1. Fabrication of evidence
The facts involved in the so-called "embezzlement of duties" were all contractual acts between two enterprises, and in no case was Wang Zhenguo's possession of the property of the enterprise. One of the accusations is that during Wang Zhenguo's tenure as chairman of the board of directors of the Yulin Company, the construction and renovation of the Yulin Company was carried out by the construction unit, and Wang Zhenguo was accused of embezzlement because the construction unit and Wang Zhenguo had a kinship. For the time being, regardless of whether the amount of the project payment is the basic legal knowledge of civil disputes or criminal cases; Let's take a look at the evidence of the accusation: Sun Moumou's work diary on September 6, 2009. Sun Moumou was the person in charge of the Yulin project at that time, and he was the signatory of the engineering quantity audit of the settlement unit of the Yulin project. The logic of the accusation is that Wang Zhenguo instructed Wang, the head of the company's legal department, to use emails from September 6 to September 13, 2009 to instruct relevant personnel to inflate the amount of work. There are Wang's emails and Sun Moumou's diary as evidence, as if the evidence is ironclad, and there is no argument.
In this case, the visa forms were reviewed by Sun and Hua respectively, and the original documents were signed on May 18, May 20, May 26, and June 9, 2009, respectively, which contradicted the time of Wang's email. If Wang instructed the budget personnel to falsify the quantity of work from September 6 to 13, then the original document should be signed and reviewed after September 13. In order to strengthen the corroboration of Wang's email, someone forged and added the contents of Sun's work diary on September 6. The content said that Sun Moumou received the project quantity visa form on September 6, with the intention of establishing that Wang used the email to instruct the budget personnel to falsify the quantity of the project, but the fake is always fake, and no matter how seamless the forgery is, it will have a problem
1. If Wang was still instructing on September 13 and had not completed the production of the project quantity visa form, how could Sun Moumou receive these documents on September 6 before completing the visa form?
2. Sun's work record on September 6 was written after September 18;
3. There is a clear difference between the handwriting and the whole work diary;
4. The funny thing is that this part of his work diary is written in the third person;
5. The funniest thing is that there is a parenthesis after the third person, indicating that (I mean Sun Moumou in the diary) is such a drawing snake.
When these cross-examinations were tried in the Zhenxing District Court, the entire court was shocked. The prosecutor hid behind the computer and never looked up.
2. Making false inspection and measurement reports
Yulin company has a cofferdam construction project, and the contract is a one-time package of construction costs per mu, 350,000 acres, a total of 1,113 acres, there is no problem of fictitious engineering quantity at all. In order to negate 3The total price of 50,000 mu and 1,113 mu. More than 10 years after the completion of construction, the case-handling unit organized relevant personnel to re-survey and re-value all earthworks, so as to establish that Wang Zhenguo had embezzled tens of millions of yuan.
In court, Fan, the captain of the original construction unit in charge of the project, provided dozens of mobile phones in court** to confirm the true situation of the survey organized by the case-handling unit at that time: for the first time, the Yanjiang City Public Security Bureau found a measuring unit, and the project cost ratio was 3 after measurement50,000 acres, more than 1,113 acres, framed Wang Zhenguo's crime unsuccessfully. So I found a new unit of measurement, and deliberately cheated in the measurement to measure less. Fan recorded all this with his mobile phone and refused to sign the measurements. On the contrary, because Fan requested a true survey, the case-handling unit illegally detained Fan, a 65-year-old man, in the case base for seven days and seven nights, and intimidated and physically tortured Fan, who was later released because Fan had a heart attack during torture. Fan's testimony in court and a large number of ** fully prove that the case handler cheated and framed during the investigation.
3. Destroy the evidence and frame it
According to the "List of Seizures" in the file, a number of various work diaries were seized. These are all documentary evidence related to the original records of that year, among which one is Gao Moumou's work diary, which records almost all the engineering plans, construction plans and related meeting records of Yulin Company that year. The diary has been kept in Yuxuan Company after Gao Moumou left the company. Because Wang Moumou has been reporting the engineering problems of Yuxuan Company for many years, Wang Zhenguo has read the diary many times and believes that it is an important original documentary evidence, so he has been focusing on preserving. Since Wang Zhenguo was detained along the Yangtze River, he kept asking the case handlers to extract the documentary evidence. The case-handling unit seized a total of several work diaries of various kinds, including 7 copies of Wang Zhenguo's personal work diaries and issued a seizure registration. During the trial, Wang Zhenguo kept asking about the whereabouts of the documentary evidence. The prosecutor informed the court that they had approached the handler, who said that the diaries had been lost. （See the video of the trial for detailsThe case handler even said that the documentary evidence of the innocence of such an important party could be lost, and there was no explanation. Later, under Wang Zhenguo's strong struggle, the prosecutor said that he had found a diary of Gao Moumou. After the retrial, Gao's diary was submitted to the court. The prosecutor explained that Wang's sister testified that Wang had brought home the work diary. How could the evidence in the seizure registration form be brought home by Wang? The diary was displayed in court, and it was found that the pages of an important meeting and content of the diary had been torn up. That is, someone destroyed part of the documentary evidence. Even the extant pages find a large number of original documentary evidence of Wang Zhenguo's innocence. For example, the minutes of the meeting on the requirements of the security work, the minutes of the meeting on the supervision of the project settlement requirements, the minutes of the meeting on the strict management of the project, and the meeting minutes of the establishment of a supervision group to supervise the work of the jade. These records have proved that Wang Zhenguo not only did not encroach on it, but also fulfilled his management responsibilities.
