Article 68 of the Criminal Law stipulates that criminals are guilty of exposing the criminal acts of others. and other meritorious performances, the punishment may be mitigated or commuted.
What is a criminal? The criminal law does not give specific provisions, but the concept must be in the legal sense. According to the basic principles of criminal procedure, guilt must not be determined without a judgment made by a people's court in accordance with law. In other words, a person can only be considered a "criminal" in law if he or she is convicted of a crime by a court of law.
As a result, when a person is convicted, he becomes a "criminal" and can be given leniency if he or she is found to have made meritorious contributions in reporting, exposing or assisting in the investigation of other cases before he is sentenced.
It can be seen that the Criminal Law does not set a time limit for the determination of meritorious service.
Article 5 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Voluntary Surrender and Meritorious Service holds that meritorious service has a starting time, and the time limit is "after the case is filed".
The judicial interpretation makes such a qualification: the meritorious service system itself is utilitarian in nature, and is designed to encourage criminals to atone for their crimes, and after the criminal is brought to justice, the criminal has either been detained, released on bail pending further investigation, or placed under residential surveillance, and his personal freedom has been restricted to a certain extent, so that his subjective will to atone for his crimes is clear and clear enough, so as to prevent the abuse of the meritorious service system.
In practice, Reference Cases No. 936 and No. 1125 of the Criminal Trial Reference Cases also take the same position, but they make a loose interpretation of the scope of "time of arrival": meritorious performance such as reporting, exposing or assisting in the investigation of other cases can be either after the criminal has actually arrived at the case, such as being under the control of the judicial organs, or after he has actually been prepared to surrender, or on the way to surrender, or after he has contacted and controlled the relevant organs.
In the gist of the adjudication of a large number of practical cases, it can also be seen that one of the main bases for the court to determine meritorious service is "after the case is brought to trial".
So, here's the problem:
Is a person's act of reporting, exposing or assisting in solving a case after committing a crime and before being brought into the case out of the motive of atonement for the crime be regarded as meritorious service?
After objectively committing a criminal act provided for in the Criminal Law, even if he has not yet been brought to justice, he is in fact already a "criminal". At this time, the perpetrator has realized that he may be held criminally responsible, so he takes the initiative to report to the judicial authorities to expose the crimes of others or assist in the investigation of other cases.
Normally, the motive of "criminals" for making meritorious service is to obtain leniency, which is completely in line with the utilitarian starting point of the meritorious service system. The function of criminal law is not only to punish crimes, but also to educate and reform. In situations where the perpetrator has the will to atone for his crimes, and his or her acts such as reporting and exposing have achieved actual results, it is not of much significance to be entangled in whether to arrive before or after the case.
Moving forward the starting time for the determination of meritorious service to "after the crime" is essentially a further relaxation on the basis of the position taken in the Criminal Trial Reference Cases, and this relaxation does not go beyond the scope of the Criminal Law, and the perpetrator of the "post-crime" is also a "criminal".
In judicial practice, there are also precedents that hold the same position, as follows.
2017) Ji 0204 Xingchu No. 140.
During his tenure as a member of the ** Party Group of Q City, Defendant Z took advantage of his position to accept a total of 3.05 million yuan from J, the chairman of the board of directors of the Q City Real Estate Company, in conjunction with others or alone. Later, defendant Z took the initiative to come to the case and actively confessed the facts of the crime and returned all the stolen money. Before turning himself in, Z persuaded defendant T in another case to surrender.
The public prosecution held that Z's persuasion of T to surrender before the case, rather than after the case, did not meet the time requirement for meritorious service.
After trial, the court held that Z's persuasion of T to surrender before and after his arrival in the case did not affect the determination of his meritorious service, on the grounds that article 68 of the Criminal Law does not provide for the time point of "after arriving at the case", and the effect of Z's persuasion of others to surrender is better than the provision of "providing clues to solve other cases", and based on the principle of lifting weights to show lightness, it should be found to be meritorious service. 
1.With regard to the starting time of meritorious service, the current theory and practice tend to be "after the case is filed", and there are criminal trial reference cases and practical precedents to support it, but there is no guiding case to support it for the time being.
2.Proceeding from the provisions of the Criminal Law itself, the subject of meritorious service is a "criminal", and an individual who believes that the perpetrator "after committing a crime" is also a "criminal", and his or her conduct such as reporting, exposing, or assisting in the investigation of a case with practical effect under the will to atone for his guilt shall be found to be meritorious service.
3.Moving forward the starting time of meritorious service to "after committing a crime" does not exceed the scope of the criminal law, and is also completely in line with the utilitarian value of the meritorious service system and the original intention of atonement for crimes.
Meritorious service