|
The No. 2 Branch of the People’s
Procuratorate of Beijing Municipality v. Li Jiating
(Case on Acceptance of Bribes)
Prosecuting Organ: No. 2 Branch of the People’s
Procuratorate of Beijing Municipality.
Defendant: Li Jiating, male, 59, former deputy secretary of
Yunnan Provincial Committee of CPC, governor of Yunnan
Provincial People’s Government, dwelling at Xichang Road,
Kunming City, Yunnan Province. He was arrested on October
10, 2001.
With regard to the case on Li Jiating’s acceptance of
bribes, the No. 2 Branch of the People’s Procuratorate of
Beijing Municipality lodged a prosecution to the No.2
Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing Municipality
(hereinafter referred to as Beijing No. 2 Intermediate
Court) on March 6, 2003.
The bill of indictment describes: From the first half of
1994 to July 2000, Li Jiating took advantage of his position
to secure benefits for a number of persons, accepted bribes
alone or in collusion with Li Bo, his son, totaling CNY
10,380,000, HKD 6,490,000, USD 91,000, and JPY 200,000, an
equivalent of CNY 18,105,323.75. The Prosecuting Organ held
that, Li Jiating was a state functionary, took advantage of
his position to secure benefits for others and accepted
properties from others, and his acts constituted the crime
of accepting bribes, with the amount being huge and the
circumstances being particularly serious.
Li Jiating had no objection to the basic criminal facts
described by the Prosecuting Organ, but alleged: I am not
clear about the specific amount of the money accepted by Li
Bo; I never asked for any money or property from any other
person on my initiative; I did not directly take advantage
of my power when handling most of the affairs for others; I
did not cause any direct economic loss to the state when
securing benefits for others.
Li Jiating’s defender held that: Li Jiating’s subjective
recognition of whether Li Bo did business with other people
through partnership need to be further verified; Li Jiating
was not clear about the specific amount of the money
accepted by Li Bo; the benefits secured by Li Jiating for
some requestors were not obvious; some people had no
specific request when they offered money to Li Jiating; Li
Jiating had no act of asking for properties, and basically
did not secure illegitimate benefits; Li Jiating showed an
good attitude to confessing his crime, and performed major
meritorious services. The defender also held that Li Jiating
should be given mitigated punishments.
It was verified by Beijing No. 2 Intermediate Court after
trial that:
Since November 1992, Li Jiating successively served as a
member of Yunnan Provincial Standing Committee of CPC, vice
governor of Yunnan Provincial People’s Government, deputy
secretary of Yunnan Provincial Committee of CPC, and
governor of Yunnan Provincial People’s Government. From 1994
to July 2000, Li Jiating took advantage of his position to
secure benefits for other people, accepted money from 10
persons successively for 30 times either alone or in
collusion with Li Bo, his son (punished in another case).
The specific facts were as follows:
I. In September 1994, before Li Jiating visited USA, he
accepted USD 1,000 from Yang Rong, board chairman of Hong
Kong Huande Limited Company. In early 1995, Li Jiating was
requested by Yang Rong to call He Zhaoshou, director general
of Yunnan Provincial Tobacco Monopoly Administration, to
favor Yang Rong’s export of cigarettes, and thus Yang Rong
made a huge amount of profits. During that period, Yang Rong
proposed to Li Jiating to apply for a pass to Hong Kong and
Macao for Li Bo, Li Jiating’s son. In May 1995, Yang Rong
spent CNY 500,000 in obtaining a pass to Hong Kong and Macao
for Li Bo in a fictitious and homonymous name “Li Bo”, and
told Li Jiating of the fact. After Li Jiating asked Yang
Rong to favor Li Bo in respect of his living and funds in
Hong Kong, Yang Rong separately deposited HKD 300,000 and
HKD 500,000 in the Bank of China, Hong Kong Branch and Hong
Kong Chartered Bank in the fictitious and homonymous name
“Li Bo”, and then handed over the deposit certificates to Li
Bo. In 1996, Li Jiating was requested by Yang Rong to urge
the Planning Department of the State Tobacco Monopoly
Administration to fulfill the target for Yang Rong to export
cigarettes, and called He Zhaoshou to favor Yang Rong in
this regard. During that period, Li Jiating again asked Yang
Rong to favor Li Bo. In September, when Li Jiating arrived
in Hong Kong after his visit abroad, Yang Rong offered Li
Jiating HKD 30,000. In January 1997, Yang Rong offered Li Bo
HKD 5 million in Hong Kong. In early 1997, Li Jiating
introduced Yang Rong to Zhang Xiuliang, general manager of
Yunnan Petroleum Company, and urged them to establish Yunnan
Huafeng Petroleum and Chemicals Limited Company (hereinafter
referred to as Huafeng Company) in the form of joint
venture. Yang Rong served as the board chairman. After the
company made profits, Yang Rong deposited HKD 300,000 by
twice into Li Bo’s account in HSBC separately in 1999 and
2000. After Li Jiating learned of the fact, he told Li Bo
for many times that the money was the co-owned property of
the whole family and should not be splurged. In order to
restrict Li Bo from using the accepted money, Li Jiating had
Wang Xiao (his wife) and Li Bo open a joint account in HSBC
in 1998.
The main items of evidence proving the above-mentioned facts
are as follows:
1. Testimony of witness Li Bo, whose main contents are as
follows: When Yang Rong did business in Yunnan, Li Jiating
helped him a lot. In order to show gratitude, Yang Rong
spent CNY 500,000 in Guangdong in May 1995 on a single-way
pass to Hong Kong and Macao bearing the fictitious and
homonymous name “Li Bo”. In September, Yang Rong opened
accounts in Hong Kong Chartered Bank and Bank of China in
the fictitious and homonymous name “Li Bo”, and separately
deposited HKD 300,000 and HKD 500,000 for him. In early
1997, Yang Rong gave him a check with the amount at HKD 5
million. In the second half of 1999 and in January 2000,
Yang Rong gave him checks with the amount at HKD 600,000 by
twice. Li Bo told all these to Li Jiating, Li Jiating told
him for many times that the money was owned by the whole
family and should not be splurged. In order to control Li
Bo’s spending of money, Li Jiating had Wang Xiao and Libo
open a joint account in HSBC in 1998 and deposited all the
money offered by Yang Rong, et al, into that account.
