>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Application of Zhang Mu for State Compensation (case regarding application for State compensation)
张牧申请国家赔偿案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Administrative-->Administrative Scope
  • Legal document: Decision
  • Judgment date: 07-16-2013
  • Procedural status: Other
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 6,2014
*尊敬的用户,您好!本篇仅为该案例的英文摘要。北大法宝提供单独的翻译服务,如需整篇翻译,请发邮件至database@chinalawinfo.com,或致电86 (10) 8268-9699进行咨询。
*Dear user, this document contains only a summary of the respective judicial case. To request a full-text translation as an additional service, please contact us at:  + 86 (10) 8268-9699 database@chinalawinfo.com

Application of Zhang Mu for State Compensation (case regarding application for State compensation)
(case regarding application for State compensation)
张牧申请国家赔偿案
[Key Terms]
criminal prosecution ; release property ; during the continuity of a marital relationship ; claim for compensation
[核心术语]
刑事追诉;发还;婚姻关系存续期间;赔偿请求
[Disputed Issues]
Where a couple was prosecuted for complicity in a crime and later commuted guilty; the people's court released the fine and the property confiscated by wrongful conviction at the application of one party; and later the couple divorced; whether the other party can claim for compensation on the ground that the release of fund and property infringes its individual property rights and interests?
[争议焦点]
夫妻二人涉嫌共同犯罪被刑事追诉,后被改判无罪,人民法院根据一方提出的申请将错判的罚金及没收的财产全部发还,则离婚后,另一方能否以原发还行为侵犯其个人财产权益为由提出赔偿请求?
[Case Summary]
Under Article 18 Paragraph 2 of the State Compensation Law where an authority performing the criminal investigation prosecution or trial functions a detention center a prison administrative authority or any of their functionaries commit any of the following infringements upon the property rights in performing their functions...
[案例要旨]
根据《国家赔偿法》第十八条第(二)项的规定行使侦查、检察、审判职权的机关以及看守所、监狱管理机关及其工作人员在行使职权时有下列侵犯财产权情形之一的受害人有取得赔偿的权利:(一)违法对财产采取查封、扣押、冻结、追缴等措施的;(二)依照审判监督程序再审改判无罪原判罚金、没收财产已经执行的。夫妻二人涉嫌共同犯罪被刑事追诉...

 Application of Zhang Mu for State Compensation @#

 

张牧申请国家赔偿案

@#
[Judgment Abstract]@# [裁判摘要]@#
Both the husband and wife wereprosecuted for complicity in a crime. The relevant fund was transferred tojudicial authorities, and the confiscation sentence was executed during the continuityof the marital relationship, with no portion between the parties identified.After the couple was later commuted guilty in the retrial of the people'scourt, the court released all confiscated property at the application of oneparty. The release is not inappropriate and does not affect the substantialrights and interests of the couple regarding disposal of the relevant propertyas their common assets.  It lacks oflegal basis for the other party to claim for compensation after divorce on theground that the release of the relevant property infringes its individualproperty rights and interests and such claim shall not be supported by the compensationcommittees of the people's court.@# 夫妻二人涉嫌共同犯罪被刑事追诉,涉案款项被司法机关扣划及嗣后刑罚执行发生在夫妻双方婚姻关系存续期间,且未实际区分双方各自的份额。夫妻二人经人民法院再审改判无罪后,人民法院根据一方提出的申请将涉案款项全部发还,该行为并无不当,亦不影响夫妻双方对该款项作为夫妻共有财产予以处分的实体权益。离婚后,另一方以原发还行为侵犯其个人财产权益为由提出的赔偿请求事项缺乏法律依据,人民法院赔偿委员会不予支持。@#
@# 最高人民法院赔偿委员会@#
Full-text omitted

