>>>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
 
Model Environmental Resources Cases Tried by the People's Courts in 2019 Published by the Supreme People's Court [Effective]
最高人民法院发布2019年度人民法院环境资源典型案例 [现行有效]
【法宝引证码】

Model Environmental Resources Cases Tried by the People's Courts in 2019 Published by the Supreme People's Court 

最高人民法院发布2019年度人民法院环境资源典型案例

(May 8, 2020) (2020年5月8日)

Criminal Cases 刑事类
1. Case of environmental pollution by defendant entity Zhejiang Jinju Chemical Co., Ltd., defendant Wu Weifu, and other seven persons   一、被告单位浙江晋巨化工有限公司、被告人吴卫富等8人污染环境案
2. Case of environmental pollution by defendants Tian Jinfang, Ruan Zhenghua, and Wu Changshun   二、被告人田锦芳、阮正华、吴昌顺污染环境案
3. Case of smuggling waste by defendants Tian Changrong, Luo Wei, and sixteen other persons   三、被告人田昌蓉、罗伟等18 人走私废物案
4. Case of smuggling rare animal products by defendants Zhao Junrui and Tan Chihong   四、被告人赵均锐、谭炽洪走私珍贵动物制品案
5. Case of illegally purchasing, transporting, and selling rare and endangered wild animals by defendant Quan Xiaolan and five other persons   五、被告人全小兰等6人非法收购、运输、出售珍贵、濒危野生动物案
6. Case of illegally catching aquatic products by Luo Shenggui, Qiu Yuanmei, and Zhou Yingjun   六、被告人罗圣桂、邱元妹、周应军非法捕捞水产品案
7. Case of illegally felling plants under special state protection by Zhang Jiuchang   七、被告人张久长非法采伐国家重点保护植物案
8. Case of illegally felling trees, deforesting, deliberately damaging properties, impairing testification, and forcing trading by defendant Wu Ruihua and fourteen other persons   八、被告人伍瑞华等15人盗伐林木、滥伐林木、故意毁坏财物、妨害作证、强迫交易案
9. Case of illegal mining by defendants Peng Jianqiang, Peng Jianping, and Wu Wenguang   九、被告人彭建强、彭建平、吴文光非法采矿案
10. Case of illegally occupying farmland by defendant entity Fuzhou Yuanshun Stone Co., Ltd. and defendant Huang Hengyou   十、被告单位福州市源顺石材有限公司、被告人黄恒游非法占用农用地案
Civil Cases 民事类
11. Case of Meng Yun and Li Yuefu v. Yunnan Tongye Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. for dispute over lighting and sunshine of neighboring buildings   十一、孟筠、李曰福诉云南铜业房地产开发有限公司相邻采光、日照纠纷案
12. Case of Meng Deyu v. Tianjin Southeast New City Urban Construction and Investment Co., Ltd. for dispute over noise pollution liability   十二、孟德玉诉天津东南新城城市建设投资有限公司噪声污染责任纠纷案
13. Case of Lanping Sanjiang Copper Co., Ltd. v. Lanping Huiji Mining Co., Ltd. for dispute over property damage compensation   十三、兰坪三江铜业有限责任公司诉兰坪汇集矿业有限公司财产损害赔偿纠纷案
14. Case of Huangbaishui Villagers' Group under the Villagers' Committee of Longzui Village, Lianzhou Township, Lianzhou City v. Municipal Administration of Liannan Yao Autonomous County for dispute over environmental pollution liability   十四、连州市连州镇龙咀村民委员会湟白水村民小组诉连南瑶族自治县市政局环境污染责任纠纷案
15. Case of Zhongshan Weiken Co., Ltd. v. Su Hongxin and four other persons and Zhongshan Cihang Agricultural Investment Co., Ltd. for dispute over soil pollution liability   十五、中山市围垦有限公司诉苏洪新等5人、中山市慈航农业投资有限公司土壤污染责任纠纷案
16. Case of Shanghai Shengming Investment Group Co., Ltd. v. Provence Shipowner 2008-1 Ltd, CMA-CGM, and Rockwell Shipping Co., Ltd. for dispute over ship pollution damage liability   十六、上海晟敏投资集团有限公司诉普罗旺斯船东2008-1有限公司、法国达飞轮船有限公司、罗克韦尔航运有限公司船舶污染损害责任纠纷案
17. Case of Villagers' Committee of Wuyi Village, Tongjiang Sub-district, Nehe City, Heilongjiang Province v. Su Tingxiang for dispute over a rural land contract   十七、黑龙江省讷河市通江街道五一村村民委员会诉苏廷祥农村土地承包合同纠纷案
18. Case of Qinghai Branch of Jiangxi Geo-engineering (Group) Corporation and Jiangxi Geo-engineering (Group) Corporation v. Qinghai Jiangyuan Coal Development Co., Ltd. for dispute over a contract   十八、江西省地质工程(集团)公司青海分公司、江西省地质工程(集团)公司诉青海江源煤炭开发有限公司合同纠纷案
19. Case of CECEP Technology Investment Co., Ltd. v. Sichuan Coking Group Co., Ltd., Sichuan Weiyuan Jianye Group Co., Ltd., and Luo Yanming for dispute over a service contract   十九、中节能科技投资有限公司诉四川省煤焦化集团有限公司、四川省威远建业集团有限公司及罗焱明服务合同纠纷案
20. Case of Department of Ecological Environment of Shandong Province v. Shandong Daoyi New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. for dispute over a contract   二十、山东省生态环境厅诉山东道一新能源科技有限公司合同纠纷案
Administrative Cases 行政类
21. Case of Ni Enchun v. Tianjin Ecology and Environment Bureau for failure to perform the environmental protection supervision and administration duties   二十一、倪恩纯诉天津市生态环境局不履行环境保护监督管理职责案
22. Case of Zhu Xiaochen v. Environmental Protection Bureau of Anyang County for performance of statutory duties of environmental protection and information disclosure   二十二、朱晓琛诉安阳县环境保护局履行环境保护及信息公开法定职责案
23. Case of Zizhong Yinshan Hongzhan Industry Co., Ltd. v. former Environmental Protection Bureau of Neijiang City for an administrative penalty for environmental protection   二十三、资中县银山鸿展工业有限责任公司诉原内江市环境保护局环境保护行政处罚案
24. Case of General Administration of Customs (Beijing) International Travel Health Care Center (Beijing Customs Port Outpatient Department) v. Ecology and Environment Bureau of Haidian District, Beijing Municipality for an administrative penalty and administrative reconsideration   二十四、海关总署(北京)国际旅行卫生保健中心(北京海关口岸门诊部)诉北京市海淀区生态环境局行政处罚及行政复议案
25. Case of Beihai Naizhi Marine Technology Co., Ltd. v. Ocean and Fisheries Bureau of Beihai City for a marine administrative penalty   二十五、北海市乃志海洋科技有限公司诉北海市海洋与渔业局海洋行政处罚案
26. Case of application of the Fisheries Administration Detachment of Sansha City for executing the administrative penalty given to Hainan Lingao Yinghai Shipping Co., Ltd.   二十六、三沙市渔政支队申请执行海南临高盈海船务有限公司行政处罚案
27. Case of Lin Hai and 50 other persons v. Ecology and Environment Bureau of Xinluo District, Longyan City for environmental administrative licensing   二十七、林海等51人诉龙岩市新罗生态环境局环境行政许可案
28. Case of Forestry Bureau of Hunchun City, Jilin Province v. Animal Husbandry Administration of Hunchun City for grassland administrative registration   二十八、吉林省珲春林业局诉珲春市牧业管理局草原行政登记案
29. Case of Yanjin Baishuijiang Wenyun Aquaculture Specialized Cooperative v. People's Government of Yanjin County, Yunnan Province for dispute over an administrative agreement   二十九、北大法宝盐津白水江文运水产养殖专业合作社诉云南省盐津县人民政府行政赔偿案
30. Case of Yunnan Dexiang Mining Co., Ltd. v. People's Government of Zhenkang County, Yunnan Province for administrative compensation for geological mineral resources   三十、云南得翔矿业有限责任公司诉云南省镇康县人民政府地矿行政补偿案
Environmental Public Interest Cases and Cases of Compensation for Damage to the Ecological Environment 环境公益诉讼及生态环境损害赔偿案件类
31. Case of China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation v. Shenzhen Sumei Environmental Protection Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd. for dispute over air pollution liability   三十一、中国生物多样性保护与绿色发展基金会诉深圳市速美环保有限公司、浙江淘宝网络有限公司大气污染责任纠纷案
32. Case of China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation v. Guizhou Hongde Real Estate Co., Ltd. for dispute over adjacent passage right   三十二、中国生物多样性保护与绿色发展基金会诉贵州宏德置业有限公司相邻通行权纠纷案
33. Case of Friends of Nature Environmental Research Institute in Chaoyang District, Beijing Municipality v. Hyundai Motor Group (China) Ltd. for dispute over air pollution liability   三十三、北京市朝阳区自然之友环境研究所诉现代汽车(中国)投资有限公司大气污染责任纠纷案
34. Civil public interest case of People's Procuratorate of Taizhou City, Jiangsu Province v. Wang Xiaopeng and 58 other persons for ecological damage   三十四、江苏省泰州市人民检察院诉王小朋等59人生态破坏民事公益诉讼案
35. Incidental civil public interest case of People's Procuratorate of Gulou District, Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province v. Nanjing Sembcorp Water Co., Ltd., Zheng Qiaogeng, and 11 other persons for environmental pollution   三十五、江苏省南京市鼓楼区人民检察院诉南京胜科水务有限公司、ZHENG QIAOGENG(郑巧庚)等12人污染环境刑事附带民事公益诉讼案
36. Incidental civil public interest case of People's Procuratorate of Dongtai City, Jiangsu Province v. Shi Shenghua for illegal hunting   三十六、江苏省东台市人民检察院诉施圣华非法狩猎刑事附带民事公益诉讼案