2. Testimony of witness Yang Rong, whose main contents are
as follows: In 1994, he heard that Li Jiating was to go
abroad for visit, and then offered Li Jiating USD 1,000. In
early 1995, when Li Bo was about to graduate from
university, he proposed to Li Jiating to apply for a
single-way pass for Li Bo to reside in Hong Kong. In May, he
spent CNY 500,000 in obtaining the pass in the fictitious
and homonymous name “Li Bo”. After Li Jiating learned of the
fact, Li asked him to favor Li Bo in respect of living and
funds in Hong Kong. In August, he opened accounts for Li Bo
in the Bank of China, Hong Kong Branch and in Chartered
Bank, and separately deposited HKD 300,000 and HKD 500,000.
In 1995, he found Li Jiating twice for help in his exporting
cigarettes, and Li Jiating required the relevant authorities
to show favor. In September 1996, when Li Jiating passed
Hong Kong, he offered Li Jiating HKD 30,000. In January
1997, he offered Li Bo HKD 5 million in Hong Kong. In early
1997, he prepared to invest in petroleum products in Yunnan,
and Li Jiating introduced him to Zhang Xiuliang, general
manager of Yunnan Petroleum Company. After negotiations,
they established Huafeng Company in the form of joint
venture, and he made more than CNY 1 million of profits. In
the second half of 1999 and in January 2000, he offered
money to Li Bo by twice, with the amount in each time at HKD
300,000.
3. Testimony of witness He Zhaoshou, whose main contents are
as follows: In the beginning of 1995 and the first half of
1996, Li Jiating called him for twice, requiring him to
favor Yang Rong in respect of rationing the varieties of
exported cigarettes.
4. Testimony of witness Yang Youzhu, whose main contents are
as follows: When he served as deputy director general of
Yunnan Provincial Tobacco Monopoly Administration, he
followed He Zhaoshou’s instruction to have gone through the
procedures for export of cigarettes for Yang Rong via China
Tobacco Yunnan Import and Export Limited Company.
5. Testimony of witness Zhang Xiuliang, whose main contents
are as follows: In April 1997, upon Li Jiating’s
introduction, Yunnan Petroleum Company and Yang Rong
established Huafeng Company in the form of joint venture,
and Yang Rong served as the board chairman and the legal
representative. The company stopped business after operating
for one and a half years, and Yang Rong was distributed more
than CNY 1 million of profits.
6. Proof materials of the Public Security Bureau of Maoming
Municipality, Guangdong Province, and the “Pass to Hong Kong
and Macao (Single-Way)” bearing the fictitious and
homonymous name “Li Bo”, which prove that Yang Rong applied
to the Public Security Bureau of Maoming Municipality for a
pass to Hong Kong and Macao (single-way) for Li Bo in the
fictitious and homonymous name “Li Bo” in May 1995.
7. Li Jiating’s confession, whose main contents are as
follows: After Li Bo received money from Yang Rong, he told
Li Bo for many times that the money was owned by the whole
family, should be kept appropriately in Hong Kong, and
should not be splurged. He also had Li Bo and Wang Xiao open
a joint account in Hong Kong Bank, and deposited the money
of the family and the money offered by Yang Rong to Li Bo
into the joint account.
II. In 1996, Li Bo wanted to make money by making use of Li
Jiating’s powers and influences. Li Jiating showed consent
and enjoined Li Bo to find someone else for cooperation,
while he would talk to the relevant authority when
necessary. In April and May 1997, upon introduction of Li
Bo, Li Jiating was requested by Li Jun, board chairman of
Yunnan Junfa Real Estate Joint Stock Limited Company
(hereinafter referred to as Junfa Company), and Li Liming,
Li Jun’s father, board chairman of Kunming Mingxing House
Development Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as
Mingxing Company), to call Liao Xiaoshan, head of Wuhua
District, for favor and intervention so that Li Liming and
Li Jun could undertake the engineering project of rebuilding
Luoshiwan Market in Wuhua District, Kunming City. Later,
Wuhua District Government concluded an agreement on
development the Luoshiwan Market project with Mingxing
Company without asking for bid invitations, and Mingxing
Company gained more than CNY 15 million of profits. Li Jun
promised that he would offer CNY 5 million to Li Bo. In
early 1998, upon Li Bo’s consent, Li Qun, his elder brother,
drew CNY 2 million from Li Jun. Later, Li Bo asked Li Jun
for CNY 3 million, and proposed to borrow a sum of money to
trade in stocks. In May, Li Jun offered Li Bo CNY 7,500,000
by draft, including CNY 4,500,000 of loans. In October 1998,
Li Jiating was requested by Li Jun via Li Bo to make Junfa
Company entitled to develop Kunming Garden Residential Area,
and to transmit the relevant application of the Government
of Guandu District, Kunming Municipality to Shao Tianwei,
vice governor of Yunnan Provincial Government, and Cui
Zhitao, the deputy secretary-general, for intervention as
soon as possible. In the end of 1998, Guandu District
Government and Junfa Company concluded an agreement on
development of Garden Residential Area. Consequently, Li Jun
exempted Li Bo from the CNY 4,500,000 of loans. In August
1999, Junfa Company wanted to lower the land price of the
Garden Residential Area project, and Li Jun asked Li Jiating
for help. Li Jiating then instructed someone else to
intervene in the matter. Li Bo told Li Jiating of his
acceptance of the above said money from Li Jun, and Li
Jiating told Li Bo to deposit the money in Hong Kong because
it was family property.
The main items of evidence proving that above-mentioned
facts are as follows:
1. Testimony of witness Li Bo, whose main contents are as
follows: In the first half of 1996, he wanted to make use of
Li Jiating’s powers and influences to do business and to
make money, and had Li Jun seek projects for cooperation. Li
Jiating said after knowing Li Bo’s desire: “You may
cooperate with Li Jun to make money, but don’t show your
face in public. You may let Li Jun visit me at home when
necessary. I may talk to the relevant authorities.” In early
1997, Li Jun proposed that Luoshiwan Market in Wuhua
District, Kunming needed to be rebuilt. Li Jiating told Li
Jun and Li Liming to come to his home for discussion, and
helped Li Jun and Li Liming in undertaking the Luoshiwan
project. Li Jun and Li Liming then made CNY 15 million of
profits, and promised to offer CNY 5 million to Li Jiating.
In early 1998, upon Li Jiating’s consent, Li Qun asked Li
Jun for CNY 2 million. When he asked Li Jun for the
remaining CNY 3 million, he proposed to borrow money for
trading in stocks. Later, Li Jun offered him a draft with
CNY 7,500,000 of cash, including CNY 4,500,000 of loans. In
the second half of 1998, Li Jun was interested in a piece of
land in Guandu District, and let him find Li Jiating for
obtaining the approval document. After learning of this, Li
Jiating told Li Jun to have a talk at home, and then helped
Li Jun in getting the target of 700 mu of land. Later, Li
Jun said that Li Bo did not need to return the CNY 4,500,000
he borrowed.
