controversy:
1. On the premise that children's health is infringed, Li Guoyou has a legitimate reason to claim compensation from Mercy Corps. Then, on the basis of justified reasons, can it constitute extortion in criminal law to ask the company to pay huge "compensation"?
2. Can exposure in the media constitute extortion?
3. Subjectively, does Li Guo have the purpose of extortion?
The crime of extortion refers to the act of extorting public or private property by threatening or coercing the victim for the purpose of illegal possession. Article 274th of China's Criminal Law has relevant provisions on the crime of extortion:
Whoever extorts a large amount of public or private property or repeatedly extorts it shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or public surveillance, and shall also or only be fined; If the amount is huge or there are other serious circumstances, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years and shall also be fined; If the amount is especially huge or there are other especially serious circumstances, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years and fined.
0 1. Does Li's demand for huge compensation for justified reasons constitute the crime of extortion in criminal law?
The reason why Li Guo has a legitimate claim for compensation is mainly based on the tort legal relationship between the milk powder manufacturer and Li Guo's daughter, so he has a legitimate claim according to law. For some judicial personnel, only the rights stipulated by law are rights. Therefore, the claim must be determined in strict accordance with the law. If the renal function is damaged, compensation should be made according to the expenses shown on the medical documents.
As for food safety, according to the provisions of the Food Safety Law, the compensation can only be ten times the food price at most. Beyond these amounts, there is no legal basis, and forced claims may be punished as extortion. For this kind of remarks, Mao Ge thinks that it confuses the boundary between civil law and criminal law, enlarges criminal law and ignores the minimum principle of rule of law. Namely: as far as public power is concerned, the law does not permit or prohibit it; As far as private rights are concerned, freedom is freedom without prohibition.
In China's criminal law, there are only two reasons for excluding crime: self-defense and emergency avoidance. German criminologist Welzel once put forward this concept, which is an important supplement to criminal law theory. Wiltzer believes that as long as the behavior conforms to the social ethical order formed by history, it has social equivalence, not illegal behavior.
He regards moral norms as the substantive basis for excluding illegal acts in order to limit the excessive expansion of punishment power. Therefore, in many sky-high claims, excessive claims are not only morally justified, but also have a positive role in promoting society. The quality of China products is far from reassuring.
Take the food industry as an example. As the saying goes, "Food is the most important thing for the people", but the sky is not falling once or twice, so that some people joked that "many people in China have achieved chemical literacy in food". It is not difficult to imagine that if the victims dare to claim compensation at sky-high prices, our food problem will be much less. In Mao Ge's view, the law should not only not punish this kind of behavior, but also encourage it. Therefore, Mao Ge believes that Li Guo's demand for huge compensation in the case of legitimate claims does not constitute extortion in criminal law.
02. Does media exposure of Li constitute the crime of extortion in criminal law?
According to the provisions of Article 6 of the Law on the Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests, the state encourages and supports all organizations and individuals to conduct social supervision over acts that harm consumers' legitimate rights and interests. The mass media should do a good job in propaganda to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, and conduct public opinion supervision over acts that harm the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. Therefore, consumers have the right to expose and criticize behaviors that harm their legitimate rights and interests through mass media.
Therefore, Li Guo threatened to expose to the media, and his behavior was legal and reasonable, which did not meet the objective behavior requirements of extortion. In addition, the brand and quality problems of Shengyuan milk powder were announced by the relevant state departments when Li Guo was interviewed by the media. This issue should be open and cannot be regarded as the privacy of others or other content that can be used for coercion. At best, Li Guo's behavior has enlarged the problem to a certain extent.
Even if the problem has not been exposed in the whole country, then Li Guo, as the legal representative of the victim, Mao Ge thinks it is reasonable to expose the problem of Shengyuan milk powder through the media, because if the merchant thinks the consumer's request is unreasonable, he can totally refuse it. Compared with merchants, consumers are in a weak position. If consumers are not allowed to use the weapon of public opinion, their demands are not equal at all.
If the law prohibits citizens from seeking media supervision in case of infringement, what is the role of the media? This kind of media can only become the mouthpiece of powerful people and stakeholders. Is it necessary for such an unfair media to exist?
Therefore, Mao Ge believes that Li Guo's exposure to the media cannot be called extortion in criminal law.
03. Does Li Guo subjectively have the purpose of extortion?
Li Guo was a freelance translator before he was arrested and imprisoned. In 2008, his monthly salary was100000 yuan, which can be said to be an absolute high-income group. However, after imprisonment, his wife left him, his daughter left him, his mother became disabled because of the blow, and her job was lost because of imprisonment.
Therefore, for such a middle-aged man with a rich income and a happy family, it is hard for Mao Ge to have reason to believe that he is extorting money just for the compensation of 3 million yuan. After all, 3 million yuan is Li Guo's salary for about 2 years, and according to Li Guo's refusal to plead guilty in prison and other performances, it is even more difficult to determine that he has the intention of extortion subjectively. According to the spirit that there is no doubt in criminal law, Mao Ge believes that there is no objective aspect of the crime of extortion in Li Guo.