37. Public interest case of People's Procuratorate of Rongjiang County, Guizhou Province v. People's Government of Zaima Township, Rongjiang County for environmental protection administration   三十七、贵州省榕江县人民检察院诉榕江县栽麻镇人民政府环境保护行政管理公益诉讼案
38. Case of People's Procuratorate of Anyi County, Jiangxi Province v. Land and Resources Bureau of Anyi County for failure to perform duties of geological environmental protection in the mining area   三十八、江西省安义县人民检察院诉安义县国土资源局不履行矿山地质环境保护职责案
39. Case of People's Procuratorate of Wenchang City, Hainan Province v. Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau of Wenchang City for marine administrative public interest litigation   三十九、海南省文昌市人民检察院诉文昌市农业农村局海洋行政公益诉讼案
40. Case of People's Government of Jiujiang City v. Jiangxi Zhengpeng Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Lianxin Construction Materials Co., Ltd., Li De, and six other persons for compensation for damage to the ecological environment   四十、江西省九江市人民政府诉江西正鹏环保科技有限公司、杭州连新建材有限公司、李德等7人生态环境损害赔偿责任案
1. Case of environmental pollution by defendant entity Zhejiang Jinju Chemical Co., Ltd., defendant Wu Weifu, and other seven persons   一、被告单位浙江晋巨化工有限公司、被告人吴卫富等8人污染环境案
Basic Facts 基本案情
In December 2017, defendant entity Zhejiang Jinju Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Jinju Company”) mixed the sludge residue generated by its sulphuric acid plant with the slag for drying and generated mixed solid waste in this process. Defendant Pan Yigang was deputy general manager of Jinju Company in charge of security and environmental protection and after being interviewed by the environmental protection department, he failed to take any rectification measures. Defendant Wu Weifu was person-in-charge of the Security and Environmental Protection Department of the Company and he delivered the aforesaid solid waste to defendant Huang Shitu and other persons having no disposal qualification. In January 2018, Huang Shitu and Liu Kaiyou transported 2,327.48 tons of mixed solid waste to outdoors in Jiangmen City, Zhejiang Province. From February to March 2018, Liu Kaiyou and other persons transported 1,924.48 tons of the relevant solid waste from Quzhou City, Zhejiang Province to Pucheng County, Fujian Province for stacking, dumping, and backfilling. Upon emergency disposal, 4,819.36 tons of polluted soil mixture was dug and cleared, giving rise to various costs, CNY3.07 million in total, including costs for emergency disposal, monitoring, and assessment. The aforesaid acts were exposed on March 9, 2018 and after investigation and evidence-taking, the environmental protection department transferred the case to the public security organ on March 20, 2018. 2017年12月,被告单位浙江晋巨化工有限公司(以下简称晋巨公司)将其硫酸厂产生的污泥渣拌入矿渣去湿,产生混合固体废物。被告人潘毅刚,系晋巨公司分管安全环保工作部副总经理,经环保部门约谈后,未采取整改措施。被告人吴卫富,系该公司安全环保部主管,将上述固体废物交由无资质的被告人黄石土等人处置。2018年1月,被告人黄石土、刘开友将2327.48吨混合固体废物运至浙江省江山市露天堆放。2018年2月至3月,刘开友等人将相关固体废物共计1924.48吨从浙江省衢州市运往福建省浦城县堆放、倾倒、填埋。后经应急处置,挖掘清运受污染泥土混合物共计4819.36吨,上述行为造成应急处置、监测、评估等各项费用损失共计307余万元。上述行为系2018年3月9日案发,环保部门经调查取证后,于2018年3月20日移送公安机关。
Judgment 裁判结果
In the trial of first instance, the People's Court of Pucheng County, Fujian Province held that: defendant entity Jinju Company delivered solid waste to unqualified personnel for disposal; defendants Huang Shitu and Liu Kaiyou stacked solid waste outdoors and the content of copper and cadmium in the penetrant exceeded more than ten times of the national standard for pollutant discharge, which has seriously polluted the environment; defendant Liu Kaiyou and other persons transported and disposed of solid waste in another province, giving rise to the public and private property loss of more than CNY1 million. With particularly serious consequences, they were guilty of environmental pollution. Defendant Wu Weifu was the directly liable person for the crime committed by the entity Jinju Company and he should assume the corresponding criminal liability according to the law. The court of first instance imposed a fine of CNY550,000 on Jinju Company and sentenced Wu Weifu and other seven persons to a fixed-term imprisonment of three years and six months or a lighter punishment and concurrently imposed a fine on them for committing a crime of environmental pollution; and sentenced Pan Yigan to a fixed-term imprisonment of one year and eight months with suspended execution of two years for committing a crime of malfeasance by personnel in a state-owned company. 福建省浦城县人民法院一审认为,被告单位晋巨公司将固体废物交由无资质人处置;被告人黄石土、刘开友将固体废物露天堆放,渗滤液铜和镉含量超出国家污染物排放标准十倍以上,严重污染环境;被告人刘开友等人跨省运输、处置固体废物,导致公私财产损失100万元以上,后果特别严重,均已构成污染环境罪。被告人吴卫富系晋巨公司单位犯罪的直接责任人员,依法应承担相应的刑事责任。一审法院以污染环境罪判处晋巨公司罚金55万元;判处吴卫富等8人有期徒刑三年六个月以下不等,并处罚金;以国有公司人员失职罪判处潘毅刚有期徒刑一年八个月,缓刑二年。
Significance 典型意义
This is a criminal case of environmental pollution arising from trans-province illegal transport and dumping of solid waste. In recent years, crimes of trans-province transfer of hazardous waste for avoiding local regulation, investigation, and punishment have been occurring frequently and criminal profit chains have even been formed. The trial of this case is effective practice for connection between administrative enforcement and criminal justice. In this case, the people's court strengthened coordination and interconnection with the people's procuratorate, the public security organ, and the environmental protection department and formed joint forces for cracking down on ecological environment-related crimes. In the meantime, the people's court attached importance to the application of property-related punishment, increase economic sanctions on crimes of environmental pollution, and raised costs for trans-province transfer of pollutants. The people's court invited over 40 persons from the people's procuratorates at the province, city, and county levels, the public security organ, and the ecological environment bureau to observe the court session, which has achieved good social effects. 本案系跨省非法运输、倾倒固体废物的污染环境刑事案件。近年来,逃避本地监管查处,跨省转移危险废物犯罪高发频发,甚至形成犯罪利益链条。本案的审理,是行政执法与刑事司法相互衔接的有效实践。人民法院在本案中,依法加强与人民检察院、公安机关、环境保护主管部门之间的协调联动,形成打击生态环境违法犯罪的合力。同时,注重运用财产刑,加大对环境污染犯罪的经济制裁力度,提高跨界转移污染的违法成本。本案开庭审理时,邀请了省、市、县检察院、公安机关和生态环境局等40余人旁听,取得良好的社会效果。
2. Case of environmental pollution by defendants Tian Jinfang, Ruan Zhenghua, and Wu Changshun   二、被告人田锦芳、阮正华、吴昌顺污染环境案
Basic Facts 基本案情
In September 2017, knowing that defendant Ruan Zhenghua had no qualification for disposal of hazardous waste, defendant Tian Jinfang, former head of the Environmental Protection Section of Guizhou Shuangyuan Aluminum Industry Company, asked Ruan Zhenghua to dispose of a batch of spent cathode blocks. In October 2017, Ruan Zhenghua hired vehicles to transport 1,298.28 tons of the aforesaid solid waste to Dongjiayan Village, Huaxi District, Guiyang City and sold such waste to defendant Wu Changshun who had the qualification for recycling waste and old materials. Return matters occurred afterwards. As required by Ruan Zhenghua, Wu Changshun transported over 1,000 tons of the solid waste to Junmin Village, Longchang Township, Xiuwen County, Guiyang City and hired workers to dump the remaining solid waste on the next day. It was tested and assessed that fluoride in surface water puddles at the place where such solid waste was stacked in Dongjiayan Village, Huaxi District severely exceeded the prescribed standard and the costs for disposal of the remaining and dumped hazardous waste, ecological restoration of the sites, testing, and subsequent follow-up and testing amounted to CNY3.796 million. 2017年9月,原贵州双元铝业公司环保科科长被告人田锦芳,在明知被告人阮正华无处置危险废物资质的情况下,让其帮忙处置一批废阴极块。2017年10月,被告人阮正华雇佣车辆将上述固体废物1298.28吨运至贵阳市花溪区董家堰村,卖给回收废旧物资的被告人吴昌顺。后发生退货事宜,应阮正华要求,吴昌顺将该批固体废物中的1000余吨运至贵阳市修文县龙场镇军民村,并于次日雇人将剩余固体废物倾倒。据检测、评估,花溪区董家堰村固体废物堆放地地表水洼水体内氟化物严重超标,被遗留、倾倒危险废物处置、场地生态环境修复、送检化验、后期跟踪检测费用为379.60万元。