2. Testimony of witness Li Jun, whose main contents are as
follows: In March and April 1997, Li Bo told him of the
desire to do business and make money via him. He found that
the old Luoshiwan Market needed to be rebuilt, and asked Li
Bo find Li Jiating for help. After Mingxing Company got the
right of development, it earned more than CNY 15 million of
profits. At the spring festival of 1998, Li Qun asked him
for CNY 2 million upon consent of Li Bo; in mid-May, he
handed over a draft of CNY 7,500,000 to Li Bo, including CNY
3 million for the Luoshiwan project, and the remaining CNY
4,500,000 of loans. In October 1998, he heard that the
Government of Guandu District, Kunming Municipality applied
for the use of land for the World Horticulture Exposition
and wrote a report to the municipal government. In order to
win the project and obtain the priority of development, he
instigated Li Bo ask Li Jiating for help. After the report
was approved, Li Bo told him that the Li Jiating ventured to
handle the matter, and that he was unable to return the
loans since he had lost money in trading in stocks. Had Li
Jiating not appear, Li Jun would have been very difficult to
win the Luoshiwan project and the use of land of Garden
Residential Area. It was actually to express gratitude to Li
Jiating that he offered so much money to Li Bo.
3. Testimony of witness Li Liming, whose main contents are
as follows: In order to undertake the project of rebuilding
Luoshiwan Market and to win the right to develop Garden
Residential Area, he found Li Jiating via Li Bo for help. In
early 1998, he borrowed CNY 2 million from someone else for
Li Jun to offer the money to Li Bo for Luoshiwan project.
4. Testimony of witness Liao Xiaoshan, whose main contents
are as follows: In 1997, the District Government planned to
have Luoshiwan Market rebuilt, and several entities wished
to undertake construction engaged in severe competition. On
an evening, Li Jiating called him and introduced Li Liming
and Li Jun (father and son). He then introduced Li Liming
and Li Jun to Gao Jinsong, vice district head, et al. Later,
no bid invitation was carried out for the project of
rebuilding Luoshiwan Market, instead, the project was
directly delivered to Li Liming for undertaking
construction.
5. Testimony of witness Gao Jinsong, whose main contents are
as follows: Pursuant to Liao Xiaoshan’s intent, he delivered
the project of rebuilding Luoshiwan Market to Mingxing
Company for undertaking construction.
6. Testimony of witness Cui Zhitao, whose main contents are
as follows: Pursuant to Li Jiating’s instruction, he
convened two intervention meetings regarding the issue of
listing the Garden Residential Area project into the key
auxiliary projects of World Horticulture Exposition and the
issue of lowering the price of land of the project.
7. Testimony of witness Zhang Zhong, whose main contents are
as follows: When he served as head of Guandu District in
June 1998, he submitted the “Request for Instruction on
Developing and Building Garden Residential Area, an
Auxiliary Project to ’99 World Horticulture Exposition” to
the superior authority; after Li Liming found Li Jiating for
help, the provincial government approved the report, and
Guandu District Government granted Li Liming and his son the
priority to use 700 mu of land.
8. Kunming Municipal People’s Government’s instruction
document to the “Request for Instruction on Developing and
Building Garden Residential Area, an Auxiliary Project to
’99 World Horticulture Exposition”, which showed that Li
Jiating’s instruction was: “Comrades Qiwei and Zhitao, this
is an international practice (it is the same in Olympic
Games and Expositions). How should our province deal with
the matter? Hope you intervene in the matter as soon as
possible, and propose your opinions, so as to avoid any
possible delay.”
9. Li Jiating’s confession, whose main contents are as
follows: In 1996, Li Bo wanted do business and make money.
Li Jiating showed his consent and told Li Bo not to appear
in public, but to find someone else for cooperation, and he
would talk to the relevant authorities. Li Bo merely played
a function of contacting Li Liming and Li Jun in the
Luoshiwan Market project and the Garden Residential Area
project. Li Jun offered money to Li Bo mainly because Li
Jiating favored Li Jun. Every time after accepting money, Li
Bo told him of it. He told Li Bo that the money was hard-won
and should be owned by the whole family. He also told Li Bo
to deposit the money in Hong Kong.
III. During Li Jiating’s visit in USA in September 1994, Ge
Jianhui, deputy director of Yunnan Provincial Government’s
Rep Office in Beijing, had Ge Jinghui, his younger brother
living in USA, offer Li Jiating USD 2,000 in order that Li
Jiating would favor his personal future. After that, when Ge
Jianhui accompanied Li Jiating to visit Ge Jinghui who came
back from USA to Beijing, Ge Jinghui again offered Li
Jiating USD 10,000, and requested Li Jiating to provide
support and assistance to his work. In February 1998, upon
Li Jiating’s proposal, Ge Jianhui was appointed director
general of Yunnan Provincial People’s Government’s Rep
Office in Shenzhen.
The main items of evidence proving that above-mentioned
facts are as follows:
1. Testimony of witness Ge Jianhui, whose main contents are
as follows: In September 1994, when Li Jiating went to USA,
Ge Jianhui called Ge Jinghui, his younger brother who lived
in USA, to give favorable treatment Li Jiating, so as to
make some preparations for his own future. After that, Ge
Jinghui said that he offered Li Jiating USD 2,000. Later, Ge
Jinghui offered Li Jiating USD 10,000 after coming back to
China.
2. Testimony of witness Ge Jinghui, whose main contents are
as follows: He followed Ge Jianhui’s arrangements and
offered Li Jiating USD 12,000 by twice, requesting Li
Jiating to favor Ge Jianhui in the work.
3. Li Jiating’s confession, whose main contents are as
follows: He successively accepted USD 12,000 from Ge Jinghui
by twice, and proposed transferring Ge Jianhui to another
work position.
IV. By the spring festival of 1995, Li Jiating accepted at
home USD 10,000 from Shu Jian, board chairman of Kunming
Jianhua Enterprise Group (hereinafter referred to as Jianhua
Group). In February, when Shu Jian accompanied Li Jiating to
Thailand to take part in an investment fair, he offered Li
Jiating USD 5,000. In June and July, Shu Jian found Li
Jiating for many times for help in borrowing loans, and Li
Jiating separately had Li Weibin, president of Yunnan
People’s Bank of China, and Zheng Xiaoren, president of Bank
of Communications, Kunming Branch, intervene in the matter.
