Larceny Case Involving HAO Jingwen and HAO Jinglong@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Prosecutor: the People's Procuratorate of Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province@#
The accused: l HAO Jingwen, male, age 31, resident of Zhenjiang City (Jiangsu Province), jobless, arrested on October 30, 1998.@#
Defence lawyer: Mr. XU Xiang, attorney with Yinhe Law Office, Zhenjiang City@#
l HAO Jinglong, male, aged 35, brother of HAO Jingwen, resident of Zhenjiang city, former employee of Huashanwan Banking Office of Zhongshanlu Branch Office, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Zhenjiang Branch (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), arrested on October 30, 1998@#
Defence lawyer:l Mr. ZHANG Xiaoling, attorney with Zhongshan Law Office of , Nanjing City@#
The People's Procuratorate of Yangzhou City brought an indictment in the Intermediate People's Court of Yangzhou against the two accused for the crime of larceny.@#
It was alleged that the two accused committed the following offenses: With the intention to commit theft, HAO Jingwen and HAO Jinglong used a self-made device to intrude into the computing system of the Bank and took 720,000 RMB from the Bank. They later withdrew RMB 260,000, of which HAO Jingwen took RMB 135,000 and HAO Jinglong took RMB 125,000. After their crime was detected, RMB 232,657.67 in stolen cash and RMB 13,000 in goods were recovered. In addition, HAO Jingwen, by himself or in collaboration with others, committed six acts of larceny in Zhenjiang and other places. The value of property stolen was extremely high. The acts of HAO Jingwen and HAO Jinglong constituted criminal larceny as defined in Articles 287 and 264. Both individuals were principal offenders, but HAO Jinglong performed some meritorious services to atone for his crime. The Court was requested to render a judgement according to law.@#
HAO Jingwen did not object to the charges against him, but insisted that his actions constituted fraud, but not larceny. He also disclosed information before the Court at the hearing of other criminal suspects. His defence lawyer contended that the nature of the crime committed through the use computer technology by HAO Jingwen should be considered fraud instead of larceny. The lawyer also claimed that there was not sufficient proof to support the charge against HAO Jingwen that he stole one Ford car, one motorbike, computer processors and keyboards. Therefore, the charges could not be ascertained by the Court. In addition, HAO Jingwen had performed meritorious services to atone for his crime by disclosing other criminal suspects during the court hearing.@#
