Zhang Moujin’s case of illegal fishing of aquatic products and false accusation and framing (the charge of false accusation and framing was dropped).

Time of effectiveness of the judgment: July 20, 2023

Referee authority: People's Court of Panshan County, Panjin City

Name of defense attorney ： He Zhiguang

Case Summary

The Panshan County People's Procuratorate, in transferring the case for review and prosecution, determined:

Conviction for the crime of illegal fishing of aquatic products: From March to the end of July 2023, the defendant Zhang Moujin hired others to改装 his vessel No. 1 into a harvesting vessel capable of carrying fish catches. During the fishing ban period in August of the same year, Zhang Moujin contacted fishermen such as Zhang Mouyin via telephone and other communication methods, requesting them to go out to sea and fish for stinkfish on his behalf. Vessel No. 1 purchased a total of over 90,000 jin of illegally caught stinkfish from Zhang Mouyin and others on three separate occasions.

Conviction for the crime of false accusation and framing: In March 2006, a conflict arose between Ao Moubao and others and the defendant Zhang Jin because Zhang Jin had forcibly demolished Ao’s seaside prefabricated buildings without permission and failed to provide compensation. On June 11, 2006, when Zhang Jin’s heavy truck convoy passed through Xiaomoumou Village, it was halted by villagers who claimed that the trucks posed a threat to their safety. Under the mediation of Zhang Dong, the deputy director of the Gao’gu Town Development Zone, it was agreed that all heavy trucks would be temporarily prohibited from passing through Xiaomoumou Village. Subsequently, Zhang Dong and Zhang Jin reached an agreement that Zhang Jin could resume truck traffic only after obtaining the consent of the villagers living along both sides of the road and upgrading the dirt road in Xiaomoumou Village into a cement road. When Zhang Jin sought the villagers’ consent, Ao Moubao demanded that Zhang Jin compensate him for the forced occupation of the seaside storage sheds. Zhang Jin considered Ao Moubao’s demand excessively high and no agreement was reached. In August 2006, with the mediation of Zhang Dong and Su Moujun, the deputy mayor of Gao’gu Town, Zhang Jin agreed to pay Ao Moubao and others 80,000 yuan to cover expenses related to the demolition of the seaside prefabricated buildings and cracks in residential houses in Xiaomoumou Village. In return, Ao Moubao and others agreed to allow Zhang Jin to proceed with the road construction.

On May 5, 2009, Zhang Moujin concealed the fact that the 80,000 yuan he had given to Ao Moubao was compensation for demolishing seaside sheds and repairing houses cracked by the earthquake. Instead, he fabricated a story alleging that Ao Moubao and others had extorted 80,000 yuan from Zhang Moujin by threatening to obstruct the passage of stone-carrying trucks. Zhang Moujin then filed a complaint with the Suizhong County Public Security Bureau, accusing Ao Moubao of extortion. Subsequently, Zhang Moujin instructed Zhang Moudong, Guo Moulong, and Guo Mouyuan to give false testimony to the public security authorities. Based on this information, the Suizhong County Public Security Bureau decided on May 20, 2009, to initiate an investigation into Ao Moubao’s alleged extortion case and placed Ao Moubao under criminal detention on May 21, 2009. On June 26, 2009, the Suizhong County People’s Procuratorate decided to approve the arrest of Ao Moubao on suspicion of extortion. However, on September 7, 2010, the Procuratorate decided not to prosecute Ao Moubao. As a result of Zhang Moujin’s actions, Ao Moubao was wrongfully detained for a period of one year and three months, suffering severe consequences.

Case focus:

Does Zhang Moujin’s conduct constitute the crime of false accusation and framing?

