The focus of the Ju Shi-young trial: How does the 790 million State-owned asset loss count?

The Zhu Shi-young case

How did you figure out the $790 million loss?

Counting: overdue amounts equal to loss

The present document is based solely on public observation materials, defence opinions, public documents and public reports. The facts in question are not concluded by a judicial authority, and the case has not yet been decided, and no acquittal has been made, and all are subject to an effective decision by the People ' s Court.

Previously, bis, we spoke of the same “name” — the same deal, the Civil Chamber said it was legal, the Criminal Chamber said it was a violation, and a Supreme People's Court ruling in force became the most visible in the trial. The question of name is over, the bill is not finished. This one, even this one: how did the 790 million state-owned property losses charged in the indictment come from? It's not affordable?

01 The weight of a number

First, we should clarify where this figure comes from.

790 million, in the indictment, for abuse of office by agents of State-owned companies. According to article 168 of the Penal Code, “caused the bankruptcy or serious loss of a State-owned company” is the threshold for incrimination and “caused a particularly significant loss of national interest” is aggravated. That is, this $790 million is not just the background of the case, but it directly determines the guilt and sentence that fall on the sentence.

The numbers are the threshold. The threshold is one inch, life is one.

But because of its weight, it has to be clear: how did $790 million come out? Is it a gross or a net? Are all the confiscated money added together or are the rest of the money taken away from the money that can be recovered and recovered?

02 Overdue, not equivalent to loss

According to the public hearing of the material and the defence, the defence ' s central claim on this account is a sentence: the delay does not amount to a loss.

(b) Trade payments are overdue and are “risks”; There are several gaps between the risk and the legal “loss” that it becomes. The offence of abuse of functions is the result — it is not “a danger” but “a determination that the damage was caused”. Accounts receivable on bookboard may be collected or not collected; It may be either full or only part of it. That number floats before we know each other.

A number that's still floating, can't it be the cornerstone of a conviction?

This is where the defence singles out the issue.

Three deductions from this account.

According to the trial notes and the defence, at least three “recovery” moneys were in the case file, which should be deducted from 790 million miles.

First, a refund. Refunds have been returned during the reorganization process in the north over $200 million — as measured by the counsel in court. The money comes back, and the loss is one piece.

Second line, guarantee. The implementation process is still under way, with the sale of a shop and the seizure of a property under the name of Kim Tongda. (a) The possibility of compensation if seized; Without completion, there are variables to the payment.

Third course, replace. Tarhuang Sing Mining is subject to a debt swap, with the State capital having legally acquired a controlling interest and completing business registration, with an assessed value of 720 million yuan. The claim becomes an equity, and the equity has an assessed value — this one, is it a loss or a disposal result?

The three deductions were set together, and the defence concluded that the damages required by criminal law should be net damages after the deduction; The implementation process is still moving forward, meaning that the loss is still in the process of being fixed.

04 Who's gonna take care of this?

The figures must stand and not be counted by one party alone. According to the trial materials and defence, the defence challenged the basis of the calculation of the loss itself — the $790 million, which was not supported by a specific and verifiably certified audit or a judicial accounting opinion to nail it to the death of which: what was the principal, which was the interest, which was the default, why the deduction was not withheld, and where were the documents.

There is a pristine rationale in the criminal trial: each number claimed by the prosecution must be able to stand the defence's testimony and must be matched by evidence.

The $790 million is not a small number, but the extent to which it can afford the standard of proof, which must be supported by hard evidence.

The accounts were unclear and the courts ruled; But the books are not clear, and everyone in the court sees them. How do you answer that question?

The Zhu Shi-young case

• Precise
• she wants to do something.

The prosecutor denied the facts established by the Supreme People's Court in the case of Zhu Shi-young.

The Zhu Shi-young case

• the profit is collective, and something happened to him?

05 Next forecast

The bill thing, come here. But there are others behind the account: the same acts, the same signatures, the same minutes of meetings, why is she on the list of charges? Next one, 4. "Profit is collective, something happens to you?" We see how this is legally solved.

Derogation: The present document is based on public attendance of handwritten notes, defence opinions, public administrative documents and public reports. The facts, amounts, procedural details are not the result of a judicial finding and the case has not yet been decided. The arguments cited in the text are separate and unjudicial. This paper does not prejudge the case of guilt or innocence, does not evaluate any of the authorities and personnel involved in the case, and deals only with the general rule of law in relation to issues such as the determination of loss, rules of evidence, etc. The people ' s courts shall determine the decision in force.

Reproduced as received, in the language of submission only. (a) The opinion of the defence in court; (a) Article 168 of the Criminal Code; Public documentation of relevant implementation and reorganization information; Public coverage.

_ Signatureer _ _ _