Later, Jianhua Group totally borrowed CNY 45 million of
loans from Bank of Communications, Kunming Branch and
Kunming Urban Credit Cooperative Union. In order to express
gratitude to Li Jiating, Shu Jian offered Li Jiating USD
10,000 separately at the spring festivals of 1996 and 1999.
The main items of evidence proving that above-mentioned
facts are as follows:
1. Testimony of witness Shu Jian, whose main contents are as
follows: He offered Li Jiating USD 10,000 in January 1995.
In February 1995, he offered Li Jiating USD 5,000 when
accompanying Li Jiating to Thailand to take part in an
investment fair. In June and July, he requested Li Jiating
for help in borrowing loans. Li Jiating requested Li Weibin
to intervene in the matter, and enabled Jianhua Group to
borrow CNY 25 million of loans from Bank of Communications,
and CNY 20 million of loans from the urban credit
cooperative. In order to express gratitude to Li Jiating, he
offered Li Jiating USD 10,000 at the spring festival of 1996
and USD 10,000 at the spring festival of 1999.
2. Testimony of witness Li Weibin, whose main contents are
as follows: In the summer of 1995, Li Jiating had him help
Shu Jian in borrowing loans. Pursuant to Li Jiating’s
requirement, he separately talked to Hu Gang and Zheng
Xiaoren.
3. Testimony of witness Zheng Xiaoren, whose main contents
are as follows: Li Jiating had him provide support in
Jianhua Group’s borrowing loans, and later Bank of
Communications, Kunming Branch lent CNY 25 million of loans
to Jianhua Group.
4. Testimony of witness Hu Gang, whose main contents are as
follows: When he served as director general of Kunming Urban
Credit Cooperative Union, Li Weibin had him provide support
in Jianhua Group’s borrowing loans, and later the credit
cooperative lent CNY 20 million of loans to Jianhua Group.
5. Li Jiating’s confession, whose main contents are as
follows: He accepted USD 35,000 from Shu Jian by 4 times and
intervened in the matter to enable Shu Jian in borrowing the
loans.
V. By the spring festival of 1996, Li Jiating accepted at
home CNY 50,000 from Wang Wei, general manager of Kunming
Weishida Agricultural Development Limited Company
(hereinafter referred to as Weishida Company). In May,
Weishida Company invested in and participated in the project
of houses for relocation due to the expanding of Jinbi Road,
which was developed by Kunming Bailian Real Estate
Development Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as
Bailian Company) in cooperation with other companies. After
the project was completed, the Construction Headquarters
refused to make payment since Bailian Company did not pay
the land transfer fee. In September 1997, Wang Wei and Liu
Xiangyun, board chairman of Bailian Company, requested Li
Jiating to provide help in settling the matter. After Li
Jiating instructed Feng Zhicheng, vice mayor of Kunming
Municipality, et al, on the “Report of Facts”, the
Construction Headquarters paid CNY 40 million to Bailian
Company, and Wang Wei was distributed CNY 6,500,000. In
order to express gratitude to Li Jiating, Wang Wei offered
CNY 100,000 and USD 10,000 to Li Jiating by the spring
festival of 1999.
The main items of evidence proving that above-mentioned
facts are as follows:
1. Testimony of witness Wang Wei, whose main contents are as
follows: By the spring festival of 1996, he prepared CNY
50,000 and then went to Li Jiating’s home, and handed over
the money to Li Jiating’s wife before the eye of Li Jiating.
In September 1997, the project of houses for relocation on
Jinbi Road, in which he participated with investments, was
completed, but the Construction Headquarters delayed for
long in making the payment. Then he and Liu Xiangyun went to
Li Jiating’s home asking for intervention, and sent the
“Report of Facts” to Li Jiating’s secretary. After that, the
Construction Headquarters paid partial money very soon, and
he totally gained CNY 6,500,000 from Bailian Company. In
order to express gratitude to Li Jiating, he went to Li
Jiating’s home in January 1999, and offered USD 10,000 and
CNY 100,000 to Li Jiating.
2. Testimony of witness Liu Xiangyun, whose main contents
are as follows: After the houses for relocation were built,
the municipal engineering company refused to make the
payment. In July and August 1997, Wang Wei and he went to Li
Jiating’s home to report the relevant information, and Li
Jiating said he would help resolve the matter. Later, Li
Jiating made an instruction on the “Report of Facts”, and
the other party made the payment very soon thereafter.
Consequently, Bailian Company paid CNY 6,500,000 to Wang
Wei.
3. The instruction document to Bailian Company’s “Report of
Facts”. Li Jiating’s instruction was: “Transmit it to
Comrades Jianqiang, Chengyin and Zhicheng of Kunming
Municipal Government for reading. Both parties to the
cooperation should abide by the contract, especially
government authorities should even have good faith so as to
gain trust, and to absorb investors with trust, otherwise
the investment environment as well as the extent of opening
up of Kunming would be impacted.”
4. Testimony of witness Feng Zhicheng, whose main contents
are as follows: In August and September 1997, pursuant to Li
Jiating’s instruction, he instructed some relevant persons
to settle the dispute over the project of houses for
relocation on Jinbi Road after negotiating with Bailian
Company.
5. Testimony of witness Li Binguang, whose main contents are
as follows: When he served as commander of the Headquarters
for rebuilding Jinbi Road in Kunming, he fell into an
economic dispute with Bailian Company. After required by
Feng Zhicheng, the vice mayor, to settle the matter through
negotiations, they paid CNY 40 million of construction costs
to Bailian Company.
6. Li Jiating’s confession, whose main contents are as
follows: He totally accepted USD 10,000 and CNY 150,000 from
Wang Wei by two installments, and transferred the “Report of
Facts” provided by Wang Wei to the relevant person-in-charge
of Kunming Municipality for handling.
VI. In early 1996, when Renhe Pharmaceutical Limited Company
subordinate to Yunnan Renhe Industry Group Company
(hereinafter referred to as Renhe Group) participated in the
asset restructuring of Yunnan Health Development Company,
the modification of the certificate of conformity for the
drug operation enterprise was not approved. Then He Liwei,
president of that Group requested Li Jiating to intervene in
the matter, later Yunnan Provincial Administrative Office
for Medicine went through the relevant modification
procedures very soon. After that, He Liwei offered Li
Jiating CNY 60,000.