Defense argument:

  The defense counsel argued that the charges brought by the procuratorial organ against the defendant Zhang Moujin for the crime of false accusation and framing were based on unclear facts and insufficient evidence, for the following reasons:

1. On September 7, 2010, the People's Procuratorate of Jianchang County reviewed and returned the case involving Ao Moubao, Ao Xiaowu, and Guo Moli to the Suizhong County Public Security Bureau for further investigation. However, the Procuratorate still held that the facts identified by the Suizhong County Public Security Bureau—that Ao Moubao and others were suspected of extortion, intentional destruction of property, and obstruction of official duties—were unclear and lacked sufficient evidence, thus failing to meet the conditions for prosecution. In accordance with Article 140, Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the Procuratorate decided not to prosecute Ao Moubao and the others.

This decision not to prosecute is a “prosecution suspension due to doubt,” meaning that, according to the procuratorial authorities, the existing evidence is still insufficient to determine whether Ao Moubao and others have committed a crime.

In the “Report Outline on the Case Involving Ao Moubao and Eight Others, Suspected of Extortion, Intentional Destruction of Property, Obstruction of Official Duties, and Intentional Injury,” the prosecution argued that the central issue in this case is as follows: The court found that the charge of extortion against the defendants was not established. Furthermore, the charges of intentional destruction of property and obstruction of official duties, which Ao Moubao was also suspected of, were likewise not established.

I. The evidence of guilt that the Procuratorate submitted to the court in this case is:

1. The defendant made guilty admissions regarding the facts of the extortion crime to the public security authorities.
2. Regarding the extortion crime in this case, there are statements made by the victim, Zhang Moujin, on May 12 and June 28, 2009, both of which confirm that several defendants demanded money from Zhang Moujin under the pretext of preventing him from repairing the road. The road repair was ordered by the government, and its construction required the consent of villagers living along the road. However, Ao Moubao and others disagreed. Government officials including Zhang Moudong stepped in to mediate, and Zhang Moujin paid the Ao family 80,000 yuan.
3. This factual part is supported by the testimonies of witnesses Xin Moufang, Wang Mouhua, Xu Mouyang, Zhang Moudong, Guo Moulong, Cao Mouwei, Guo Mouyuan, Wang Mougang, Zhai Mou'e, Gao Mou, and Zhang Mouman, which are recorded in the case file.

2. The court’s reasoning for acquitting this part is as follows:

(1) The defendant’s defense during the trial. During the trial, all defendants retracted their previous confessions, claiming that during the investigation, the public security authorities had engaged in inducement, deception, and coercive interrogation. They asserted that their guilty pleas were entirely false and did not correspond to the truth, and that the evidence obtained under such duress was formed out of desperation.

(2) Witness Wang Mouhua, during the hearing on May 20, retracted his previous testimony given to the public security authorities, stating that the 3,000 yuan he received was actually a loan that Ao Mouhu had previously borrowed from him and later repaid to him. In addition, witness Zhang Moudong also changed his testimony.

In summary, in 2010, the People's Procuratorate of Jianchang County, Liaoning Province, determined that whether Ao Moubao and others had committed the crimes of extortion, intentional destruction of property, or obstruction of official duties was factually unclear and lacked sufficient evidence, and therefore decided not to prosecute due to reasonable doubt.

After 2022, the People's Procuratorate of Panshan County, Liaoning Province, did not revoke its decision to discontinue prosecution in the case involving Ao Moubao and others. Without determining whether Ao Moubao and others had indeed committed the crimes of extortion, intentional destruction of property, or obstruction of official duties at the time, it was erroneous to find Zhang Moujin guilty of false accusation and framing.

Moreover, Ao Moubao and others were detained for 1 year and 4 months on charges of extortion, obstructing official duties, and intentionally damaging property. It is now considered inappropriate to attribute this detention period solely to the charge of extortion—whether it was originally based on a single charge of extortion or on all three charges combined.

2. Based on the evidence collection conducted by the PanShan County Public Security Bureau in 2022, the defense counsel argues that Zhang Moujin also does not constitute the crime of false accusation and framing.

In his statement on December 8, 2021, Ao Mouling said:

Q: Has Zhang Moujin compensated you for these two prefabricated buildings?

