The facts of this criminal case of false VAT bills are not complicated.
Two salesmen of the company, in the absence of actual sales of goods, contacted a number of ticket buyers and asked his unit to falsely issue 69 VAT special invoices, with a total tax amount of more than 240 yuan. The unit where the 2 salesmen worked, the 2 salesmen, and 1 introducer were all sentenced to the crime of falsehood.
After the first-instance judgment was pronounced, one of the salesmen appealed, and the second-instance court ruled to revoke the first-instance judgment and remand for a new trial, believing that there were violations of procedural provisions in the trial of the first-instance court, which might affect the fair trial of the case.
In view of this case, the following three points need to be understood:
First, the person who introduces the salesman who falsely issues special tickets cannot constitute a joint crime with the salesman, and the introducer is not an accomplice. Because introducing others to issue false special tickets itself constitutes a crime of false ***. Therefore, the introducer in this case was convicted of the crime of false *** in the first instance and sentenced to 3 years in prison, suspended for 3 years, and fined 50,000 yuan.
Second, in this case, the two salesmen were both directly responsible for the specific commission of the crime by the unit and were sentenced to bear criminal responsibility. Therefore, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law, the two salesmen were not sentenced to fines in the first instance, but were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment with a suspended execution.
Third, why is it said that the trial procedure of the court of first instance is illegal?
Because during the first instance, Xie of the salesman's unit was not qualified to participate in the litigation as the litigation representative of the unit. According to the relevant provisions of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law", other persons directly responsible for crimes committed by a unit, or persons who know the circumstances of the case and have an obligation to testify, are not suitable to serve as the litigation representative of the defendant unit.
The unit's litigation representative, Xie Mou, violated this provision, so the case was remanded for retrial.
The above content is from the China Judgment Network, the Criminal Judgment of the People's Court of Pizhou City, Jiangsu Province (2018) Su 0382 Xingchu No. 516, and the Criminal Ruling of the Intermediate People's Court of Xuzhou City (2020) Su 03 Xingzhong No. 186.
Start planning for my 2024