The main items of evidence proving that above-mentioned
facts are as follows:
1. Testimony of witness He Liwei, whose main contents are as
follows: In early 1996, due to the procedures for
modification of Yunnan Provincial Health Company’s
certificate of conformity for the drug operation enterprise,
he requested Li Jiating to intervene in the matter. After Li
Jiating gave his instruction, the matter was settled very
smoothly. Later, when he visited Li Jiating who received
trainings in Central Communist Party School at that time, he
offered Li Jiating CNY 60,000.
2. The instruction document to Yunnan Provincial Health
Company’s “Report on Modifying Yunnan Provincial Health
Development Company’s Certificate of Conformity for the Drug
Operation Enterprise” to Yunnan Provincial Administrative
Office for Medicine. Li Jiating’s instruction was: “Comrades
Chen Zhixiang and Li Shuji: The restructuring or
modification of a company is very common, and is better than
establishing a new company through restructuring. It is good
for flourishing Yunnan’s medicine market. Please provide
your support and favor in this regard.”
3. Testimony of witness Chen Zhixiang, whose main contents
are as follows: Renhe Group was then unqualified, but after
Li Jiating gave his instruction, the relevant authority had
nothing to do but follow the instruction.
4. Testimony of witness Li Shuji, whose main contents are as
follows: In February 1996, Renhe Group and the Provincial
Health Company cooperated and applied for modifying the
certificate of conformity for the drug operation enterprise,
but failed to get the approval since there were too many
medical wholesale enterprises within the province. Later, he
heard from Chen Zhixiang that Li Jiating instructed them to
give support, and then the modification procedures were gone
through very soon.
5. Li Jiating’s confession, whose main contents are as
follows: He accepted CNY 60,000 from He Liwei, and
transmitted the relevant report to the person-in-charge of
the relevant authority for handling.
VII. In the end of 1994, Wu Xinyuan, board chairman of
Kunming Department Store (Group) Joint Stock Limited Company
(hereinafter referred to as Department Store Company)
requested Li Jiating for help because the company failed to
get approval from Yunnan People’s Bank of China on the gold
wholesale and processing business. Li Jiating asked Ni
Guangzu, vice president of Yunnan People’s Bank of China,
for support. Later, Department Store Company was granted the
powers of wholesaling and processing gold. In April 1996, in
order to express gratitude, Wu Xinyuan offered Li Jiating
CNY 50,000. In the second half of 1996, Department Store
Company wanted to connect the newly built building and the
old building, and applied for building a footbridge but
failed to get the approval. Then Wu Xinyuan requested Li
Jiating for help, and Li Jiating instructed Feng Zhicheng,
vice mayor of Kunming Municipality, to provide support, so
Department Store Company got the approval to build the
footbridge.
The main items of evidence proving that above-mentioned
facts are as follows:
1. Testimony of witness Wu Xinyuan, whose main contents are
as follows: In about 1994, Department Store Company applied
for the right to engage in wholesaling and processing gold
but had not got approval all along. After he found Li
Jiating, the matter was settled. In April 1996, he offered
Li Jiating CNY 50,000 of cash. In 1996, Department Store
Company wanted to build a footbridge between the old
building and the new building but failed to get the
approval. After he requested Li Jiating for intervention,
the company got consent from the municipal government.
2. Testimony of witness Ni Guangzu, whose main contents are
as follows: In early 1995, after Li Jiating required him to
support Department Store Company in applying for the gold
product processing and wholesale business, he had Wu Xinyuan
submit the application materials to the head office of the
People’s Bank of China.
3. Testimony of witness Feng Zhicheng, whose main contents
are as follows: In August and September 1996, Department
Store Company proposed to build a footbridge, and Li Jiating
required the municipal government to provide supports, then
the municipal government consented to it.
4. Li Jiating’s confession, whose main contents are as
follows: He accepted CNY 50,000 from Wu Xinyuan, and
separately required Ni Guangzu and Feng Zhicheng to support
Department Store Company.
VIII. In August 1996, Zou Lijia, general manager of Kunming
Jiada Industry Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as
Jiada Company), requested Li Jiating for favor in order to
conclude with Hongta Group an agreement on joint
construction of Tower B of Kaiwah Plaza as soon as possible.
Li Jiating instructed the relevant person-in-charge of
Hongta Group to show support and cooperation, while Hongta
Group followed his instructions and concluded the relevant
agreement with Jiada Company. In September 1996, Zou Lijia
offered Li Jiating USD 5,000 and HKD 30,000. In early 1998,
Zou Lijia requested Li Jiating to help listing Kaiwah Plaza
into the key auxiliary projects of “World Horticulture
Exposition”, so as to borrow money from the bank. Li Jiating
transmitted Zou Lijia’s materials to the vice governor in
charge, and enabled Kaiwah Plaza to be listed into the key
auxiliary projects of “World Horticulture Exposition”. In
June 1998, USA Wal-Mart (China) Company intended to
cooperate with Jiahua House Development Limited Company
(whose board chairman was Zou Lijia) and other entities to
establish Kunming Wal-Mart Management Service Company, but
the relevant authority did not consent to it. Then Zou Lijia
requested Li Jiating for help. Li Jiating had the vice
governor in charge intervene in the matter, and gave his
instructions. After that, Zou Lijia went to Li Jiating’s
home, and offered CNY 100,000 to Wang Xiao, Li Jiating’s
wife, before the eye of Li Jiating. In June 1999, Jiada
Company and Hongta Group fell into dispute due to the
construction period and payment, etc. of Tower B of Kaiwah
Plaza. Zou Lijia requested Li Jiating for help. The
provincial government followed Li Jiating’s instructions and
formed an intervention leading team that presided over both
parties and enabled them to reach an agreement. In July
2000, Zou Lijia offered Li Jiating USD 5,000 and HKD 30,000.
The main items of evidence proving that above-mentioned
facts are as follows:
1. Testimony of witness Zou Lijia, whose main contents are
as follows: In September 1996, when Li Jiating passed Hong
Kong after visiting USA, she offered Li Jiating USD 5,000
and HKD 30,000. In 1996, Hongta Group intended to purchase
Tower B of Kaiwah Plaza, and she found Li Jiating for favor.