To sum up, Li Guo's behavior can only be regarded as the consumer's rights protection behavior, at best, it is only an excessive rights protection behavior, which should belong to the category of civil disputes, while Li Guo was sentenced to five years' punishment for extortion, which belongs to the expansion and abuse of criminal law and does not conform to the basic principles of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime in China.
But even if we don't talk about the Li case, as long as we comb the news, we can find that it is common to crack down on activists on charges such as extortion and damage to the goodwill of shopping malls.
In February 2006, Huang Jinghua spent 20,900 yuan to buy an ASUS V6800V notebook computer. Later, she negotiated with ASUS many times because of her failure and proposed "punitive" compensation of $5 million. She was detained by the police for extortion and was later arrested.
At the end of 20 14, Li Haifeng, the driver of Mingshui County, Suihua City, Liaoning Province, bought four packages of "attractive hot and sour beef noodles" produced by Jinmailang (Nissin) Food Co., Ltd. as lunch, and found that the vinegar contained foreign substances and was an expired food. Later, he claimed 4.5 million yuan from Jinmailang Company, and Jinmailang was only willing to "reward" seven boxes of instant noodles and telephone charges.
On May 29th, the Public Security Bureau of Longyao County, Xingtai City, Hebei Province filed a case for investigation on "Li Haifeng was suspected of extortion", and then Li Haifeng was included in the list of online pursuit suspects by Hebei police.
On 20 17 12 19, Tan Qindong released "China Shenjiu" Hongmao Medicinal Liquor, with poison falling from the sky. On 20 18 65438+ 10/0, Tan Qindong was arrested by the police in Liangcheng, Inner Mongolia, detained and handed over to the procuratorate for prosecution.
2018 65438+1October 3 1, Li Hongyuan left Huawei. Due to the difference between the amount of resignation compensation and the company, both parties agreed to reissue Li Hongyuan's resignation compensation of 3,365,438 yuan+0,576.73 yuan through consultation. However, on February 6, 20 18, 18, Li Hongyuan was criminally detained by Shenzhen WeChat official account on suspicion of extortion, and was arrested on October 22, 20 19.
These cases are only a small part of many successful cases of "safeguarding rights" by enterprises. They caused a sensational effect and aroused widespread concern of the whole society. Fortunately, the parties to these cases have finally achieved good results, but in places we can't see and corners we can't pay attention to, there are more infringers who have to bear these shameful charges.
Late justice or justice?
Justice may be late, but it will never be absent.
On July 20 14, Li Guo was released from prison (Li Guo refused to plead guilty in prison and insisted on appealing, so he was not released on parole) and continued to appeal. 2065438+In May 2005, the Guangdong Provincial High Court retried the case. 2065438+On April 7, 2007, Li Guo was acquitted by the Guangdong Provincial High Court, and Li Guo was finally rehabilitated.
After Li Guo was released from prison, he put forward four requirements-asking Yashili and his kindness to cash the original basic compensation and the compensation of $6,543,800,000 in principal and interest; Additional comprehensive compensation of $30 million is used to compensate Li Guo and his family for the substantial damage caused by the construction; Yashili and Shien formally publicly apologized in writing; Investigate those responsible and bring the perpetrators to justice.
The negative social impact of misjudgment in this case is extremely bad! As Bacon said: "An unfair referee even has more than ten charges. Because although a crime ignores the law-it's like polluting the water, and an unfair trial breaks the law-it's like polluting the water. " This misjudgment obviously conveys the wrong value orientation to the society: it is equivalent to telling major businesses that if a consumer who doesn't know the truth dares to ask you for huge compensation, you can use criminal force to label him as extortion.
At the same time, this is also a lose-lose case. Li Guo changed from a successful man with high spirits, millions of dollars and a happy family to a poor man living on subsistence allowances. With the fermentation of this case, the milk powder industry in China has been hit by the load and has been unable to lift its head so far; The credibility of the judiciary has also been strongly questioned by the general public in this absurd trial.
"Return the ruling to the judge and justice to the people!" Faced with the oppression of power and the temptation of money, Thai judge Kanagon still sticks to the concept of fairness and justice in his heart and defends the dignity of the court with his life. As for Li Guo's case, it is extremely terrible to think about it carefully. It seems that behind this case, an invisible hand is manipulating everything, pulling Li Guo step by step into the abyss of darkness.
Why does safeguarding rights always turn into a crime? This is a question that everyone who cares about the rule of law in China should think about.
Fortunately, however, Li Guo's case was finally overturned. The reversal of Li Guo's case is of great guiding significance to all kinds of civil rights protection cases in the future, which will effectively guide the trial rules of similar cases in the future and prevent similar unjust, false and wrong cases from happening again. This case has a great encouraging effect on consumers' confidence in safeguarding rights in the future, which is conducive to improving our citizens' awareness of safeguarding rights and further promoting the development of our commercial market in a better and more standardized direction.
Now, Li Guo, who lost his former wealth, thinks that his life is not too uncomfortable. Prison life made his demands on life extremely low. It feels good to take the slowest train and eat a box lunch with only one dish.
Although justice came a little late, it was still justice.
I hope there will be no Li Guo after Li Guo.