Judgment 裁判结果
In the trial of first instance, the People's Court of Qingzhen City, Guizhou Province held that defendants Tian Jinfang, Ruan Zhenghua, and Wu Changshun arbitrarily disposed of over 1,000 tons of industrial waste including hazardous waste and caused the ecological and environmental damage of CNY3.796 million and the consequences of their acts were particularly serious. Considering that all defendants were first offenders, they voluntarily pleaded guilty and accepted punishment after being captured, and actively paid the ecological and environmental damage to mitigate their crime consequences, they may be given lighter punishments according to the law. The Court sentenced defendants Tian Jinfang, Ruan Zhenghua, and Wu Changshun to fixed-term imprisonments ranging from three years to two years, applied probation to them, and concurrently imposed fines ranging from CNY50,00 to 20,000 on them for committing a crime of environmental pollution. Defendant Tian Jinfang was prohibited from engaging in any activities related to environmental protection during the probation period; and defendant Ruan Zhenghua was prohibited from engaging in any business activities of recycling waste and old materials during the probation period. 贵州省清镇市人民法院一审认为,被告人田锦芳、阮正华、吴昌顺任意处置含有危险废物的工业废物1000余吨,造成生态环境损害达379.60万元,后果特别严重。鉴于各被告人均系初犯,归案后自愿认罪认罚,并积极支付生态环境损害费用以减轻犯罪后果,依法从轻处罚。以污染环境罪判处被告人田锦芳、阮正华、吴昌顺有期徒刑三年至二年不等,并适用缓刑,并处罚金5万元至2万元不等。禁止被告人田锦芳在缓刑考验期内从事与环境保护相关的活动;禁止被告人阮正华在缓刑考验期内从事废旧物资回收的经营活动。
Significance 典型意义
This is a criminal case of applying the environmental protection injunction to defendants committing a crime of environmental pollution. Any entity or individual should discharge, dump, or dispose of hazardous waste and other toxic and harmful substances in accordance with the state regulations and maintain the ecological environment security. Defendants Tian Jinfang and Ruan Zhenghua committed crimes of serious environmental protection in activities of environmental protection and recycling of waste and old materials and they violated the legal provisions and industrial norms. The people's court has made full use of criminal injunctions and other legal compulsory measures and prohibited the two defendants from engaging in the relevant activities of environmental protection and recycling of waste and old materials during the probation period. The efforts of the people's court are of important practical significance for preventing and resolving risks and preventing defendants from polluting environment and damaging the ecological environment again during the probation period. 本案系对污染环境犯罪被告人适用环境保护禁止令的刑事案件。任何单位和个人均应按照国家的规定排放、倾倒或者处置危险废物等有毒有害物质,维护生态环境安全。本案被告人田锦芳、阮正华系在从事环境保护、废旧物资回收经营的活动中实施严重污染环境的犯罪行为,有违法律规定和行业规范。人民法院充分利用刑事禁止令等法律强制措施,禁止二被告人在缓刑考验期内再从事环境保护、废旧物资回收经营的相关活动,对于防范化解风险,防止被告人在缓刑期内再次污染环境、破坏生态,具有重要的实践意义。
3. Case of smuggling waste by defendants Tian Changrong, Luo Wei, and sixteen other persons   三、被告人田昌蓉、罗伟等18人走私废物案
Basic Facts 基本案情
From 2016, defendant Tian Changrong and his wife set up sites for purchasing waste plastics, scrap metals, and other articles in Mongla, Burma, arranged defendant Luo Wei and other persons to drive empty trucks to enter and exit the territory of Burma, load and transport simply cleaned and processed waste to designated sites, contacted and arranged inhabitants of the border area to smuggle the waste to the territory of China through border paths and then load such waste to the trucks driven by Luo Wei and other persons. Finally, Luo Wei and other persons transported the aforesaid waste to domestic buyers for seeking sales profit. It was investigated and verified that Tian Changrong, Luo Wei, and other persons smuggled, transported, reshipped, and purchased 913.40 tons of waste plastics, 122.70 tons of scrap metals, and 2.47 tons of waste batteries. 自2016年始,被告人田昌蓉夫妇在缅甸小勐拉设立站点收购废塑料、废金属等物品,联系、安排被告人罗伟等人驾驶空货车出入境,装运其经简单清洗加工后的废物拉至指定地点,然后联系、安排边民通过边境小道将废物走私运输至境内,再驳装到罗伟等人货车上,最后由罗伟等人将上述废物送给国内买家进行销售牟利。经查证,田昌蓉、罗伟等人走私、运输、倒运、购买废塑料913.40吨、废金属122.70吨、废电瓶2.47吨。
Judgment 裁判结果
In the trial of first instance, the Intermediate People's Court of Xishuangbanna Prefecture, Yunnan Province held that: defendants Tian Changrong, Luo Wei, and other persons violated the customs regulations, avoided customs regulation, transported 1,038.57 tons of foreign solid waste into the territory of China, and committed such acts as reshipment and purchase. With particularly serious circumstances, they were guilty of smuggling waste. The Court sentenced Tian Changrong, Luo Wei, and other persons to a fixed-term imprisonment ranging from nine years to one year and concurrently imposed a fine ranging from CNY600,000 to 20,000 on them. 云南省西双版纳州中级人民法院一审认为,被告人田昌蓉、罗伟等人违反海关法规,逃避海关监管,将境外1038.57吨固体废物运输进境,从事倒运、购买等行为,情节特别严重,构成走私废物罪。判处被告人田昌蓉、罗伟等人有期徒刑九年至一年不等,并处罚金60万元至2万元不等。
Significance 典型意义
This is a case of smuggling waste across the border. From January 2018, China has comprehensively banned the entry of “imported waste” into the territory of China, vigorously promoted the reform of the import management rules for solid waste, and achieved notable results. However, there are still some enterprises and individuals that spare no effort to take risks for seeking illegal profit and the illegal entry of “imported waste” has been occurring occasionally. The place of the crime involved in this case is within the border area in Xishuangbanna Prefecture, defendants adopted sites of family workshops which are more hidden, illegally smuggled solid waste through border paths, and committed reshipment and trafficking upon entry of such waste into the territory of China, which has increased regulation difficulties. The people's court fully applied the penalty methods and severely cracked down on crimes of smuggling, transporting, and reselling “imported waste.” The efforts of the people's court have demonstrated its resolution and efforts for keeping “imported waste” out of the gateway of China and they are conducive to intensifying the national management rules for imports of solid waste, preventing and controlling solid waste pollution, promoting harmless and resource recovery of domestic solid waste, and effectively maintaining the state's ecological environment security and people's life and health safety. 本案系跨越国边境走私废物案件。2018年1月起,中国全面禁止“洋垃圾”入境,大力推进固体废物进口管理制度改革,成效显著。但仍有部分企业、个人为谋取非法利益不惜铤而走险,“洋垃圾”非法入境问题时有发生。本案犯罪地点位于西双版纳国边境区域,被告人采取更为隐蔽的家庭小作坊式站点,通过边境小道违法走私固体废物入境后倒运、贩卖,增加了监管难度。人民法院充分利用刑罚手段,严厉打击走私、运输、倒卖“洋垃圾”等犯罪行为,彰显了将“洋垃圾”拒于国门之外的决心和力度,有利于强化国家固体废物进口管理制度,防治固体废物污染,促进国内固体废物无害化、资源化利用,有效维护国家生态环境安全和人民群众生命健康安全。
4. Case of smuggling rare animal products by defendants Zhao Junrui and Tan Chihong   四、被告人赵均锐、谭炽洪走私珍贵动物制品案
Basic Facts 基本案情
In 2017, after defendant Zhao Junrui purchased swimming bladders in Mexico, he intended to secretly transport such swimming bladders into the territory of China without making declaration to the customs office. In January 2018, Zhao Junrui asked defendant Tan Chihong who spoke Spanish to help him in carrying such swimming bladders to China and promised Tan Chihong a reward. On January 22, 2018, Zhao Junrui put 63 swimming bladders he purchased in the suitcase of Tan Chihong, they returned to China by taking a flight, and such swimming bladders were seized by the customs police officer upon arrival. It was appraised and calculated that the aforesaid swimming bladders were from Totoaba macdonaldi and they had a value of CNY403,200 in total. 2017年,被告人赵均锐在墨西哥购买鱼鳔后,欲通过不向海关申报的方式偷运入境。2018年1月,赵均锐找通晓西班牙语的被告人谭炽洪帮助携带鱼鳔回国,并提供报酬。2018年1月22日,赵均锐将其购买的63个鱼鳔放入谭炽洪行李箱内,二人乘坐航班回国,入境时被海关查获。经鉴定核算,上述鱼鳔系加利福尼亚湾石首鱼的鱼鳔,价值共计40.32万元。