 国家赔偿决定书@#
 (2012)法委赔字第1号@#
 赔偿请求人:张牧。@#
 委托代理人:王树人,北京市君致律师事务所律师。@#
 赔偿义务机关:天津市高级人民法院。@#
 法定代表人:李少平,该院院长。@#
 委托代理人:宋春香,该院赔偿委员会主任。@#
 委托代理人:王友莉,该院赔偿委员会副主任。@#
 赔偿请求人张牧因错判罚金、没收财产申请天津市高级人民法院(以下简称天津高院)国家赔偿一案,不服天津高院 2011年11月30日作出的(2010)津高法赔字第0001号赔偿决定,向本院赔偿委员会申请作出赔偿决定。本院赔偿委员会依法对本案进行了审理,现已审理终结。@#
 张牧向本院赔偿委员会请求:撤销天津高院(2010)津高法赔字第0001号赔偿决定,由天津高院赔偿其罚金损失1520万元及没收财产损失67.95万元,并赔偿前述款项的同期银行存款利息。其主要理由是:@#
 1.天津高院(2002)高刑终字第089号刑事判决对张牧的罚金和没收财产的刑罚已经执行,天津高院认为仅是扣划,依据不足,是为不赔偿进行搪塞。@#
 2.天津高院将罚金视为夫妻共有财产,发还其中一人于法无据。(1)罚金和赔偿都具有特定性,符合国家赔偿法十八条规定情形的受害人有取得赔偿的权利,且天津高院刑事判决中罚没的款项实为张牧及其控股公司名下财产,故天津高院理应发还张牧本人;(2)张牧与马萍于2005年签署的《关于婚姻关系存续期间所得财产分别归夫妻各自所有的协议》中约定,没有对方的书面授权,一方无权处分对方的财产,天津高院在没有张牧授权及未通知张牧的情况下,将本应发还张牧个人的款项一并发还马萍(澳籍华人,与张牧原系夫妻关系),其行为显属不当;(3)2008年3月20日,北京市东城区法院已判决张牧、马萍离婚,2008年4月10日公告送达, 2008年11月17日生效。@#
 天津高院向本院赔偿委员会答辩称:天津高院作出(2002)高刑终字第089号刑事判决后,虽将原侦查机关冻结的款项扣划至法院,但最高人民法院改判无罪后,天津高院已将该款项发还,且发还时系马萍、张牧夫妻关系存续期间,故该院发还行为并无不当。张牧的赔偿请求不符合《中华人民共和国国家赔偿法》第十八条的规定,应予驳回。其主要理由是:@#
 1.原刑事案件相关证据证明该款属于马萍所有,并以天津鑫万房地产开发有限公司名义存入银行,与张牧没有直接关系;@#
 2.该款的性质不属于罚金执行,而是属于冻结款项,应发还原权利人,原权利人天津鑫万房地产开发有限公司已注销,马萍持该公司全部股东授权领款与张牧无关;@#
 3.马萍于2008年4月提出发还存款申请书,而张牧自2007年12月案件改判后至实际发还款项的2008年11月期间从未向天津高院主张发还该款;@#
 4.马萍领款时提供了北京市公证处婚姻登记公证书以及结婚证复印件、北京市民政局查档证明等材料,证明并书面承诺马萍、张牧双方婚姻关系存续,以及如张牧重复追索款项由其承担由此引起的一切责任。天津高院综合以上情形将款项发还马萍并无不当。@#
 本院赔偿委员会经审理查明:@#
 1999年10月,马萍、张牧通过张淑莹与张世莉结识,商定由马萍将资金存入张世莉指定银行,张世莉按照存款比例的 16.2%付给高息。1999年10月25日至27日,马萍、张牧将存款人民币2000万元存入天津鑫万房地产开发有限公司(以下简称鑫万公司,后先后更名为天津市置地实业发展有限公司、天津市冠博实业发展有限公司,2005年6月7日注销)账户内。 1999年12月28日和2000年1月3日,马萍、张牧用美元存单作质押,以个人综合消费的名义,从中国工商银行北京市分行南礼士路支行西四储蓄所贷款人民币 3020万元,马萍、张牧将该款及其他款项共计人民币3500万元存入中国银行天津和平支行凯旋门分理处。马萍、张牧先后获得张世莉等人支付的高息现金人民币 1272万元。@#
 2000年12月3日,张淑莹、张世莉等人因涉嫌票据诈骗被刑事拘留。嗣后经人民法院终审刑事判决认定,张淑莹、张世莉等人为获取巨额资金,单独或分别结伙,以付高息为诱饵,吸揽存款到其指定银行,通过银行或存款单位人员,索要出存款单位的预留印鉴卡、营业执照复印件等材料,私刻有关印章、印鉴,编造虚假合同,以存款单位的定期存款作质押,冒用有关单位名义,骗开银行承兑汇票或用支票直接划转,将资金非法据为已有,其行为均已构成票据诈骗罪。该判决据此分别以票据诈骗罪对张淑莹、张世莉等人予以刑罚处罚。@#
 ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese