Guiding Case No. 7 of the Supreme People's Procuratorate: People v. Hu Baogang and Zheng Ling for practicing favoritism, making falsification and failing to transfer a criminal case

(Guiding Case No. 7 of the Supreme People's Procuratorate)

[Keywords]

Procedural supervision, crime of practicing favoritism, making falsification and failing to transfer a criminal case

[Key Points]

Procedural supervision is an integral part of a people's procuratorate's performance of legal supervision as required by the law. In practice, procuratorates and their case-handling staff members should lay equal emphasis on case handling and supervision, establish and improve a working mechanism that effectively links agency law enforcement and criminal justice, and have a discerning eye in handling cases for clues to various duty-related crimes; and where an agency law enforcement officer practices favoritism, makes falsification, and fails to transfer the relevant criminal cases, which constitutes a crime, the agency law enforcement officer should be held criminally liable according to the law.

[Relevant Legislation]

Article 402 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China

[Basic Facts]

Defendant Hu Baogang, male, born in 1956, former chief of the Fair Trading Section of Hexi Branch of the Administration for Industry and Commerce of Tianjin Municipality.

Defendant Zheng Ling, male, born in 1957, former staff member of the Fair Trading Section of Hexi Branch of the Administration for Industry and Commerce of Tianjin Municipality.

While Hu Baogang served as the chief of the Fair Trading Section of Hexi Branch of the Administration for Industry and Commerce of Tianjin Municipality ( “Hexi Branch of the Administration for Industry and Commerce”), Hu Baogang, together with Zheng Ling and other staff members of this Section, conducted an on-site inspection of Tianjin Huaxia Shenlong Technology and Trade Development Co., Ltd. ( “Shenlong Company”) for a suspected pyramid scheme reported by concerned citizens. They seized some financial statements and publicity materials on the spot, and on the same day, questioned Li, the legal representative of Shenlong Company. Li admitted that the turnover of Shenlong Company was over 1.14 million yuan (consistent with the amount indicated on the seized financial statements). Afterwards, this case was handled by Zheng Ling. On March 16, 2006, in the case investigation conclusion report and the punishment decision, Hu Baogang and Zheng Ling determined that the acts of Shenlong Company constituted a pyramid scheme, but concealed the fact that the amount of business turnover involved in this case was huge. To seek a kickback from fines for the Section, they issued an opinion on administrative punishment. Hu Baogang concealed the fact that the amount of business turnover involved in this case was huge when he reported to the director's executive meeting. On April 11, 2006, Hexi Branch of the Administration for Industry and Commerce approved the handling opinion of Hu Baogang and Zheng Ling, and imposed the administrative punishment of “cessation of illegal acts and a fine of 500,000 yuan.” Li Peng turned over the fine of 500,000 yuan to Hexi Branch of the Administration for Industry and Commerce in installments. The Fair Trading Section where Hu Baogang and Zheng Ling served obtained a kickback of 25,000 yuan from the fine.
．．．．．．