There is a company in Fuxin, Liaoning, called Liaoning Jubao Yuan Technology Co., Ltd., which mainly produces clothing and apparel such as mink coats, and exports them to countries like Russia.
In November 2019, Song Mingyuan, the chairman of Jubao Yuan, was arrested, suspected of defrauding export tax rebates. Subsequently arrested were the company’s accountant, a receiver at the Beijing Yabao Road market, and a total of six people.
Over the following seven years, the Jubao Yuan company, Song Mingyuan, and the other six people were involved in a case of alleged fraudulent export tax rebates. The case went through investigation, first trial prosecution, first trial withdrawal, first trial re-prosecution, first trial judgment, and second trial remand for retrial.
On December 13, 2024, the Lingyuan City Court of Liaoning Province again made a guilty verdict, in which Song Mingyuan was sentenced to ten years in prison and fined.
The prosecuting authority alleged that: Jubao Yuan Company used the identity information of farmers to falsely issue value-added tax invoices, obtain input invoices, falsely declare customs declarations for tax refunds, and defraud export tax rebates. The total price and tax amounted to more than 18.4 million yuan.
Professional lawyers say that in invoice-related crimes, it’s really about whether the flow of invoices, the flow of goods, and the flow of funds can be ‘three-in-one’. Both the prosecution and the defense started from these three aspects and presented a large amount of evidence. However, the prosecution said that your goods export was fake, and the defense said that my goods export was real.
For example, the prosecuting authority alleged that Jubao Yuan falsely issued invoices using the names of farmers, and even some people were already dead and were still being used.
Jubao Yuan’s explanation is: The company is in Liaoning, and the raw material origin is in Shandong. The mink acquisition business can only be entrusted to local brokers. The company gives the payment to the brokers, the brokers give the money to the farmers, and then provide the farmers’ information to the company along with the goods.
In other words, although there are discrepancies in the names of the farmers, there is evidence for the payment to farmers, the transportation of raw materials, and the warehousing and out-of-stock processes, including the investigation agencies’ evidence collection from the brokers, which can prove that the transactions are real.
The prosecuting authority also alleged that Song Mingyuan, the boss of Jubao Yuan, falsely declared customs at the Horgos port through someone named Gu Zhili.
In multiple court hearings, Gu Zhili detailed the four inspections by the General Administration of Customs on the goods declared for export by Jubao Yuan. After the inspections, the goods were finally released, indicating the authenticity of the goods’ export.
Some people say that whether it’s true or false, just bring out the synchronized audio and video recordings of the customs inspections by the General Administration of Customs, and you’ll know.
The court also thought so. In 2021 and 2022, the Lingyuan Court twice sent letters for supplementary investigation, requesting the prosecuting authority to obtain the synchronized audio and video recordings of the customs inspections by the General Administration of Customs.
The result was that the prosecuting authority refused to obtain them.
I looked at the judgment of the retrial, which was 131 pages long, with over 72,000 characters. The part citing the opinions of the defendants and their defense lawyers and the evidence submitted exceeded 53,000 characters, which can be said to be extremely sufficient.
However, the part of the judgment explaining the law and reasoning was only two sentences, 209 characters:
Translated, the first sentence is, ‘There is evidence to prove that you committed a crime;’
The second sentence is, ‘Your evidence cannot directly negate the charges.’
Why not? The defendants and their defense lawyers’ most concerned question was not explained.
On June 1, 2018, the Supreme People’s Court issued a ‘Guiding Opinion on Strengthening and Standardizing the Explanation of Laws and Reasoning in Judgments’, which stipulates: Difficult and complex cases; cases with significant disputes between the parties; cases remanded for retrial, etc. These cases’ judgments should strengthen the explanation of laws and reasoning.
Obviously, this case meets this standard.
How to say it? The ‘Guiding Opinion’ requires that the facts of the case and the reasons and grounds for the judgment should be clarified, and the objectivity, fairness, and accuracy of the facts of the case should be demonstrated;
The legal principles on which the judgment is based and the reasons for applying the legal norms should be explained…
你说209个字能达到这些要求吗？恐怕司马迁这种惜墨如金、运笔如神的大家也做不到。
Discover more from 自由档案馆
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.