In this issue, we will talk about 2 cases.
In April 2010, in order to make money by issuing false tickets, Ma and two other people set up a company in Karamay. Since August, the company began to issue false special invoices to a company in Guangdong. In September, because of the death of his son, Ma returned to his hometown to take care of the funeral, and never returned to Karamay. However, the other two people still continued to issue false special bills to a company in Guangdong, with a total of more than 70 yuan in taxes.
In 2012, Ma was chased online, and 7 years later, that is, in 2019, Ma surrendered to the investigation agency. In the end, Ma was sentenced to 4 years in prison and fined 50,000 yuan for committing the crime of false ***.
In the first and second trials, Ma and his defender both pointed out that after Ma left the company in September, the other two continued to issue false special tickets had nothing to do with Ma, and leaving the company was a suspension of the crime for Ma.
Let's take a look at the court's point of view:
After expounding the jurisprudence of "disengagement from the accomplice relationship", the court clearly pointed out that Ma was a co-participant in the crime of false issuance of special tickets in this case, and although he left the company in September and returned to his hometown, Ma had no evidence to prove that after leaving, he had prevented the other two from continuing the criminal act of issuing false special tickets, and successfully severed the causal relationship between Ma's previous acts and the results of the crime after leaving.
Because after Ma left, the other two did not issue false special tickets to other companies, but continued to make profits by issuing false special tickets to the Guangdong company that Ma contacted, which shows that there is continuity in the joint crime and was not suspended because of Ma's departure.
Therefore, Ma, as an accomplice, should be responsible for the consequences caused by the false issuance of special votes that the other two continued to carry out after leaving.
Does a waiver of tax credits constitute a suspension of the offence?
Yuan is the head of the business department of a pharmaceutical company, managing several salesmen affiliated with this pharmaceutical company, the salesman is responsible for the purchase and sale of drugs, and the value-added tax is borne by the salesman himself, either the salesman pays money directly to the company, or the salesman gives the company a special VAT ticket for deduction. The company only provides a drug business platform for these salesmen, and collects management fees according to the sales volume of the salesmen.
In this way, Yuan and other 7 salesmen spent their own money to buy a large number of VAT special tickets from some pharmaceutical companies.
Yuan and the defender submitted in the second instance that Yuan had given up the deduction of input tax before the case and transferred out, so the court should find that Yuan had committed a crime.
The court did not think so, and the court's reason was that Yuan had falsely issued a special VAT ticket for tax deduction, which had undermined the order of the state's tax administration and harmed the legal interests of the state's taxation, and the crime had been completed. After committing a criminal act, the input tax is transferred out and the deduction is waived, which is an expression of remorse and does not constitute a suspension of the crime.
In the end, Yuan and other 7 affiliated salesmen were convicted of the crime of false ***, sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment, and fined.
The above content is from the Criminal Ruling of the Intermediate People's Court of Karamay City (2020) Xin 02 Xingzhong No. 8 and the Criminal Ruling of the Intermediate People's Court of Fuyang City, Anhui Province (2020) Anhui 12 Xingzhong No. 277.