Judgment 裁判结果
In the trial of first instance, the Intermediate People's Court of Guilin City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region held that defendants Zhao Junrui and Tan Chihong violated the customs regulations, avoided customs supervision and control, and jointly smuggled rare animal products whose imports and exports were prohibited by the state; and they were guilty of smuggling rare animal products. Defendant Zhao Junrui played a primary role and he was a principal criminal offender; defendant Tan Chihong played a secondary role and he was an accessory offender. For committing a crime of smuggling rare animal products, the Court sentenced defendant Zhao Junrui to a fixed-term imprisonment of five years and imposed a fine of CNY50,000 on him; and sentenced defendant Tan Chihong to a fixed-term imprisonment of two years and imposed a fine of CNY30,000 on him. 广西壮族自治区桂林市中级人民法院一审认为,被告人赵均锐、谭炽洪违反海关法规,逃避海关监管,共同走私国家禁止进出口的珍贵动物制品,其行为均已构成走私珍贵动物制品罪。被告人赵均锐起主要作用,是主犯;谭炽洪起次要作用,是从犯。以走私珍贵动物制品罪判处被告人赵均锐有期徒刑五年,并处罚金5万元;判处被告人谭炽洪有期徒刑二年,并处罚金3万元。
Significance 典型意义
This is a criminal case of smuggling wildlife products listed in Appendix I to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and it is also a case of smuggling rare animal products under the supervision of the General Administration of Customs. Totoaba macdonaldi is a special fingerling in the Gulf of California, Mexico and it is an integral part of biodiversity. In recent years, it has been severely endangered due to extensive hunting. In this case, the people's court determined that the swimming bladders involved were also aquatic wildlife products under China's protection of Grade I. The efforts of the people's court have demonstrated its resolution in actively performing obligations as prescribed in the international convention and severely cracking down on crimes of smuggling endangered species. The judgment of this case is of good demonstration effect for punishing and deterring criminal offenders, educating and warning the public, and consciously protecting the ecological environment, especially the wild fauna and flora resources. 本案系走私《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》附录I所列野生动物制品的刑事案件,也系国家海关总署督办的走私珍贵动物制品案件。加利福尼亚湾石首鱼系墨西哥加利福尼亚湾特有的鱼种,构成生物多样性的重要组成部分。近年来,因广被猎杀而濒危。本案中,人民法院依法认定案涉鱼鳔同时构成我国国家一级保护水生野生动物制品,彰显了积极履行国际公约义务,严厉打击濒危物种走私违法犯罪的决心。本案判决,对于惩治震慑犯罪分子,教育警示社会公众,自觉保护生态环境尤其是野生动植物资源,具有良好的示范作用。
5. Case of illegally purchasing, transporting, and selling rare and endangered wild animals by defendant Quan Xiaolan and five other persons   五、被告人全小兰等6人非法收购、运输、出售珍贵、濒危野生动物案
Basic Facts 基本案情
From January 2017 to March 2018, defendants Quan Xiaolan and Zhou Jicai have illegally purchased 35 pangolins for many times, sold 31 ones to defendants Li Yeqiong and Lin Shanjia, and obtained the illegal gains of CNY190,900. Li Yeqiong sold six pangolins purchased from Quan Xiaolan and Zhou Jicai to defendant Chen Jianlin and other persons and obtained the illegal gains of CNY46,000. From October 2017 to March 2018, defendant Hua Dengfu has assisted Quan Xiaolan and Zhou Jicai in illegal transport of nine pangolins for nine times and obtained the transportation charges of over CNY3,700. 2017年1月至2018年3月,被告人全小兰、周继财先后多次非法收购穿山甲35只,出售给被告人李叶琼、林善甲等人共31只穿山甲,违法所得19.09万元。被告人李叶琼将从全小兰、周继财处购得的穿山甲出售给被告人陈建林等人共6只,违法所得4.60万元。2017年10月至2018年3月,被告人华登福帮全小兰、周继财非法运输穿山甲9次共9只,得运费3700余元。
Judgment 裁判结果
In the trial of first instance, the People's Court of Shimen County, Hunan Province held that defendant Quan Xiaolan and other five persons illegally purchased, transported, and sold pangolins, which were rare and endangered wild animals under special state protection, in violation of the national regulations on wild animal conservation and they were guilty of illegally purchasing, transporting, and selling rare and endangered wild animals. For committing a crime of illegally purchasing and selling rare and endangered wild animals, the Court separately sentenced defendants Quan Xiaolan, Zhou Jicai, and Li Yeqiong to a fixed-term imprisonment of 11 years, ten years and six months, and three years, and imposed a fine on each of them. For committing a crime of illegally transporting rare and endangered wild animals, the Court sentenced defendant Hua Dengfu to a fixed-term imprisonment of five years and imposed a fine on him. For committing a crime of illegally purchasing rare and endangered wildlife, the Court separately sentenced defendants Lin Shanjia and Chen Jianlin to a fixed-term imprisonment of two years and six months and two years with suspended execution of the sentence and imposed a fine on both of them. In the trial of second instance, the Intermediate People's Court of Changde City, Hunan Province affirmed the original judgment. 湖南省石门县人民法院一审认为,被告人全小兰等6人违反国家野生动物保护法规,非法收购、运输、出售国家重点保护的珍贵、濒危野生动物穿山甲,已构成非法收购、运输、出售珍贵、濒危野生动物罪。以非法收购、出售珍贵、濒危野生动物罪分别判处被告人全小兰、周继财、李叶琼有期徒刑十一年、十年六个月、三年,并处罚金。以非法运输珍贵、濒危野生动物罪判处被告人华登福有期徒刑五年,并处罚金。以非法收购珍贵、濒危野生动物罪分别判处被告人林善甲、陈建林有期徒刑二年六个月、二年,施以缓刑,并处罚金。湖南省常德市中级人民法院二审维持原判。
Significance 典型意义
This is a criminal case of illegally purchasing, transporting, and selling rare and endangered wild animals. Pangolins are wild animals under China's protection of Grade II and also one of endangered species in the world. By severely punishing crimes of destroying wild animal resources, the judgment of this case has given full play to punishment and education functions of penalties, guided the public in establishing the awareness of voluntarily protecting wild animals and their habitats, and jointly guarded the Earth, our home, where man and nature live in harmony. On February 24, 2020, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress issued the Decision to Comprehensively Prohibit the Illegal Trading of Wild Animals, Break the Bad Habit of Excessive Consumption of Wild Animals, and Effectively Secure the Life and Health of the People, according to which the illegal trading of wild animals should be comprehensively prohibited and the bio-safety and ecological safety should be maintained. 本案系非法收购、运输、出售珍贵、濒危野生动物的刑事案件。穿山甲是我国二级保护野生动物,也是世界濒危物种之一。本案判决通过严惩破坏野生动物资源犯罪,充分发挥刑罚的惩治和教育功能,引导社会公众树立自觉保护野生动物及其栖息地的意识,共同守护人与自然和谐共处的地球家园。全国人民代表大会常务委员会于2020年2月24日作出《关于全面禁止非法野生动物交易、革除滥食野生动物陋习、切实保障人民群众生命健康安全的决定》,全面禁止和惩治非法野生动物交易行为,维护生物安全和生态安全。
6. Case of illegally catching aquatic products by Luo Shenggui, Qiu Yuanmei, and Zhou Yingjun   六、被告人罗圣桂、邱元妹、周应军非法捕捞水产品案
Basic Facts 基本案情
In June 2017, defendant Luo Shenggui and Qiu Yuanmei were sentenced to detention of five months with suspended execution of six months for committing a crime of illegally catching aquatic products. In September 2019, assisted by defendant Zhou Yingjun, defendants Luo Shenggui and Qiu Yuanmei twice caught a total of 800 kg of fish in the waters near Potou Ferry in the West Dongting Lake National Nature Reserve in Hunan Province by means of electronic fishing. 2017年6月,被告人罗圣桂、邱元妹,因犯非法捕捞水产品罪,被判处拘役五个月,缓刑六个月。2019年9月,被告人罗圣桂、邱元妹为主,被告人周应军协助,两次在湖南西洞庭湖国家级自然保护区坡头轮渡附近水域,采取电捕鱼方式捕鱼共800公斤。
Judgment 裁判结果
In the trial of first instance, the People's Court of Hanshou County, Hunan Province held that defendants Luo Shenggui, Qiu Yuanmei, and Zhou Yingjun violated the regulations on protection of aquatic resources, caught aquatic products in the closed fishing area by using a prohibited method; with serious circumstances, they were guilty of illegally catching aquatic products. For committing a crime of illegally catching aquatic products, the Court separately sentenced Luo Shenggui to a fixed-term imprisonment of seven months, Qiu Yuanmei to a fixed-term imprisonment of six months, and Zhou Yingjun to detention of one month. In the trial of second instance, the Intermediate People's Court of Changde City, Hunan Province affirmed the original judgment. 湖南省汉寿县人民法院一审认为,被告人罗圣桂、邱元妹、周应军违反保护水产资源法规,在禁渔区使用禁用的方法捕捞水产品,情节严重,其行为构成非法捕捞水产品罪。以非法捕捞水产品罪分别判处罗圣桂有期徒刑七个月、邱元妹有期徒刑六个月、周应军拘役一个月。湖南省常德市中级人民法院二审维持原判。
Significance 典型意义
This is a criminal case of illegally catching aquatic products. The West Dongting Lake National Nature Reserve in Hunan Province is a wetland of international importance, a key wintering ground for migratory birds in East Asia, and an important node in the biodiversity conservation in the Yangtze River. In recent years, the fisherman debarking policy has been implemented in an overall manner, but there are still a small number of people illegally catching aquatic products in closed fishing area by taking prohibited fishing method driven by interests. In this case, defendants Luo Shenggui and Qiu Yuanmei were principal criminal offenders, they illegally caught aquatic products again after the expiration of the probation period for committing a crime of illegally catching aquatic products, and they showed no repentance. The people's court strictly implemented the principles of combining severity with leniency and fitting punishment with the crime and sentenced defendants to substantial punishment. The efforts of the people's court are of great significance for guiding fishing of lakeside fishermen and maintaining the ecosystem balance in the wetland. 本案系非法捕捞水产品刑事案件。湖南西洞庭湖国家级自然保护区,是国际重要湿地、东亚候鸟重要越冬地和长江生物多样性保护的重要节点。近年来,虽渔民上岸政策全面实施,但仍有少数人为利益驱使,在禁渔区以禁止方式非法捕捞水产品。本案被告人罗圣桂、邱元妹作为主犯,系在非法捕捞水产品罪缓刑考验期限期满后,再次非法捕捞水产品,无悔罪表现。人民法院严格贯彻宽严相济、罚当其罪原则,判处被告人实刑,对引导沿岸渔民的捕捞行为,维护湿地生态系统平衡具有重要意义。
7. Case of illegally felling plants under special state protection by Zhang Jiuchang   七、被告人张久长非法采伐国家重点保护植物案
Basic Facts 基本案情
In early March 2017, defendant Zhang Jiuchang purchased a Chinese yew in a garden field in Mingda Township, Liangping District, Chongqing Municipality at the price of CNY400. Afterwards, he dug the Chinese yew on the hill, hired others to carry it to his courtyard, and planted it there. On March 19, Zhang Jiuchang dug another Chinese yew in Lieshen Village, Zhushan Township, Liangping District, Chongqing Municipality and was discovered in the process of digging. On the same day, Zhang Jiuchang was captured by the public security organ. The two Chinese yews invovled have died. It was appraised that the two Chinese yews invovled were wild plants under special state protection of Grade I. 2017年3月初,被告人张久长以400元的价格购买重庆市梁平区明达镇某园场内的红豆杉1株。后,张久长上山采挖并雇请他人将该株红豆杉搬运并栽种在自家花园内。3月19日,张久长采挖重庆市梁平区竹山镇猎神村某处的红豆杉1株,过程中被发现。当日,张久长被公安机关抓获归案。案涉2株红豆杉均已死亡。经鉴定,案涉2株红豆杉系国家一级重点保护野生植物。
Judgment 裁判结果
In the trial of first instance, the People's Court of Wanzhou District, Chongqing Municipality held that Zhang Jiuchang illegally dug two wild Chinese yews, transplanted one Chinese yew in his courtyard and prepared to transplant another Chinese yew there in violation of the provisions of the Regulations on Wild Plants Protection; and he was guilty of illegally felling plants under special state protection. For committing a crime of illegally felling plants under special state protection, the Court sentenced Zhang Jiuchang to a fixed-term imprisonment of three years and three months and imposed a fine of CNY20,000 on him. In the trial of second instance, the Second Intermediate People's Court of Chongqing Municipality held that Zhang Jiuchang voluntarily applied for and actively performed the obligations of mountain cultivation and replanting as prescribed in the ecological restoration agreement, voluntarily paid the fine of CNY20,000. With good performance in pleading guilty and showing repentance, Zhang Jiuchang may be given a lighter punishment. For committing a crime of illegally felling plants under special state protection, the court of second instance sentenced Zhang Jiuchang to a fixed-term imprisonment of three years with suspended execution of three years and imposed a fine of CNY20,000 on him. 重庆市万州区人民法院一审认为,张久长违反《野生植物保护条例》等规定,非法采挖2株野生红豆杉,移植或准备移植至自家花园,构成非法采伐国家重点保护植物罪。以非法采伐国家重点保护植物罪判处张久长有期徒刑三年三个月,并处罚金2万元。重庆市第二中级人民法院二审认为,二审中,张久长主动申请并积极履行生态修复协议约定的修山抚育和补植复绿义务,主动缴纳罚金2万元,认罪、悔罪态度较好,可以从轻处罚。以非法采伐国家重点保护植物罪改判张长久有期徒刑三年,缓刑三年,并处罚金2万元。
Significance 典型意义
This is a criminal case of illegally felling plants under special state protection. The Chinese yews invovled are plants under special state protection of Grade I in China. With important scientific, economic, and ornamental values, Chinese yews are “rare trees or other plants under special state protection” as prescribed in Article 344 of the Criminal Law. Article 3 of the Official Reply of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Issues concerning the Application of Article 344 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China provides that “Those illegally transplanting rare trees or other plants under special state protection who shall be held criminally liable according to the law shall be convicted and punished for the crime of illegally felling plants under special state protection in accordance with the provisions of Article 344 of the Criminal Law. In view of the fact that there are some differences between transplantation and felling in terms of the degree of social harm, at the time of determining whether any illegal transplantation of rare trees or other plants under special state protection constitutes a crime and determining the punishment thereon, consideration shall be given to the rareness of the plants, the purposes of transplantation, the methods for transplanting plants, the number of plants transplanted, the degree of damage to the ecology and environment and other circumstances to make a comprehensive assessment of its social harm so as to ensure that the severity of the punishment is commensurate with the crime committed and the criminal liability to be borne by the offender.” The judgment of this case was entered before the implementation of the aforesaid Official Reply. By taking into full account of the whole case facts, the people's court altered the judgment of first instance and defendant should be sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of three years with suspended execution of three years and imposed on a fine. It is of guiding significance for accurately comprehending the aforesaid Official Reply and regulating the determination of nature of digging and transplanting rare wild plants. In the meantime, it has good education and demonstration effects in warning and guiding the public in establishing the legal awareness, putting an end to illegal digging and transplanting of rare wild plants, and protecting biodiversity. 本案系非法采伐国家重点保护植物的刑事案件。案涉红豆杉是我国国家一级重点保护植物,具有重要的科学、经济和观赏价值,属于我国《刑法》第三百四十四条规定的“珍贵树木或者国家重点保护的其他植物”。2020年3月21日起施行的《最高人民法院 最高人民检察院关于适用<中华人民共和国刑法>第三百四十四条有关问题的批复》第三条规定:“对于非法移栽珍贵树木或者国家重点保护的其他植物,依法应当追究刑事责任的,依照刑法三百四十四条的规定,以非法采伐国家重点保护植物罪定罪处罚。鉴于移栽在社会危害程度上与砍伐存在一定差异,对非法移栽珍贵树木或者国家重点保护的其他植物的行为,在认定是否构成犯罪以及裁量刑罚时,应当考虑植物的珍贵程度、移栽目的、移栽手段、移栽数量、对生态环境的损害程度等情节,综合评估社会危害性,确保罪责刑相适应。”本案判决发生于上述批复施行之前,人民法院综合全案,以非法采伐国家重点保护植物罪改判被告人有期徒刑三年,缓刑三年,并处罚金,对正确理解上述批复,规范采挖、移栽珍贵野生植物的行为定性,具有重要的指导意义。同时,对警示引导社会公众树立法律意识,杜绝非法采挖、移栽珍贵野生植物,保护生物多样性,具有较好的教育示范作用。
8. Case of illegally felling trees, deforesting, deliberately damaging properties, impairing testification, and forcing trading by defendant Wu Ruihua and fourteen other persons   八、被告人伍瑞华等15人盗伐林木、滥伐林木、故意毁坏财物、妨害作证、强迫交易案
