Hello, my answer to your question is: Chief Judge and Judge: The law firm has accepted the entrustment of the close relatives of the parties and appointed me to appear in court as the defender of the defendant Wang Mou. Now, based on the facts and legal provisions, the following legal opinions are issued for consideration by the collegial panel. 1、 About crime The defender believes that the legal facts formed by the existing evidence in this case cannot be determined that the defendant's behavior constitutes a crime. According to the provisions of Article 385 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, it is a crime of accepting bribes if a state functionary takes advantage of his position to extort money or property from others, or illegally accepts money or property from others to seek benefits for others. As far as this case is concerned, the determination of the defendant's behavior constitutes a crime should have at least two points: one is illegal acceptance of other people's property; The second is to seek benefits for others. In this case, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant has illegally received other people's property, nor can it prove that the defendant has sought benefits for others. 1. First of all, the defendant did not illegally accept other people's property. The defendant is accused in the statement that the property received by the defendant is the property and supporting facilities of Junlin Mansion. All the written materials of this house property can prove that the owner of the house property is Zhao, not Wang. Legally, the ownership of the house property is based on registration rather than actual possession or use, so the defendant is not the owner of the house property, and there is no fact of receiving the property. To say the least, even if the property is registered in the name of Zhao, but is actually owned by the defendant, the public prosecution organ has no evidence to prove that the property was illegally accepted by the defendant. From the evidence of this case, that is, there is no evidence of the briber, nor the confession of the person, and the way in which the house became the defendant cannot be accurately identified. On the whole, the defendant has a good relationship with Mr. Li, which is likely to be a lover relationship (Mr. Zhang and Mr. Cui's confession), and even people think that they have a particularly good lover relationship (Mr. Zhang's confession). In this case, under the condition that Mr. Li has considerable economic capacity, it is perfectly normal for two people to give money and property to each other (Mr. Wang also often gives money and property to Mr. Li), which is completely allowed by law (discipline is another matter), and is not illegal acceptance. 2. The defendant did not seek benefits for others. The defender believes that, in a broad sense, exchanges create interests, while interests promote exchanges. The communication between people is also a kind of communication, so the existence of interests is a kind of nature. If several people, especially several friends, bring certain benefits to each other in the process of communication, it is not against the law, on the contrary, it is still positive. Therefore, the defender believes that the crime of "seeking interests for others" should mean seeking illegitimate and negative interests for others. In this case, there is no exact evidence to prove that the defendant sought illegitimate interests for Mr. Li. The second benefit that the defendant sought for Mr. Li was that the defendant went to the Public Security Bureau to negotiate with Mr. Li to settle the arrears. It can be seen from the files that, because of economic disputes, some people tangled with people of nature and made troubles in the hotel every day in the Pearl of the Orient, resulting in the hotel's irregular operation. The defender believes that in this case, the defendant coordinates all forces to deal with this and finally calms down is to maintain good social order and economic order, is a positive thing, not to seek "interests" in the sense of criminal law for Mr. Li. The third benefit that the defendant sought for Mr. Li was that the defendant solicited deposits for Nanhuan Sub branch of the Commercial Bank. It is obvious that the defendant helped to pull up the deposit and called the depository unit to ask for "less use of this money" for the benefit of the bank or Zhang, not Li. At the same time, drawing deposits is a business need in the banking sector, and all banks have deposit tasks. It is also an objective fact that they need to mobilize all forces to draw deposits, so this interest is not an illegitimate interest in the sense of criminal law. Of course, the deposit was later occupied and used by Mr. Li by criminal means, but there is no evidence to prove that the defendant was aware of this, and that the purpose of drawing the deposit was to realize the criminal purpose for Mr. Li. Therefore, the defendant was not at fault subjectively. The fourth benefit that the defendant sought for Li was to help Li and Cui escape punishment. This will be specified in the following points. 2、 Crime of helping criminals escape punishment There is no doubt that the defendant is a staff member of the state organ who has the responsibility to investigate and prohibit criminal activities. Here, if the defendant is found to constitute this crime, there must be sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant has an objective act of informing criminals and providing convenience, and has the subjective desire to help criminals escape punishment. In this case, the public prosecution organ did not have sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant's behavior constituted this crime. Tian's testimony can show that the defendant may have informed criminals, but this is only possible, and there is no other evidence to confirm Tian's testimony. In this case, the testimony belongs to independent evidence, and even the civil action adopting the "relative evidence theory" for evidence determination cannot determine the testimony, let alone the criminal action adopting the "absolute evidence theory". Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant has committed the criminal act of "informing and facilitating". Subjectively, the defendant did not know, or at least did not necessarily know, that Mr. Li, Mr. Cui and Mr. Zhang had committed criminal acts. Therefore, a series of acts carried out by the defendant, including filing and investigation of relevant reports, investigation and evidence collection, do not violate the legal provisions. Objectively, the above behaviors of the defendant may reduce the criminal responsibility of some people, but the original intention of the defendant is to investigate the crime, not to investigate the crime, but to reduce the responsibility of others caused by the investigation is to help criminals escape punishment. The defender believes that the principle of "presumption of innocence" should be applied first in criminal proceedings. Under this principle, if the defendant is to be found guilty, there must be accurate and sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant has appropriate subject qualification requirements, has subjective fault, has committed relevant acts, and its acts have violated the corresponding object and should be punished. The evidence must be obtained in accordance with legal procedures and in a legal manner; In determining these evidences, it is required that they must be absolutely reliable without any reasonable doubt; All these evidences must form a complete chain, through which a complete conclusion can be drawn, which must be unique and without any other possible existence. In addition, in the process of criminal proceedings, if there is doubt in the use of evidence, it should be determined in favor of the defendant; If there is ambiguity in the determination of facts, it should be explained in favor of the defendant; If there are difficulties in applying the law, the choice should be made in the direction beneficial to the defendant.
