Basic facts of the case: A company is a limited liability company established by the defendant Huang and as the legal representative, operating property management services. After the establishment of a certain company, it contracted the property management services of a certain community, and hired the victim Pan Mouhao and others as security guards and cleaners. From June 2019 to January 2020, a company owed a total of RMB 102196 in labor remuneration to 25 workers, including Pan Mouhao and Yang Mouxiang. On January 21, 2020, a labor inspection bureau notified Huang to cooperate with the investigation, but Huang did not cooperate. The next day, Huang changed *** and fled. On April 20 of the same year, a labor inspection bureau posted a labor and social security inspection correction instruction within a time limit in front of the company's office building, ordering the company to pay labor remuneration in full by April 27, 2020. Within the specified period, the company still did not pay the employee's remuneration.
Focus of the case: Whether a company and Huang constituted the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration.
The gist of the court's decision:
The People's Court of Lengshuijiang City, Hunan Province held after trial that: a certain company evaded the payment of labor remuneration to workers by means of evasion, the amount was relatively large, and the defendant Huang was directly responsible for the person in charge of the unit, and the acts of a certain company and Huang had constituted the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration and should be punished in accordance with law. Defendant Huang X truthfully confessed his crime after being brought into the case, and may be given a lighter punishment in accordance with law. Huang voluntarily admits guilt and accepts punishment, and may be given a lenient disposition in accordance with law. Huang paid part of the labor remuneration after being brought into the case, and may be given a lighter punishment as appropriate. The sentencing recommendation submitted by the public prosecution organ at court is appropriate and is to be adopted. To sum up, the charges charged by the public prosecution are established, and the criminal responsibility of the defendant company, a company, and Huang should be pursued for the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration.
The Lengshuijiang Municipal People's Court of Hunan Province made the following judgment in accordance with the first and second paragraphs of Article 276-1 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, Articles 30, 31, 67, 33, 52 and 53, and Articles 15 and 200, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China:
1. The defendant company, a company, committed the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration and was sentenced to a fine of RMB 40,000;(Payment must be made within 30 days from the effective date of the judgment.) ）
2. Defendant Huang X committed the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration and was sentenced to one year imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 yuan. (The term of imprisonment is calculated from the date of execution of the sentence.) Where detention is carried out before the sentence is enforced, one day of the sentence is to be deducted for each day of detention. i.e. from July 11, 2020 to July 10, 2021;The fine shall be paid within 30 days after the effective date of this judgment.
Explanation: If the employer and its directly responsible supervisor constitute the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration by evading the payment of labor remuneration by evading the payment of a relatively large amount, and still fail to pay it after being ordered to do so by the relevant departments. Through combing, the subject of the crime is the unit and the natural person (the person in charge who is directly responsible), and the criterion for criminalization is: (1) the method of conduct is to transfer property and conceal;(2) Failure to pay if there is a ability to pay;(3) ** The department still does not pay after being ordered. The court of first instance strictly grasped the criterion for conviction and convicted and sentenced the subject of the crime, i.e., the employer and its directly responsible manager, for refusing to pay labor remuneration, which is a full embodiment of the principle that the crime is punishable by law and the crime is commensurate with the benefit.
The system of leniency for those who admit guilt and accept punishment is a criminal procedure system that emerged in the context of a specific era, and it has a unique purpose and value for its existence. This system effectively alleviates the tension between limited judicial resources and the growing caseload, fully mobilizes the defendant's enthusiasm to admit guilt, enables him to obtain greater consequences, and reduces the purpose of social confrontation. Specifically, in this case, the court of first instance clarified the boundaries of the system, adhered to the voluntariness of pleas and evidence-based judgments, and adopted the sentencing recommendations of the procuratorate, which to a certain extent played a legal role in optimizing the allocation of senior judicial officers, improving judicial efficiency, and promoting the formation of a non-confrontational judicial structure in litigation.