Basic Facts 基本案情
From 2003 to 2018, defendant Wu Ruihua gathered defendants Wu Zhaowei and Zhou Yuanchun and formed a Mafia-like gang that monopolized forestry resources, dominated mountains in villages, and disturbed the market order with defendant Jiang Yu and other persons. Members of the gang have repeatedly committed in group a series of crimes including deliberately damaging properties, illegally felling trees, deforesting, forcing trading, and impairing testification and they have illegally felled trees of 117.07 cubic meters, deforested trees of 2,541.39 cubic meters, and deliberately damaged trees of 256.04 cubic meters. In addition, Wu Zhaowei, a member of the gang, illegally felled trees of 115.56 cubic meters, deforested trees of 37.05 cubic meters, and deliberately damaged trees of 12.75 cubic meters in collusion with defendant Wu Ruichun and other persons. 2003年至2018年,被告人伍瑞华纠集被告人伍兆威、周元春,并与被告人江宇等人,形成垄断林业资源、称霸乡村山场、扰乱市场秩序的恶势力犯罪团伙。该团伙成员多次结伙实施故意毁坏财物、盗伐林木、滥伐林木、强迫交易、妨害作证等一系列犯罪行为,共计盗伐林木117.07立方米、滥伐林木2541.39立方米、故意毁坏林木256.04立方米。此外,团伙成员伍兆威还在团伙外分别伙同被告人伍瑞春等人盗伐林木115.56立方米、滥伐林木37.05立方米、故意毁坏林木12.75立方米。
Judgment 裁判结果
In the trial of first instance, the People's Court of Wuyishan City, Fujian Province held that defendant Wu Ruihua and other persons should be determined as a Mafia-like gang in nature. As the principal offender, Wu Ruihua should be sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of twenty years and imposed on a fine of CNY250,000 for joinder of penalties for plural crimes including illegally felling trees, deforesting, deliberately damaging properties, forcing trading, and impairing testification. The other fourteen defendants invovled were separately sentenced to fixed-term imprisonments ranging from ten years to six months and imposed on fines ranging from CNY55,000 to 5,000 for various crimes they committed. Upon trial of second instance, the Intermediate People's Court of Nanping City, Fujian Province altered the judgment on the sentencing of Zhou Yuanchun for some of crimes he committed and crimes committed by Jiang Jiafu and the method of execution against Hu Liangcai and affirmed the conviction and sentencing of other defendants in the original trial. 福建省武夷山市人民法院一审认为,被告人伍瑞华等人应定性为恶势力犯罪团伙。伍瑞华系主犯,以盗伐林木罪、滥伐林木罪、故意毁坏财物罪、强迫交易罪、妨害作证罪,数罪并罚,判处有期徒刑二十年,并处罚金25万元。案涉的其他14名被告人亦被分别以不同罪名,判处有期徒刑十年至六个月不等,并处罚金5.5万元至0.5万元不等。福建省南平市中级人民法院二审,对周元春的部分犯罪、江家福的量刑处理和胡良才的执行方式作出改判,对其他原审被告人的定罪量刑,予以维持。
Significance 典型意义
This is a criminal case of illegally felling trees and deforesting in the Wuyishan National Park. The Wuyishan National Park is China's unique conservation area for man and biosphere in the world and a tourist attraction of both world cultural and natural heritage, is the area prohibited from development in the planning of national main functional areas, and has been included in the control scope of red line area for ecological protection throughout the country. In recent years, the economic benefits of the Wuyishan tea industry in Fujian Province have been increasingly emerging and a small number of people take risks for private gains. This is a model case involving crimes committed by a Mafia-like gang with the purpose of accumulating wealth by “planting tea by deforesting” and other means seriously damaging the ecological resources. All defendants have committed crimes of damaging, illegally felling, and deforesting state-owned or collectively-owned trees for several times, they damaged over 600 mu of forest land, with the forest stock of over 3,100 cubic meters, and the impacts were extremely adverse. The people's court coordinated the use of criminal liabilities and economic sanctions and protected the forest resources and ecological environment of the Wuyishan National Park with the strictest justice. 本案系在武夷山国家公园园区内盗伐、滥伐林木的刑事案件。武夷山国家公园是我国唯一一个既是世界人与生物圈保护区,又是世界文化和自然双遗产地的风景名胜区,属全国主体功能区规划中的禁止开发区域,已纳入全国生态保护红线区域管控范围。近年来,福建武夷山茶叶的经济效益凸显,少数人为了私利铤而走险。本案就是一起典型的以“毁林种茶”严重破坏生态资源方式来达到敛财目的的恶势力团伙犯罪案,各被告人多次结伙实施毁坏、盗伐、滥伐国有或集体林木的违法犯罪行为,先后破坏林地600余亩、林木蓄积量达3100立方米,影响极为恶劣。人民法院统筹运用刑事责任和经济制裁手段,用最严格司法保护武夷山国家公园的森林资源和生态环境。
9. Case of illegal mining by defendants Peng Jianqiang, Peng Jianping, and Wu Wenguang   九、被告人彭建强、彭建平、吴文光非法采矿案
Basic Facts 基本案情
From April 2014 to June 2017, without obtaining a mining permit, defendants Peng Jianqiang and Peng Jianqiang and other persons engaged in illegal sand excavation by means of damaging river levees and farmland. In April 2017, the Water Affairs Bureau of Xiangxiang City ordered them to cease the illegal activities. In June 2017, the Land and Resources Bureau of Xiangxiang City ordered them to level the ruined farmland and restore the planting conditions. Peng Jianqiang and other persons all ignored the aforesaid orders. In October 2017, Peng Jianqiang won defendant Wu Wenguang, who was the person in charge of the Xinshi Village in the reach involved, over to engage in illegal sand excavation. When the local government investigated the sand quarry, Wu Wenguang has tipped Peng Jianqiang off for several times. During the period of illegal mining, Peng Jianqiang, Peng Jianping, and other persons made a profit of CNY1.25 million. Peng Jianqiang and Wu Wenguang excavated sand with a value of CNY325,400, illegally occupied 5.96 mu of farmland, in which 4.89 mu of farmland failed to be recovered. It was assessed that the price for restoring the damaged river levees to the original state was CNY1.7729 million. 2014年4月至2017年6月,被告人彭建强、彭建平等人在未取得采矿许可证的情况,采用毁损河堤、农用地等方式非法采沙。2017年4月,湘乡市水利局责令其停止违法行为。2017年6月,湘乡市国土局责令其15日内自行平整被破坏的农田,恢复种植条件。彭建强、彭建平等人均未理睬。2017年10月,彭建强拉拢案涉河段新石村负责人被告人吴文光非法采沙。被告人吴文光在政府查处沙场时,多次给彭建强通风报信。非法采矿期间,被告人彭建强、彭建平等人获利125万元。被告人彭建强、吴文光采掘沙石价值32.54万元,非法占用农用地5.96亩,造成其中4.89亩农田无法恢复,毁损河堤恢复原状工程价格经评估为177.29万元。
Judgment 裁判结果
In the trial of first instance, the People's Court of Pingxiang City, Hunan Province held that in violation of the provisions of the Mineral Resources Management Law, defendants Peng Jianqiang, Peng Jianping, and Wu Wenguang engaged in mining without obtaining a mining permit. In particular, the acts of Peng Jianqiang and Peng Jianping fell under particularly serious circumstances, the acts of Wu Wenguang fell under serious circumstances, and they were all guilty of illegal mining. The Court sentenced defendants Peng Jianqiang, Peng Jianping, and Wu Wenguang to fixed-term imprisonments ranging from seven years to one year and five months and imposed fines ranging from CNY200,000 to 50,000 on them. 湖南省湘乡市人民法院一审认为,被告人彭建强、彭建平、吴文光违反矿产资源管理法的规定,未取得采矿许可证擅自采矿,其中被告人彭建强、彭建平情节特别严重,被告人吴文光情节严重,均构成非法采矿罪。判处被告人彭建强、彭建平、吴文光有期徒刑七年至一年五个月不等,并处罚金20万元至5万元不等。
Significance 典型意义
This is a case where actors of illegally mining mineral resources should be subject to criminal liability. Crackdown on crimes of illegal mining is an inevitable requirement for exerting more efforts to control the chaos in major industries and fields and comprehensively regulating the management order of mineral resources and it is also an important measure for preventing and resolving various risks arising from unapproved digging and mining and maintaining the overall social security and stability. Defendants Peng Jianqiang and Peng Jianping and other persons engaged in mining without a mining permit and even destructive mining. They still turned a deaf ear despite of having been stopped for several times and ordered to remove equipment for sand excavation and restore the damaged river levees by the relevant authority, and even won the person in charge of a basic-level authority over to join them for the purpose of evading investigation and punishment. Their long-term illegal sand excavation has caused great damage to the national mineral resources and ecological environment. The people's court gave full play to the functional roles of criminal trials, effectively deterred crimes, and safeguarded the national and collective interests. The efforts of the people's court have active demonstration effect in promoting the orderly development and rational utilization of mineral resources. 本案系对非法开采矿产资源的行为人追究刑事责任的案件。打击非法采矿违法犯罪行为是加大重点行业领域治乱力度,全面规范矿产资源管理秩序的必然要求,也是防范化解私挖滥采各类风险,维护安全稳定社会大局的重要举措。被告人彭建强、彭建平等不仅无证开采、破坏性开采,且在有关部门多次制止,责令拆除挖沙设备、修复损坏河堤的情况下,仍置若罔闻,甚至为逃避查处拉拢基层组织负责人入伙,长期非法开采沙石,给国家矿产资源和生态环境造成严重破坏。人民法院充分发挥刑事审判职能作用,有力地震慑了犯罪,维护了国家和集体利益,对促进矿产资源的有序开发和合理利用具有积极的示范作用。
10. Case of illegally occupying farmland by defendant entity Fuzhou Yuanshun Stone Co., Ltd. and defendant Huang Hengyou   十、被告单位福州市源顺石材有限公司、被告人黄恒游非法占用农用地案
Basic Facts 基本案情
In 2012, 2013, and April to May 2017, without the approval of the forestry authority, defendant entity Fuzhou Yuanshun Stone Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Yuanshun Company”) and defendant Huang Hengyou occupied 138.51 mu of forest land in the mountain area of “Jiling” in Damo Village, Hongwei Township, Minhou County and used such land as mining and stone processing area by exceeding the scope. After the case arose, according to the requirements of the judicial organ, Shunyuan Company paid the Government of Yanyu Township, Minhou County the ecological restoration fund of CNY623,300, invited experts to prepare a scheme for restoration and improvement of the mining area and surrounding ecological environment, and carried out the corresponding ecological restoration according to the scheme. In the meantime, Huang Hengyou voluntarily undertook public interest restoration of feature seedlings in the Judicial Demonstration Site and Ecological and Judicial Protection Publicity Corridor for Ecological Protection in the Minjiang River located in the Minjiang Wetland Park and signed a contract with a professional landscape company, according to which he would plant 150 specified trees, promise to manage and maintain them for one year, and ensure their survival. The victims including the villagers' committee of Damo Village, Hongwei Township, Minhou County and the Hongwei Farm issued letters of understanding. 2012、2013年及2017年4、5月间,被告单位福州市源顺石材有限公司(以下简称源顺公司)、被告人黄恒游未经林业主管部门审批,擅自在闽侯县鸿尾乡大模村“际岭”山场占用林地138.51亩,用作超范围采矿、石料加工区等。案发后,源顺公司根据司法机关的要求向闽侯县南屿镇政府缴交生态修复款 62.33万元,聘请专家编制了矿区及周边生态环境恢复治理方案,并依方案开展相应生态修复工作。同时,黄恒游自愿承诺在位于闽江湿地公园的闽江水资源生态保护司法示范点暨生态司法保护宣传长廊进行异地特色苗木公益修复,与专业园林公司签订合同,种植指定树木150棵,承诺管护一年,确保成活。被害方闽侯县鸿尾乡大模村村民委员会及鸿尾农场出具谅解书。
Judgment 裁判结果
In the trial of first instance, the People's Court of Minhou County, Fujian Province held that defendant entity Yuanshun Company and defendant Huang Hengyou occupied 138.51 mu of farmland without approval in violation of the national forestry regulations and they were guilty of illegally occupying farmland. Considering that both defendant entity and defendant Huang Hengyou fell under circumstances of voluntary surrender and actively conducted ecological restoration, they may be given lighter punishments according to the law. For committing a crime of illegally occupying farmland, the Court imposed a fine of CNY400,000 on defendant entity Yuanshun Company, sentenced defendant Huang Hengyou to a fixed-term imprisonment of two years and nine months with suspended execution of four years and imposed a fine of CNY200,000 on him; and ordered defendant Huang Hengyou to conduct public interest restoration in another place in the Judicial Demonstration Site for Water Resources Ecological Protection in the Minjiang River in the Minjiang Wetland Park and planted 150 feature seedlings with specific specifications. 福建省闽侯县人民法院一审认为,被告单位源顺公司、被告人黄恒游违反国家林业管理法规,未经审批占用农用地138.51亩,其行为已构成非法占用农用地罪。鉴于被告单位、被告人黄恒游有自首情节,积极进行生态修复,依法从轻处罚。以非法占用农用地罪判处被告单位源顺公司罚金40万元,判处被告人黄恒游有期徒刑二年九个月,缓刑四年,并处罚金20万元;责令被告人黄恒游在闽江湿地公园的闽江水资源生态保护司法示范点进行异地公益修复种植指定规格的特色苗木150棵。
Significance 典型意义
This is a criminal case of illegally occupying farmland. Forest land, cultivated land, and other farmland are important land resources. In this case, without approval, Yuanshun Company and its legal representative Huang Hengyou occupied the forest land for stacking mineral slag, which damaged the use purpose of farmland and the surrounding ecological environment. In the trial, the people's court paid attention to organic combination of punishing crimes and governing and restoring the ecological environment and included the performance of obligations of ecological environmental restoration in the sentencing circumstances. The efforts of the people's court have effectively integrated many functions of ecological justice in warning and education, environmental governance, and legal publicity and achieved good legal effects and social effects. 本案系非法占用农用地的刑事案件。林地、耕地等农用地是重要的土地资源。本案中,源顺公司及其法定代表人黄恒游未经审批擅自占用林地堆放矿石渣土,对农用地用途及其周边生态环境造成破坏。人民法院在审理中,注重惩治犯罪和生态环境治理修复的有机结合,将生态环境修复义务的履行纳入量刑情节,有效融合了生态司法的警示教育、环境治理和法治宣传等诸多功能,取得了良好的法律效果和社会效果。
11. Case of Meng Yun and Li Yuefu v. Yunnan Tongye Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. for dispute over daylighting and sunshine of neighboring buildings   十一、孟筠、李曰福诉云南铜业房地产开发有限公司相邻采光、日照纠纷案
Basic Facts 基本案情
Meng Yun and Li Yuefu were co-owners of the building invovled. Yunnan Tongye Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tongye Company”) obtained the land use right of the plot involved in August 2011 and constructed buildings on the plot. Meng Yun and Li Yuefu filed a lawsuit with the court and requested that Tongye Company should compensate them for their ventilation, daylighting, and sunshine loss arising from the construction of buildings. In the trial of first instance, it was confirmed upon appraisal that the construction activity involved did not affect the ventilation of the appraisal object; affected the sunshine and daylighting and the impact did not satisfy the requirements of the Urban Residential Planning and Design Specifications (GBJ50180-93), the Residential Design Code (GB50096-2011), the Code for Design of Civil Buildings (GB50352-2005), and the Technical Regulations of Kunming City for Urban and Rural Planning Management (2016). 孟筠、李曰福系案涉房屋的共有权人。云南铜业房地产开发有限公司(以下简称铜业公司)于2011年8月取得案涉地块土地使用权,在该地块上建设楼盘。孟筠、李曰福诉至法院,请求铜业公司赔偿因建盖楼盘,侵害其通风、采光、日照时间而造成的损失。一审审理中,经鉴定确认,案涉建设行为对鉴定对象通风无影响;对日照、采光有影响,该影响不符合《城市居住区规划设计规范》(GBJ50180-93)、《住宅设计规范》(GB50096-2011)、《民用建筑设计通则》(GB50352-2005)和《昆明市城乡规划管理技术规定》(2016版)的要求。
Judgment 裁判结果
In the trial of first instance, the People's Court of Panlong District, Kunming City, Yunnan Province held that in the rules for neighboring buildings, whether there was daylighting or sunshine blocking should be determined on the basis of whether the building violated the relevant national construction standards. The appraisal conclusion showed that the construction activity involved did not affect the ventilation of the appraised subject, but affected its sunshine and daylighting. The Court entered a judgment of first instance that Tongye Company should compensate Meng Yun and Li Yuefu CNY165,000 for their daylighting and sunshine loss; and pay the appraisal fee of CNY5,500. In the trial of second instance, the Intermediate People's Court of Kunming City, Yunnan Province affirmed the original judgment. 云南省昆明市盘龙区人民法院一审认为,在建筑物相邻关系制度中,判断是否构成采光、日照妨碍,应以是否违反国家有关工程建设标准为依据。鉴定结论显示,案涉建设行为对鉴定对象通风无影响,对鉴定对象采光、日照有影响。一审判决,铜业公司赔偿孟筠、李曰福采光、日照损失16.50万元;并支付鉴定费5500元。云南省昆明市中级人民法院二审维持原判。
[Significance] 典型意义