In September, Hongta Group and Jiada Company concluded the
contract on purchase of Tower B of Kaiwah Plaza B. Later,
both parties had some conflicts between them, and she called
Li Jiating for settlement. Li Jiating gave his instruction
and settled the conflicts. She sent two reports to Li
Jiating in order to have the Kaiwah Plaza project listed
into the auxiliary projects of “World Horticulture
Exposition” and to borrow loans from China Construction
Bank. After Li Jiating gave his instruction, Kaiwah Plaza
was listed into the auxiliary projects of “World
Horticulture Exposition”. In 1998, when she prepared to
attract Wal-Mart Company into Kunming, she requested Li
Jiating for help, and later she had done it. In the winter
of 1998, she handed over CNY 100,000 to Wang Xiao to the eye
of Li Jiating at Li Jiating’s home. When Li Jiating visited
USA in July 2000, she offered Li Jiating HKD 10,000; and
later offered Li Jiating USD 5,000 and HKD 20,000.
2. Li Jiating’s instruction on Zou Lijia’s letter, whose
contents are: “Comrades Chu Shijian, Zi Guorui and Huang
Yueqi of Hongta Group are requested to read this Instruction
and to deal with the matter, and the board of directors is
suggested to research it. If feasible, you may provide
support and cooperation, which will actually support
Kunming’s municipal construction and support the ’99 World
Horticulture Exposition.”
3. Testimony of witness Zi Guorui, whose main contents are
as follows: Due to Li Jiating’s instruction, Hongta Group
and Zou Lijia concluded an agreement on the purchase of
Kaiwah Plaza in September 1996. During the engineering
construction, Zou Lijia and Hongta Group fell into disputes
for many times due to the price of the building and the
construction period, etc. Later, Li Jiating sent his people
to intervene in the matter. Hongta Group totally paid more
than CNY 240 million of construction costs to Jiada Company.
4. The instruction document to Jiada Company’s “Report of
Request for Instruction on the Cause of Conflicts during
Yunnan Hongta Group’s Cooperative Construction of Kaiwah
Plaza and on the Solution Thereof”, in which Li Jiating’s
instruction was: “Comrade Kaitan is requested to lead the
leaders of the Provincial Department of Construction and the
Municipal Commission of Construction, etc. to, on the basis
of consulting the opinions of both parties, appropriately
intervene in and settle the matter. Generally, the matter
should be ruled and settled in accordance with the law, the
contract (the cooperation agreement previously concluded by
and between both parties) and the business practices once
and for all.”
5. Testimony of witness Du Kaitan, whose main contents are
as follows: Pursuant to Li Jiating’s instruction, he
reconciled for twice the conflicts arising between Hongta
Group and Jiada Company out of cooperative construction of
Kaiwah Plaza.
6. The instruction document to Jiada Company’s “Report on
Requesting to List Kunming Kaiwah Plaza as a Receiving
Entity of the ’99 World Horticulture Exposition”, in which
Li Jiating’s instruction was: “Comrades Liu Jing and
Jingtai: Kaiwah Plaza is the only five-star hotel completed
or under construction in Kunming, and is indeed necessary to
be listed as a receiving entity of the World Horticulture
Exposition. Hope you will list the project into the
auxiliary projects of the World Horticulture Exposition.”
7. The instruction document to the “Report on Submitting the
Examination Opinions on the Kunming Kaiwah Plaza Project”
submitted by the China Construction Bank, Yunnan Branch to
the Head Office of China Construction Bank, in which Li
Jiating’s instruction was: “Comrade Yingying: Kaiwah Plaza
is the only five-star hotel completed or under construction
in Kunming, and is the main receiving facilities (especially
for foreign guests) of the World Horticulture Exposition to
be held in next year. Both the provincial government and the
municipal government have decided to list it into the
auxiliary projects of the World Horticulture Exposition.
Please consult with President Shuai of the Provincial Branch
of China Construction Bank on how to get the support of the
Head Office. If necessary, you may, when arriving in
Beijing, go to the Head Office along with the leaders of the
provincial branch of China Construction Bank to try to get
permission. I will talk to the leaders of the Head Office
during the National People’s Congress.”
8. The instruction document to the “Report on the
Argumentation Opinions on Wal-Mart’s Establishing an
Enterprise in Kunming”, in which Li Jiating’s instruction
was: “I consent to the opinions at the intervention meeting.
Comrade Qiwei is requested to do a good job in Kunming’s
municipal affairs (including hi-tech zones), and to try to
fulfill the matter as soon as possible.”
9. Li Jiating’s confession, whose main contents are as
follows: He totally accepted CNY 100,000, USD 10,000 and HKD
60,000 from Zou Lijia by 3 installments; and accepted Zou
Lijia’s request to provide help in respect of jointly
building Kaiwah Plaza, listing Kaiwah Plaza into the
auxiliary projects of “World Horticulture Exposition”,
applying for loans, and establishing “Wal-Mart” Company
through cooperation, and so on.
IX. In October 1996, Industrial and Commercial Bank of
China, Yunnan Branch was to nominate the president. Li
Jiating was requested by Li Zhongping, vice president of the
Bank to, at the working meeting of secretary of the
Provincial Committee of CPC and at the time when the
organization department solicited opinions from him, show
his consent to the appointment of Li Zhongping to be the
president. In December, Head Office of Industrial and
Commercial Bank of China formally appointed Li Zhongping to
be president of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China,
Yunnan Branch, and Li Zhongping offered Li Jiating USD
10,000 in the evening of that day. From November 1997 to
January 1999, Li Zhongping totally offered Li Jiating CNY
20,000, USD 2,000 and JPY 200,000 by four installments.
The main items of evidence proving that above-mentioned
facts are as follows:
1. Testimony of witness Li Zhongping, whose main contents
are as follows: In October 1996, he told Li Jiating of his
wish to be the president, and requested Li Jiating for
favor. Li Jiating said that he would speak for Li Zhongping
at an appropriate time. In December, the Head Office
formally appointed Li Zhongping as president of Yunnan
Branch. In order to express gratitude to Li Jiating, Li
Zhongping invited Li Jiating for dining and offered Li
Jiating USD 10,000. In 1997, when he learned that Li Jiating
was to go abroad, he offered Li Jiating USD 2,000. Later, he
successively offered Li Jiating CNY 20,000 and JPY 200,000.
All the money he offered was public money.
2. Testimony of witness Li Suhua, whose main contents are as
follows: In the second half of 1996, when he served as a
division head of the Organization Department of Yunnan
Provincial Committee of CPC, he examined Li Zhongping. When
he solicited opinions from Li Jiating on this issue, Li
Jiating showed consent.
3. Li Jiating’s confession, whose main contents are as
follows: He was requested by Li Zhongping to, at the working
meeting of the secretary of the Provincial Committee of CPC
and at the time when the organization department solicited
opinions from him, show his consent to the appointment of Li
Zhongping as president of Industrial and Commercial Bank of
China, Yunnan Branch. He totally accepted by 5 installments
USD 12,000, CNY 20,000 and JPY 200,000 offered by Li
Zhongping.
