Keywords: Statute of limitations, elements of a crime

Counseling Attorney: Jia Jiayu

Basic Facts of the Case:

In January 2013, Sun, a prisoner serving his sentence at the Shenyang Zao Hua Prison in Liaoning Province, used fabricated materials based on a utility model patent to improperly claim meritorious service and thereby obtain a reduction in his prison term. On April 3, 2013, the Shenyang Intermediate People's Court ruled to reduce Sun’s sentence by 1 year and 7 months. During this period, Meng, who at the time served as the head of the Penalties Enforcement Division at the Shenyang Zao Hua Prison in Liaoning Province, failed to perform his duties in accordance with regulations when reviewing Sun’s application for meritorious service based on the utility model patent he had invented. Specifically, during an inspection of the benefits derived from the patent at Panhai Ship Machinery Co., Ltd., Meng rode in a vehicle provided by Sun’s family members. Moreover, during the inspection, Meng did not verify the financial records of Panhai Ship Machinery Co., Ltd., and after the inspection concluded, he accepted an invitation to dinner from individuals connected to the case. Subsequently, Meng approved Sun’s application for meritorious service.

The investigating authority believes that Meng Moumou, taking advantage of his official position, knowingly approved Sun Moumou’s application for meritorious service despite being aware that the materials submitted by Sun Moumou—purportedly demonstrating achievements in utility model patent applications—were false and exaggerated. Subsequently, Sun Moumou’s sentence was reduced by one year and seven months based on his alleged meritorious service in obtaining the utility model patent, causing severe negative social repercussions. Meng Moumou’s actions are suspected of constituting the crime of reducing a sentence through favoritism and fraud.

Ultimately, the prosecution decided not to prosecute the suspect, Meng Moumou, for the alleged case of reducing a sentence through favoritism and corruption, and returned the case to the investigating authority, which will then close the case.

Case Highlights:

1. Has the statute of limitations for this case already expired?

The suspect, Meng Moumou, is suspected of the crime of reducing a sentence through favoritism and malpractice.

Article 401 of the Criminal Law stipulates: “If judicial personnel, out of personal favor or in exchange for bribes, grant sentence reductions, parole, or temporary release on medical grounds to offenders who do not meet the statutory conditions for such measures, they shall be sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of no more than three years or detention. In cases involving serious circumstances, they shall be sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of more than three years but no more than seven years.”

The Supreme People's Court’s “Criminal Trial Reference” (Issue No. 1 of 2012, Total Issue No. 84) [Case No. 745], “Yang Wei Intentional Injury Case—How to Determine the Statutory Maximum Penalty and the Statute of Limitations Applicable to the Criminal Act,” states: “According to relevant provisions of the Criminal Law, the length of the statute of limitations is determined by the statutory maximum penalty applicable to the criminal act, rather than by the sentence actually imposed for the criminal act.”

“(2) Regarding the determination of the statutory maximum penalty applicable to a criminal offense, we believe that the following principles can be specifically referred to: Second, for offenses involving circumstances, the statutory maximum penalty should be determined based on the range of penalties prescribed by the criminal law provisions corresponding to the specific circumstances of the crime.”

Based on the aforementioned legal provisions and the guiding cases issued by the Supreme People's Court, the defense counsel submits that the statute of limitations for prosecuting this case should be determined according to the maximum statutory penalty applicable to the specific circumstances involved, and that the maximum statutory penalty itself should be determined in accordance with the sentencing range prescribed by the relevant criminal law provisions corresponding to those circumstances.

In this case, regardless of whether Meng Moumou’s actions constitute the crime of reducing a sentence through favoritism and corruption, examining all the evidence currently on file:

(1) Sun Moumou was imprisoned for the crime of accepting bribes, with the amount involved totaling only 1,213,600 yuan. Moreover, Sun Moumou voluntarily turned himself in and admitted guilt and accepted punishment. Therefore, granting Sun Moumou a reduced sentence does not constitute an illegal reduction of sentence for a perpetrator convicted of a serious crime.