In the seizure registration, other work diaries that were seized and taken away disappeared without a trace. There was no explanation, and no one was held accountable for the loss of documentary evidence. And Wang Zhenguo was portrayed and framed as a crime under the premise of destroying evidence in his favor.
In 2020, Li ** sent a letter to Wang Zhenguo through his lawyer, in which he explained that Li ** had been subjected to various abuses at the project base, and said that he himself was not working in Binhai at the time, and he was not involved in the relevant case at all, let alone understood the situation. It was the case handler who wrote and directed the relevant plot and forced Li ** to admit it, so as to frame Wang Zhenguo. Li ** reluctantly wrote down the transcript during torture and deception. Li ** mentioned in the letter that as long as Li ** talked about the true situation that was beneficial to Wang Zhenguo, the person handling the case would not record it. （For details, please refer to Li **'s letter to his wife and Wang Zhenguo's letter in the evidence
In the court of first instance, Wang Zhenguo read the contents of these letters to the court, but the court did not accept the evidence in court. It is said that it will be handed over to the court after the trial. After the end of the day, the special case team, which had already completed the investigation and disbanded, demanded that the detention center destroy the evidence in the name of the task force.
As a result, a number of police officers from the Yanjiang City Detention Center took turns searching for the letter, and even four or five police officers searched for more than an hour before Wang Zhenguo** left the detention center, just to prevent Wang Zhenguo from bringing the evidence to court. Wang Zhenguo rolled the letters in toilet paper, and only then did he break through the search and release the evidence on the same day and submit it to the court. Wang Zhenguo and his defender submitted more than 40 pieces of documentary evidence of innocence, expert opinions, effective judgments, and rulings to the court, but there was no mention or judgment in the verdict, which is unimaginable. It really can't be mentioned in the verdict, because if it is mentioned, this guilty verdict cannot be written, so it can only be so.
4. Tampering with evidence framing
Among the accusations of "embezzlement of duties", there is an accusation: "Wang Zhen's state-owned New Yuxuan Company leased the assets of the Yuxuan Company more than ten years ago, and the rent was low, so the New Yuxuan Company embezzled." Wang Zhenguo has an equity in Xinyuxuan, so Wang Zhenguo was found guilty of embezzlement. The lease contract between the two companies has been fulfilled many years ago, let alone paying rent, even if it does not pay rent, it will not be enough to encroach on it. Because what does the company's contract behavior have to do with Wang Zhenguo? In addition, the crime of embezzlement refers to the possession of property and things in reality, while leasing is a kind of interest, and the right cannot be possessed. Therefore, it does not constitute encroachment in any way. Moreover, at the time of leasing, Wang Zhenguo had arranged a market survey on the reasonableness of the rent, and required the employees to lease fairly. It is too difficult for the judge, he personally believes that he is not guilty and the leader thinks he is guilty, if the verdict is written according to real evidence, he is obviously not guilty. This alone determined that Wang Zhenguo had embezzled more than 100 million yuan out of thin air, and the judge had no choice but to write this strange verdict, tamper with the content of the testimony, and the overlord forced the guilty description. For details, please refer to the testimony of Wang Moumou, the legal counsel and lawyer of Yulin Company in the dossier: "—Regarding the lease cost of the right of use, I put forward the idea that it is necessary to do a market survey to lease the sea cucumber circle and the lease of the right to use the sea area more fairly. Wang Zhenguo agreed at that time and arranged for Wang to conduct market research. Later, Wang told me that after market research, the price of sea cucumber circle leasing ** is 800 yuan per mu per year......”The verdict again cites this paragraph of testimony, which reads".Wang Zhenguo agreed at that time" was changed to "Wang Zhenguo did not agree at that time".The word "no" was added so that the meaning of the whole testimony was completely opposite, which made the verdict look better; But the testimony in the dossier can never be changed. When the evidence is written in the judgment, it is copied and pasted electronically, not typed, so it cannot be a clerical error, and the clerical error cannot be a clerical error here. The judge is also "well-intentioned, and it is difficult for a clever woman to cook without rice". Without such tampering, the verdict would not have been written. Those who understand the law will know at a glance that there are all kinds of contradictions and problems piled up in the judgment. Perhaps, such tampering at least makes it seem as if it is a crime to ordinary people who do not understand the law. We can understand why the presiding judge Wang Moumou and the judge's assistant Zhang Moumou publicly informed the content of the meeting on April 26, 2023, which can only be seen in the supplementary file: "The judges of the three collegial panels unanimously believe that embezzlement does not constitute a crime." Because of the trial of such a case, the judge is very helpless and sad.