X. In early 1997, Hong Kong Jinshili Group Limited Company
intended to cooperate with Yunnan Tobacco Company and
Cambodia Xu Group Limited Company to establish a tobacco
plant in Cambodia. Li Zhengui, board chairman of Jinshili
Company, requested Li Jiating for help. In March, after Li
Jiating accepted USD 10,000 from Li Zhengui at home, he
talked to the relevant person-in-charge of Yunnan Tobacco
Company, and urged the three parties to conclude a letter of
intent on joint establishment of the tobacco plant. In June
2000, Li Jiating again accepted USD 1,000 offered by Li
Zhengui.
The main items of evidence proving the above-mentioned facts
are as follows:
1. Testimony of witness Li Zhengui, whose main contents are
as follows: In 1996, he wanted to cooperate with Yunnan
Tobacco Company to establish a tobacco plant in Cambodia,
and requested Li Jiating for help. In 1997, he went to Li
Jiating’s home and offered Li Jiating USD 10,000. In 1998,
he concluded a letter of intent for cooperation with the
relevant sectors. In 2000, he offered Li Jiating USD 1,000
again.
2. Testimony of witness Zhang Shuichang, whose main contents
are as follows: When he served as executive deputy general
manager of Yunnan Tobacco Company, Li Jiating talked to him
about Li Zhengui’s wish to cooperate with Yunnan Tobacco
Company to establish a tobacco plant in Cambodia, and
requested him to fulfill the matter.
3. Li Jiating’s confession, whose main contents are as
follows: He totally accepted USD 11,000 from Li Zhengui, and
provided help to Li Zhengui in establishing a tobacco plant
in Cambodia.
To sum up, Li Jiating accepted CNY 10,380,000, HKD 6490,000,
USD 91,000 and JPY 200,000 of bribes form others either
alone or in collusion with Li Bo, his son, with the total
value of more than CNY 18,100,000. After the case was
reported, the prosecuting organ confiscated and distrained
CNY 1,127,984.94, HKD 2,781,119.86, USD 474,396.4, JPY
356,000, 18 watches which valued CNY 910,340 and 10
ornaments which valued CNY 96,462.
With respect to the defending opinion on the necessity to
verify whether Li Bo and Li Jun did business through
partnership, it was verified that Li Jiating himself
confessed that Li Bo merely served as a contact person
between Li Liming and Li Jun (father and son) in the
Luoshiwan Market project and the project of Garden
Residential Area; the reason that Li Jun offered money to Li
Bo lay in that Li Jiating signed reports and called the
relevant authorities for Li Liming and his son by making use
of his powers as a governor. Li Bo alleged that he did not
invest any money in the project of rebuilding Luoshiwan
Market or the Garden Residential Area project, nor had he
done anything for the two projects, instead, he just made
use of Li Jiating’s powers and influences to help Li Jun; it
was to express gratitude to Li Jiating that Li Liming and
his son offered him CNY 9,500,000. Therefore, the evidence
for ascertaining that Li Jiating clearly knew that Li Bo and
Li Jun did not do business through partnership but by taking
advantages of his position to secure benefits for Li Jun,
and that Li Bo accepted money from Li Jun was conclusive and
sufficient.
With respect to the defending opinions that Li Jiating’s
securing benefits for Shu Jian and Li Zhongping was not
obvious, it was verified that, after accepting their
request, Li Jiating required the person-in-charge of the
relevant bank to intervene in Shu Jian’s borrowing loans,
and helped Shu in getting CNY 45 million of loans; after he
was requested by Li Zhongping and when the relevant
authority assessed on the appointment of Li Zhongping to the
position, he clearly expressed his consent to the
appointment of Li Zhongping. Li Jiating’s acts of securing
benefits for the above-mentioned two people were very
obvious.
With respect to the defending opinions that Ge Jianhui’s
requested was unclear and that the evidence for ascertaining
Li Jiating secured benefits for Ge Jianhui was insufficient,
it was verified that, Ge Jianhui hoped that Li Jiating could
provide support and favor to his work, hence the request was
clear; according to Li Jiating’s confession and Ge Jinghui’s
testimony, Li Jiating did accept the request, and proposed
to transfer Ge Jianhui to another work position, hence the
fact of securing benefits for Ge Jianhui is proved with
sufficient evidence.
With respect to the defending opinions that although Wu
Xinyuan requested Li Jiating for help regarding Kunming
Department Store’s building a footbridge, the “Meeting
Minutes” of the General Office of Kunming Municipal
Government had generally consented on July 18 to building
the footbridge, and thus the items of evidence for
ascertaining the said requested matter were in conflict with
each other, it was verified that, the above-mentioned
“Meeting Minutes” did not contain any content on generally
consenting to building the footbridge.
With respect to the defending opinions that there were no
specific requested matters corresponding to CNY 50,000
offered by Wang Wei to Li Jiating, the USD 1,000 offered by
Li Zhengui to Li Jiating and the money offered by Li
Zhongping by four times to Li Jiating, and thus these sums
of money should not be calculated into the amount of
accepted bribes, it was verified that, all the three
above-mentioned persons were involved in the specific
requested matters, and Li Jiating secured benefits for all
of them by taking advantage of his position; as for whether
the money was accepted before or after Li Jiating secured
the benefits, it does not impact the ascertainment of the
nature of Li Jiating’s acceptance of bribes.
With respect to the argument and defending opinion that Li
Jiating was not clear about the specific amount of money
accepted by Li Bo, it was verified that, Li Jiating actually
premeditated Li Bo’s acceptance of money from Li Jun; Li Bo
clearly told Li Jiating of his acceptance of money from Yang
Rong; after Li Bo accepted money from Li Jun and Yang Rong,
Li Jiating clearly said to Li Bo that all the accepted money
was joint property of the family. Since Li Jiating did not
accept that amount by himself, it was usual for him not to
grasp the accurate amount of the accepted money, but the
ascertainment of the nature of Li Jiating’s act of accepting
bribes should not be impacted, nor should it become a
circumstance for giving him a lighter punishment.
With respect to the arguments and defending opinions that Li
Jiating did not actively extort properties from others, that
most of the matters he handled for others fell out of the
scope of his direct powers, and he did not cause direct
economic losses to the state, it was verified that, the
Prosecuting Organ’s prosecution did not ascertain that Li
Jiating extorted properties or caused direct economic losses
to the state, nor did it specify whether he took advantage
of his direct powers to secure benefits for others. Among
the benefits secured by Li Jiating for others, there were
indeed illegitimate benefits. Securing illegitimate benefits
may be a circumstance for giving a heavier punishment, but
securing legitimate benefits cannot be a ground for a
lighter punishment.