(2) After his sentence was reduced, Sun Moumou did not continue committing crimes or posing a threat to society.

(3) The reduction in Sun Moumou’s sentence did not cause any adverse social impact;

(4) In both the interrogation record of Sun Moumou and the statement record of Ye Bilu, it is clearly stated that they never offered bribes to Meng Moumou and others. This clearly demonstrates that Meng Moumou did not engage in illegal acts by accepting property from criminals or their families in exchange for improperly granting sentence reductions.

In summary, the defense counsel submits that Meng Moumou and others do not possess any aggravating circumstances prescribed by the Criminal Law for this crime. Therefore, the sentencing range for this case should be fixed-term imprisonment of less than three years or detention, with the statutory maximum sentence being three years. According to Article 87 of the Criminal Law, which stipulates that “a crime shall no longer be prosecuted after the following periods have elapsed: (1) if the statutory maximum sentence is less than five years’ fixed-term imprisonment, the period shall be five years; (2) if the statutory maximum sentence is five years or more but less than ten years’ fixed-term imprisonment, the period shall be ten years,” the statutory maximum sentence in this case falls under the category of less than five years’ fixed-term imprisonment. Consequently, the statute of limitations for prosecuting this case should be five years.

Among the evidence on file, the Criminal Ruling [Shen Xing Zhi Zi No. 739 (2013)] concerning Sun Moumou’s sentence reduction was issued on April 3, 2013. The Criminal Ruling states: “This ruling shall take legal effect immediately upon service.” Since the “Delivery Acknowledgment” in the case file does not indicate the date of delivery, the defense counsel takes April 3, 2013, as the date on which the ruling became effective. This date should also serve as the benchmark for determining when Sun Moumou’s sentence reduction was processed. Based on the five-year statute of limitations for prosecution, the latest possible expiration date for the statute of limitations in this case would be April 3, 2018. However, according to the date indicated in the “Decision to Initiate Investigation” among the evidence on file, this case was initiated in 2021. Therefore, this case has already far exceeded the legally prescribed statute of limitations and should no longer be subject to prosecution.

2. Does Meng Moumou constitute the crime of reducing a sentence through favoritism and fraud?

First, Meng Moumou did not subjectively harbor any motive for personal gain; therefore, Meng Moumou does not meet the subjective elements required for this crime.

The defense argues that the crime in question is the crime of reducing a sentence through favoritism and malpractice. Therefore, the subjective element required to constitute this crime is that the perpetrator intentionally committed the act out of personal motives. The term "xun si" is defined as "for the sake of personal relationships or one's own self-interest."

In this case, a review of all the evidence on record shows that Sun Moumou and his family and friends never offered any bribes to Meng Moumou, nor did they ever use the promise of assisting Meng Moumou’s promotion or transfer as a condition for Sun Moumou’s request for reduced sentencing. Therefore, Meng Moumou had no motive to grant Sun Moumou a reduced sentence for personal favoritism or self-interest. Consequently, Meng Moumou lacks the subjective elements required for this crime.

Second, Meng Moumou was not knowingly involved in the false submission of parole reduction materials by Sun Moumou and others, nor did he engage in any conduct involving fabricating facts, forging documents, or unlawfully submitting requests.

The interrogation records of other criminal suspects involved in the case, as well as the statement of witness Yuan Wenbo, can substantiate the fact that the “Utility Model Patent Certificate” in question was obtained in a lawful and compliant manner. They also confirm that Meng Moumou and others had already verified the authenticity of the “Utility Model Patent Certificate” in question. Therefore, the “Utility Model Patent Certificate” in question is a genuine and valid document that can reliably and effectively establish the identity of the patent inventor. Under these circumstances, Meng Moumou, as the head of the Criminal Enforcement Division, reasonably, lawfully, and in compliance with regulations relied on this authentic and valid official document to believe that Sun Moumou was the patent inventor.

As the head of the Penal Enforcement Division, Meng Moumou requested that the Education Division supplement its submission with additional evidence demonstrating Sun Moumou’s actual involvement in the invention of the patent—this very request was precisely an expression of Meng Moumou’s conscientious fulfillment of his official duties. As for whether the education department or other individuals colluded with Sun Moumou to fabricate false materials, Meng Moumou had neither the authority nor the means to ascertain such matters. Moreover, Sun Moumou explicitly denied in the interrogation records that he had conspired with Meng Moumou to fabricate false materials, and the evidence on file does not support the claim that Meng Moumou conspired with other criminal suspects to jointly prepare false declaration documents.

Article (11) of the "Regulations of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on the Standards for Filing Cases of Crimes of Dereliction of Duty and Infringement" provides: “The crime of illegally reducing sentences, granting parole, or temporarily suspending imprisonment for personal gain refers to the act by judicial personnel who, out of personal favoritism or corruption, grant reduced sentences, parole, or temporary suspension of imprisonment to offenders who do not meet the statutory conditions for such measures.”

A case shall be filed if any of the following circumstances is suspected: 1. Staff members of the penal execution authority fabricate facts and falsify materials to illegally request sentence reduction, parole, or temporary release on medical grounds for offenders who do not meet the eligibility criteria for such measures.

According to the aforementioned judicial interpretation, Meng Moumou traveled to Shenyang Fanhai Machinery Co., Ltd. for an inspection, took photographs of the patented equipment, collected procurement contracts for the patented equipment, obtained correspondence between Sun Moumou and another patent inventor, Yuan Wenbo, as well as supporting documents issued by Yuan Wenbo and Shenyang Fanhai Machinery Co., Ltd. These materials are sufficient to demonstrate that Meng Moumou fulfilled his job duties. Combined with the verified “Utility Model Patent Certificate,” Meng Moumou had every reasonable basis to believe that Sun Moumou was the inventor of the patent and had actually participated in the invention process.

It is important to emphasize that the statements of other criminal suspects and the testimonies of relevant witnesses can prove that the correspondence between Sun Moumou and Yuan Wenbo, as well as the supporting documents issued by Yuan Wenbo and Shenyang Fanhai Machinery Co., Ltd., were not prepared in advance by Meng Moumou. This evidence demonstrates that Meng Moumou did not fabricate facts, forge documents, or unlawfully submit reports.

In summary, Meng Moumou did not subjectively harbor any motive for personal gain, nor was he knowingly aware that Sun Moumou and others had falsely submitted documents to seek reduced sentences. Objectively speaking, he did not fabricate facts, forge documents, or unlawfully submit such requests. Therefore, his actions do not meet the objective requirements for initiating a case as stipulated in the judicial interpretation. In this case, the error arose solely from Meng Moumou’s limited professional competence and his lack of a rigorous and conscientious attitude toward his work, leading him to mistakenly rely on the materials provided by Sun Moumou and others and to make an erroneous submission—a mere operational mistake. Consequently, Meng Moumou does not constitute the crime of fraudulently reducing a sentence for personal gain.

Typical significance:

The statute of limitations serves several important functions: it encourages and motivates criminals to reform and turn over a new leaf; helps achieve the goal of crime prevention; conserves criminal justice resources; enables judicial authorities to focus their efforts on tackling ongoing crimes; urges them to promptly prosecute offenders; implements a criminal policy that balances leniency and severity; resolves social conflicts; and maintains stability in social relations. At the same time, the statute of limitations is also an important yardstick for assessing the legality of prosecution and determining whether criminal cases are fair and just. Taking this as a starting point, the defense lawyer, in conjunction with the facts of the case, conducted an in-depth study of the constituent elements of different sentencing ranges for the crime of reducing sentences through favoritism and corruption, as well as the statute of limitations. The lawyer promptly submitted to the prosecution authority the defense argument that the case had exceeded the statute of limitations and that Meng Moumou should not be held criminally liable. Ultimately, the prosecution authority accepted the lawyer’s defense argument, sparing Meng Moumou from imprisonment and restoring his freedom.