In the process of appealing, Wang Zhenguo entrusted Binhai City lawyer Shi to go to the Yanjiang City Intermediate People's Court to copy the file, and after the presiding judge Wang Moumou learned about it, he asked Shi if Wang Zhenguo had any appeal? Shi said that he had appealed, and Wang said to Shi's lawyer: "The appeal is right, and you must appeal." ”
5. Violent coercion of witnesses framing
According to the written testimony provided to the court or testified in court by a number of witnesses such as Li Moushuai, Li Moujun, Wang Moucheng, Gao Moucheng, and Hu Mou, it was confirmed that these witnesses were under violent coercion and perjured to frame Wang Zhenguo's accusation of "embezzlement of office", with an amount of up to 2700 million, but there is only one defendant, Wang Zhenguo, and all the perpetrators are witnesses. These witnesses were all detained in the case base to collect evidence, and were released after collecting evidence. Both Hu and Wang proved in court that they had been subjected to corporal punishment and coercion, and that they had to testify according to the circumstances fabricated by the case handlers in exchange for their freedom, and that Wang and Hu were the only witnesses in the crime of embezzlement. （See testimony for details
Gao confirmed: "As long as he says he doesn't know the boss, he will be beaten." In fact, he had never met Wang Zhenguo in person.
Li Moushuai confirmed: "He didn't know the boss at all, and the boss didn't instruct him to do anything at all, but as long as he didn't tell the logic of the case handler, he was beaten and ...... for a month."”
Xu, an accountant of Yuxuan Company, confirmed: "As long as she does not make a record as required by the case handler, she will be immediately detained, and she herself received Xu's charge of "suspected embezzlement". Her family received the detention notice for the crime of "covering up and concealing", and was released after a few days of detention without even ...... reason”
Other employees of the company testified that when the case handlers questioned the witnesses, as long as they did not testify as required, they printed the criminal detention notice from the computer on the spot, and did not even need to ask for instructions, and the printed seals were all yellow, and they were not stamped ...... at all
The use of compulsory measures against the parties requires the approval of the responsible person of the public security organ at or above the county level, and like the yin and yang legal documents received by Xu, it is obvious that someone has falsified the criminal detention procedures and arbitrarily detained witnesses at the special case base, which is to illegally detain citizens under the banner of the law.
None of the dozens of witnesses, including Wang Zhenguo, were allowed to meet with a lawyer during their detention at the base.
6. Coercing or coercing witnesses to appear in court to testify and frame
When Hu appeared in court, he testified that he was 326 Coercion by members of the task force in the name of collecting evidence. And at this time, 326 The task force has long since been disbanded, and the investigation in this case was concluded two years ago, and the procuratorate has not made any outline for supplementary investigation. The case handler was in an illegal state, intending to prevent Hu from revealing the truth when he appeared in court.
Wang had an injury to his leg when he testified in court, so he testified. However, when the first connection, it was found that Tan and Huang, the two captains of the Yanjiang City Public Security Bureau, were at the scene of Wang's hospitalization hospital. Wang's hospitalization location is Binhai City, 700 miles away from Yanjiang City. According to the law, the investigation unit that has completed the investigation has no right to notify and contact witnesses, even under this kind of terrorist coercion, Wang testified: "She did not know that the project was fake, let alone informed her of the ...... of the project fraud."”
All the witnesses who appeared in court confirmed that they were cross-examined by the case handlers before appearing ...... court
7. Use the method of division of the case and the simplified procedures to prevent the debate of evidence in the same case and frame it
In the case of picking quarrels and provoking troubles identified by Wang Zhenguo, the perpetrators were Li Moujun and Li Moushuai, and only the words of these two people were isolated more than ten years later, and both of them had new testimony to prove that these acts had nothing to do with Wang Zhenguo. If it is found that the crime is also a joint crime, it should be tried together, and these people are brought into the case at the same time, the investigation is completed at the same time, and the case is transferred for prosecution at the same time. However, Li Moujun and Li Moushuai were tried first, and then the trial results of these two people were used as evidence to force Wang Zhenguo to be guilty.
The law stipulates that one of the co-defendants must not use the summary procedure if he does not admit guilt, but in this case, when Wang Zhenguo strongly pleaded not guilty, the summary procedure was used against the co-defendants Li Moujun and Li Moushuai. As we all know, summary procedures are tantamount to not trying the case, and these prior judgments without trial were directly cited and convicted as evidence-free evidence, depriving Wang Zhenguo of his most basic procedural rights.
Wang Zhenguo raised more than 60 procedural issues in the court of the Yanjiang City Intermediate People's Court of the second instance, and one procedural issue was enough to invalidate the entire case; I haven't seen more than 60 procedural violations that can still be convicted. These procedural issues are not only absurd and brutal, but without procedural justice, how can there be substantive justice? （For more procedural issues, please refer to the dossier