．．．．．．

郝景文、郝景龙盗窃案@#
@#
公诉机关：江苏省扬州市人民检察院。@#
被告人：郝景文，男，３１岁，江苏省镇江市人，无业。１９９８年１０月３０日被逮捕。@#
辩护人：徐祥，江苏镇江银河律师事务所律师。@#
被告人：郝景龙，男，３５岁，江苏省镇江市人，原系中国工商银行镇江市分行中山路办事处花山湾分理处职员。１９９８年１０月３０日被逮捕。@#
辩护人：张晓陵，江苏南京中山律师事务所律师。@#
江苏省扬州市人民检察院以被告人郝景文、郝景龙犯盗窃罪，向江苏省扬州市中级人民法院提起公诉。@#
起诉书指控：被告人郝景文、郝景龙兄弟以非法占有为目的，利用私制的装置侵入银行计算机系统，窃取银行资金７２万元，随后实际支取２６万元，郝景文得赃款１３．５万元，郝景龙得赃款１２．５万元。案发后追缴赃款２３２６５７．６７元和用赃款购买的价值１．３万余元的物品。此外，郝景文还单独或伙同他人在镇江等地盗窃作案６起，窃取财物数额特别巨大。郝景文、郝景龙的行为触犯《中华人民共和国刑法》第二百八十七条、第二百六十四条的规定，构成盗窃罪。二人均系主犯，郝景龙在犯罪后有立功表现。请依法判处。@#
被告人郝景文对起诉书指控的事实没有异议，但认为对其利用计算机作案的行为应认定为诈骗罪。郝景文还当庭检举揭发他人犯罪。郝景文的辩护人认为，对郝景文利用计算机作案的行为应认定为诈骗；还认为，郝景文单位或伙同他人盗窃“福特”面包车１辆、光阳豪爽１２５太子摩托车１辆和盗窃电脑主机、键盘等３项指控的证据不足，不能认定；郝景文能当庭检举揭发他人犯罪，是立功表现。@#
被告人郝景龙也对起诉书指控的事实没有异议，但认为对其行为应认定诈骗罪，还提出自己不仅有重大立功表现，还有自首情节。郝景龙的辩护人认为，郝景龙的行为只构成诈骗罪；本案不应当认定两被告人都是主犯；郝景龙犯罪后有自首和重大立功表现，应当减轻处罚。@#
扬州市中级人民法院经审理查明：@#
１９９８年６－７月间，被告人郝景龙、郝景文兄弟因经济拮据，计议使用调制解调器通过电话线将自己使用的计算机与银行的计算机系统连通，侵入银行的储蓄网点计算机系统进行盗窃。郝景龙指使郝景文在南京购得调制解调器２只，在扬州购得遥控玩具１只，由郝景龙将其改制成侵入银行计算机系统的装置。郝景文多次到扬州，通过在中国工商银行扬州市分行（以下简称扬州工行）系统数个储蓄所办理存、取款的方式进行观察。８月下旬，郝景文在扬州市郊区双桥乡双桥村王庄村民组，以吕俊昌的名义租赁房屋１间，并在该房内连接电话分机１部。９月７日，郝景文以吕俊昌、王君等１６个假名，在中国工商银行邗江县支行白鹤储蓄所开立１６个活期存款帐户。其间，郝景龙制作、调试了侵入银行计算机系统装置，并向郝景文传授安装方法。９月１８日凌晨，郝景文到白鹤储蓄所，想用钢锯锯断窗户上的铁条进入该所安装侵入银行计算机系统装置的一部分，因未锯断，遂用“５０２”胶水将卷帘门的锁孔堵死，以迫使该所更换门锁。９月２２日凌晨，郝景文又到白鹤储蓄所，使用自配的钥匙打开锁秘密潜入，将侵入银行计算机系统装置的一部分与该所计算机连接。当日上午９时许，郝景龙携带另一部分装置从镇江来到郝景文在扬州租赁的房内。１２时许，郝景文到白鹤储蓄所，并与郝景龙取得联系。郝景龙指使郝景文打开侵入银行计算机系统装置的遥控开关。１２时３２分至１２时４２分，郝景龙在郝景文租赁的房屋内通过操作计算机，从白鹤储蓄所往来帐上分别向以吕俊昌、王君等假名开立的１６个活期存款帐户各输入存款４．５万元，共计７２万元。嗣后，郝景龙、郝景文从１２时５０分至１４时０６分，利用银行的通存通兑业务，在扬州工行下设的瘦西湖、国庆北路、史可法路、沿河、解放桥、跃进桥、琼花、仙鹤等８个储蓄网点取款计２６万元。当郝景文、郝景龙到汶河储蓄所要求支取４万元时，因该所工作人员要求查验身份证，郝景文、郝景龙唯恐罪行败露，遂逃回镇江市。郝景文分得赃款１３．５万元，郝景龙分得赃款１２．５万元。案发后，侦查机关追缴赃款２３２６５７．６７元以及用赃款购买的计算机主机及万普显示器２台、格兰仕微波炉１台、ＴＣＬ牌７４厘米彩色电视机１台等物，均已发还被窃单位。@#
公诉人对上述事实，当庭宣读了证人证言。证人吴镇元、李江的证词证实：１９９８年９月２２日，被告人郝景龙没有上班。证人王家朝的证词证实：１９９８年８月下旬，被告人郝景文以吕俊昌的名义租住其房屋１间，并装了一部电话分机。证人洪广全的证词证实：１９９８年９月１８日上午白鹤储蓄所的人员上班时，发现钥匙无法插入卷帘门的锁孔，门开不下来，后想办法将门打开，并重新换了卷帘门的锁。证人孙帆的证词证实：１９９８年９月１８日其上班时，发现储蓄所窗户被锯，窗户上挂了一根电线，这根电线和粗主线接在一起；孙帆还证实：１９９８年９月２２日下午４时３０分白鹤储蓄所结帐时，发现往来帐上有７２万元转入到１９９８年９月７日在白鹤储蓄所开户的１６个活期存款帐户上，每个帐户是４．５万元。证人张富叶、陶明辉、王定年、王玫、吴健、王润青、朱世荣、卜承庆、钱禾的证词，分别证实了１９９８年９月２２日下午１时左右至２时０６分，有一男子持户名为吕俊昌、郭宝连、胡爱明、李军、江峰、李健军等在白鹤储蓄所开户的活期存折，从瘦西湖储蓄所取走３万元、国庆北路分路分理处取走４万元、史可法路储蓄所取走３万元、沿河储蓄所取走１万元、解放桥储蓄所取走４万元、跃进桥储蓄所取走４万元、琼花分理处取走４万元、仙鹤储畜所取走３万元，以及到汶河储蓄所要求支取４万元，当向其索要身份证时，这名男子讲没有身份证，钱未能取走的情况。@#
．．．．．．