This is a case of dispute over tort in sunshine duration and daylighting between neighboring buildings. The construction of a building on the land is the most common form for the land owner or user to realize the land efficiency; however, sunshine, daylighting, and ventilation are also resources jointly shared by the mankind. In accordance with the provisions of the Property Law, the construction of a building may not violate the relevant national engineering construction standards and impair the ventilation, daylighting, and sunshine of neighboring buildings. According to the appraisal conclusion and with the basis for determination of whether the construction activity involved violated the relevant national engineering construction standards, the judgment of this case determined whether Tongye Company's acts of blocking sunshine, daylighting, and ventilation have exceeded the necessary tolerance limit. The judgment complied with the legal provisions, followed the principles of being conducive to production, providing convenience in living, working in unity and helping each other, and being fair and reasonable, and is conducive to interest balance between neighboring real estate owners and promoting social harmony and peace. 本案系相邻关系中日照、采光侵权纠纷案件。在土地之上建造建筑物,是土地的所有权人或者使用权人利用土地实现土地效益最为通常的形式,但日照、采光和通风,也是人类需要共同分享的资源。我国《物权法》中规定,建造建筑物,不得违反国家有关工程建设标准,妨碍相邻建筑物的通风、采光和日照。本案判决按照鉴定结论,以是否违反国家有关工程建设标准为判断依据,认定铜业公司的日照、采光、通风妨碍行为是否超出必要容忍限度,符合法律规定和有利生产、方便生活、团结互助、公平合理原则,有助于相邻不动产权利人之间的利益平衡,促进社会和谐安宁。
12. Case of Meng Deyu v. Tianjin Southeast New City Urban Construction and Investment Co., Ltd. for dispute over noise pollution liability   十二、孟德玉诉天津东南新城城市建设投资有限公司噪声污染责任纠纷案
Basic Facts 基本案情
In October 2015, Meng Deyu purchased a house on the first floor of a residential building developed and constructed by Tianjin Southeast New City Urban Construction and Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Southeast New City Company”). Due to noise arising from the underground heat supply pipelines and heat supply pumps set by Southeast New City Company under the residential building, Meng Deyu started to rent a house on December 1, 2015. The Environmental Monitoring Detachment of Jinnan District, Tianjin Municipality conducted noise testing of the house involved. The testing report showed that the equivalent sound level values (Leq) of indoor noise in the house invovled at night were 37.8 in the master bedroom, 37.0 in the small bedroom, 33.6 in the guest bedroom, and 39.1 in the living room. Meng Deyu filed a lawsuit with the Court and requested that the Court should order Southeast New City Company to eliminate the tort and compensate the expenses of CNY66,000 arising from his rental. 2015年10月,孟德玉购买天津东南新城城市建设投资有限公司(以下简称东南新城公司)开发建设的住宅楼一楼住宅一套。因东南新城公司设置于该住宅楼下的地下供热管道及供热泵存在噪声,孟德玉自2015年12月1日起在外租房居住。天津市津南区环境监察支队对案涉房屋进行了噪音检测。检测报告显示,案涉房屋夜间室内噪声等效声级值(Leq)为:主卧37.8,小卧37.0,次卧33.6,客厅39.1。孟德玉诉至法院,要求判令东南新城公司消除侵害,并赔偿其在外租房费用6.60万元。
Judgment 裁判结果
In the trial of first instance, the People's Court of Jinnan District, Tianjin Municipality held that as a real estate development enterprise, Southeast New City Company failed to conduct acoustic vibration reduction in the public electric machine room in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Residential Design Code (GB50096-1999), in which way the noise emission standards in the house involved were higher than the emission values as prescribed in the Standards for the Emission of Noises in the Social and Living Environment (GB22337-2008). The court of first instance entered a judgment that Southeast New City Company should, within five months, conduct noise reduction transformation of the heat supply equipment and pipelines involved, making the noise generated reach the standards as prescribed in the Standards for the Discharge of Noise in the Social Living Environment, and compensate Meng Deyu CNY27,500 for his rental expense. In the trial of second instance, the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin Municipality affirmed the original judgment. 天津市津南区人民法院一审认为,东南新城公司作为房地产开发企业,未能依照《住宅设计规范》》(GB50096-1999)的相关规定对公共用电机房进行隔声减震处理,造成案涉房屋噪声排放标准高于《社会生活环境噪声排放标准》(GB22337-2008)规定的排放限值,应对由此造成的噪声污染承担责任。一审法院判决,东南新城公司在5个月的期间内对案涉供热设备及管道进行降噪改造达到《社会生活环境噪声排放标准》规定的标准,并赔偿孟德玉租房费用损失2.75万元。天津市第二中级人民法院二审维持原判。
Significance 典型意义
This is a case of dispute over noise pollution arising from underground heat supply pipelines and heat pumps under a commercial residential building. In this case, with reference to the Standards for the Emission of Noise in the Social and Living Environment, it was determined that the heat supply pipelines and heat pumps in the residential building kept generating noise, disturbed the normal living of residents, and exceeded the environmental noise emission standards as prescribed by the state. It was proper and reasonable to determine that the noise emission in this case constituted noise pollution. In the judgment of this case, Southeast New City Company was ordered to conduct noise reduction transformation and compensate for the corresponding loss. By taking into consideration of the transformation measures and the residence demand of the resident, a specific transformation time limit was defined, which was conducive to effectively executing the judgment, urging the real estate development enterprise to voluntarily assume the social responsibility of eliminating residential noise pollution, and maintaining the quiet living of the general public. 本案系商品房住宅楼内地下供热管道及供热泵噪声污染纠纷案件。本案参照《社会生活环境噪声排放标准》,认定住宅楼内供热管道、供热泵持续发出噪声,干扰居民正常生活并超过国家规定的环境噪声排放标准,构成噪声污染,具有妥当性和合理性。本案判决东南新城公司进行降噪改造并赔偿相应损失,同时考虑改造措施及住房人居住需求,限定明确的改造期限,有利于裁判结果的有效执行,督促房地产开发企业自觉承担消除住宅噪声污染的社会责任,维护人民群众宁静生活的权益。
13. Case of Lanping Sanjiang Copper Co., Ltd. v. Lanping Huiji Mining Co., Ltd. for dispute over property damage compensation   十三、兰坪三江铜业有限责任公司诉兰坪汇集矿业有限公司财产损害赔偿纠纷案
Basic Facts 基本案情
In June 2019, there was a debris flow disaster in the Qinghe River in Yingpan Township, Lanping County. The Land and Resources Bureau of Lanping County formed a Report of the Land and Resources Bureau of Lanping County on the Investigation of the “6.07” Debris Flow Disaster in the Qinghe River in Yingpan Township, Lanping County (hereinafter referred to as the “Investigation Report”). It was determined in the Investigation Report that the direct economic loss of Lanping Sanjiang Copper Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Sanjiang Copper Company”) was CNY2.3391 million. The Investigation Report also indicated that the debris flow disaster was mainly caused by heavy rainfall. The improper disposal of production slag in the mining area of the Dabandeng copper mine of Lanping Huiji Mining Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Huiji Company”) was also a direct factor in aggravating the geological disaster loss. All disaster loss parties should jointly entrust a qualified technical entity with carrying out the special investigation work and upon determination of liabilities, negotiate a solution according to their respective liabilities. Since the negotiation failed, Sanjiang Copper Company filed a lawsuit with the Court and claimed that Huiji Company should compensate it the economic loss of CNY2.3391 million.
......
 2016年6月,兰坪县营盘镇清水河发生泥石流灾害。兰坪县国土资源局形成《兰坪县国土资源局关于上报兰坪县营盘镇清水河“6.07”泥石流灾害调查的报告》(以下简称调查报告),认定兰坪三江铜业有限责任公司(以下简称三江铜业公司)直接经济损失为233.91万元。调查报告同时指出,本次泥石流灾害为强降雨为主引发,兰坪汇集矿业有限公司(以下简称汇集公司)大板登铜矿矿区生产弃渣处置不当是加剧地质灾害灾损形成的直接因素,灾损各方应共同委托具有资质条件的技术单位开展专项调查工作,经责任认定后按照责任大小协商解决。因协商未果,三江铜业公司诉至法院,要求汇集公司赔偿其经济损失233.91万元。
......

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
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【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