With respect to the defending opinions that Li Jiating
showed an good attitude in confessing his crime, and
performed major meritorious services, and thus should be
given a mitigated punishment, the prosecuting organ proved
that Li Jiating played an important role by exposing the
criminal acts of others for the investigation organ to solve
the relevant cases, and has performed meritorious services,
which may be taken into consideration as the circumstance of
sentencing.
Beijing No. 2 Intermediate Court held that:
Paragraph 1 of Article 385 of the Criminal Law of the
People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the
Criminal Law) prescribes: “Any State functionary who, by
taking advantage of his position, extorts any money or
property from any other person, or illegally accepts any
other person’s money or property in return for securing
benefits for the person shall be guilty of acceptance of
bribes.” Li Jiating was a state functionary, but took
advantage of his position to secure benefits for others, and
illegally accepted money from others either alone or in
collusion with Li Bo, his son. His acts had constituted the
crime of accepting bribes. In the Prosecuting Organ’s
prosecution against Li Jiating on the crime of accepting
bribes, the facts were clear, the evidence was conclusive
and sufficient, and the accused crime was tenable. The
amount of bribes accepted by Li Jiating was extremely huge,
and the criminal circumstances were extremely serious, hence
he should have been sentenced to death. Considering that Li
Jiating performed meritorious services of exposing the
crimes of others and showed an good attitude to confessing
his crime, and the illicit money had been fully confiscated,
the death penalty did not need to be executed immediately.
In accordance with Paragraph 1 of Article 385, Article 386,
Item (1) of Paragraph 1 of Article 383, Paragraph 1 of
Article 48, Paragraph 1 of Article 57 and Paragraph 1 of
Article 68 of the Criminal Law as well as Article 5 of the
“Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Some Issues
concerning the Specific Application of Law for Dealing with
Voluntary Surrender and Meritorious Performances”, Beijing
No. 2 Intermediate Court adjudicated as follows on May 9,
2003:
I. Li Jiating has committed the crime of accepting bribes,
and shall be sentenced to death with a two-year suspension
of execution, deprived of political rights for life, and in
addition, all his personal properties shall be confiscated.
II. The confiscated illicit money shall be turned over to
the state treasury; and the distrained articles shall be
returned to the No. 2 Branch of the People’s Procuratorate
of Beijing Municipality for treatment.
After the judgment was announced, Li Jiating appealed. Li
Jiating’s grounds for appeal were as follows: He performed
major meritorious services, at least special meritorious
services, by exposing the criminal facts of others, and had
the legal and factual basis for further lighter punishment.
Li Jiating’s defender held that: Li Jiating’s provision of
the clues met the legal conditions for major meritorious
services, and he should be given a mitigated punishment. Li
Jiating only committed the crime of accepting bribes,
without being involved in other crimes; the requests of the
bribers were mostly lawful matters; Li Jiating mostly made
use of the influences of his position instead of his powers
to handle matters for others; Li Jiating did not cause
direct heavy economic losses; Li Jiating did not extort
bribes; most of the illicit money had been confiscated, and
Li Jiating showed active attitudes to admit his crime and to
repent; therefore, the above circumstances should be taken
into full consideration when the punishment was meted out.
It was verified by the Higher People’s Court of Beijing
Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Beijing Higher
Court) after trial that, all the items of evidence
enumerated in the judgment of the first instance for
ascertaining the facts in the present case were read out,
showed and cross-examined in court during the first
instance, while neither Li Jiating nor his defender provided
any new evidence in the appeal, hence the evidence
ascertained in the judgment of the first instance shall be
confirmed. Therefore, in the judgment of the first instance,
the facts are clear, and the evidence is conclusive and
sufficient.
Beijing Higher Court held that:
With respect to the grounds for appeal and the defending
opinions as proposed by Li Jiating and his defender that Li
Jiating provided clues, exposed the criminal acts of others,
which were the performance of legal major meritorious
services, hence Li Jiating should be given a further lighter
punishment or mitigated punishment, it was verified that Li
Jiating’s acts do not conform to the legal provisions on
major meritorious service. Therefore, the opinions of Li
Jiating and his defender on requesting a further lighter or
mitigated punishment were short of legal basis, and shall
not be adopted.
With respect to Li Jiating’s grounds for appeal that his
meritorious services were special and he should be given a
further lighter punishment as well as his defender’s
defending opinions that Li Jiating actively confessed his
crime and showed repentance, most of the illicit money had
been confiscated, he did not cause heavy losses, and should
be taken into full consideration when the punishment was
meted out, it was verified that, there is not any legal
provision on particular meritorious services, and the
judgment of the first instance has, at the time of
sentencing, fully considered the facts of his performance of
meritorious service, the full confiscation of the illicit
money, his active admission of his crime, and his
repentance, etc., hence the punishment was meted out
properly.
With respect to other defending opinions proposed by Li
Jiating’s defender for full consideration when meting out
the punishment upon Li Jiating, none of them shall be
adopted since none of the listed circumstances belong to
legal circumstances for lighter punishment.
To sum up, Li Jiating was a state functionary, but he
secured benefits for others by taking advantages of his
position, illegally accepted money from others either alone
or in collusion with Li Bo, his son, thus his acts have
constituted the crime of accepting bribes. Li Jiating
accepted a huge amount of bribes by taking advantage of his
position, and his acts have seriously injured the probity of
the position of state functionary, damaged the prestige of
state functionaries, destroyed the normal working order of
state organs, with the criminal circumstances being
particularly serious, hence he shall be punished in
accordance with the law. In the judgment rendered by Beijing
No. 2 Intermediate Court according to the facts, nature,
severity of Li Jiating’s crime and the degree of danger to
the society and by considering that Li Jiating performed
meritorious services, provided clues which were of great
importance for solving relevant cases, confessed his crime
and showed repentance, and the illicit money was fully
confiscated, the conviction and application of laws were
correct, the punishment was meted out properly, and the
trial procedures were lawful, hence the judgment of the
first instance shall be sustained. Therefore, Beijing Higher
Court ruled on June 20, 2003 as follows in accordance with
Item (1) of Article 189 of the “Criminal Litigation Law of
the People’s Republic of China”:
Li Jiating’s appeal shall be rejected and the judgment of
the first instance shall be sustained. |