Answer: Initially, we weren’t given any compensation. However, some time later—in August 2006—under the coordination of the town government, Zhang Moujin compensated us a total of 80,000 yuan. This sum included compensation for the two houses on the seaside that had been occupied by him, as well as compensation for the damage caused to our houses by the heavy vehicles passing through our village and shaking them violently.

In his statement on December 7, 2021, Ao Mou Bao said:

Answer: It’s money to compensate for the occupation of my small house and the damage it sustained from the earthquake.

Q: When was the agreement allowing Zhang Moujin to repair and open the road proposed? A: The agreement for our compensation of 80,000 yuan had already been negotiated and signed before this agreement was brought up. At the time, I’m not exactly sure whether Zhang Moujin actually paid me the 80,000 yuan.

In his testimony on December 29, 2021, Guo Moulong stated:

Q: Did Zhang Moujin provide you with compensation for the second occupation of the land?

Answer: I haven’t received any compensation. I’ve heard that Aobao Bao did receive compensation, but I don’t know exactly how much. I’ve also asked Aobao Bao for this money, but he hasn’t given it to me.

The defense counsel argues that the road repair project in August 2006 was an agreement reached between Zhang Moujin and the town government. One of the clauses stipulated that the road repair could only proceed with the consent of villagers living along both sides of the road. These villagers included the families of Ao Moubao and Ao Mouling. Since these two families had disputes with Zhang Moujin, they took advantage of the opportunity to sign off on the road repair project to prevent Zhang Moujin from carrying out the work. Faced with no other option, Zhang Moujin had no choice but to seek mediation from the town’s leadership.

As for the 80,000 yuan paid out—whether it was compensation for the small house by the seaside or compensation to villagers along the road during road construction—Ao Moubao and Ao Mouling both stated in this record that it included both. Since both types of payments are relevant to this specific case, and given that the current evidence does not specify how much of the 80,000 yuan was allocated to each—how much was for the small house by the seaside and how much was for compensating the villagers for road construction—we currently lack clear information on the breakdown.

Guo M. heard that Ao M. had received money for the small seaside house but hadn't given any to him, which proves that the money wasn't for the seaside house—it was for road construction instead. If it had been for the seaside house, there would have been money from Guo M., Ao M.'s partner.

Accusing Zhang Moujin of the crime of false accusation and framing without providing any money to partner Guo Moulong, the defense counsel argues that both the grounds and the evidence are insufficient.

3. From the perspective of the principle that “the law does not demand the impossible,” the defense counsel also believes that Zhang Moujin does not constitute the crime of false accusation and framing.

In 2008, Zhang Moujin filed a lawsuit against Ao Moubao because Ao had erected a roadblock on the road. The Suizhong County Court ruled that Ao Moubao must remove the roadblock; however, Ao failed to do so voluntarily. When the court attempted to enforce the ruling by means of compulsory execution, the roadblock still remained unremoved. Under duress and with no other choice, Zhang Moujin and other villagers organized themselves to protect their contractual rights and reported the criminal activities of Ao Moubao and others to the public security authorities. At the time, several individuals made such reports. As for the multiple reported incidents, the Jianchang People's Court has already issued final judgments.

It was only because the evidence had changed at the time of the trial that the Jianchang Procuratorate withdrew the charges against Ao Moubao and others and decided to dismiss the case due to reasonable doubt.

The defense argues that Ao Moubao and others, under the guise of road repairs and obstructing traffic, have been demanding compensation for small seaside houses that have nothing to do with road access—and the amounts they’re asking for are excessively high. (During the first instance, Ao Moubao’s family and others received 15,000 yuan in compensation for three or four simple seaside huts; yet during the second instance, when the same small houses built after the initial compensation were again used as a pretext for road repairs, they demanded as much as 80,000 yuan in compensation.) Whether the demands made by Ao Moubao and others conform to ordinary everyday understanding and whether they constitute forms of extortion or blackmail are issues worthy of deep reflection by every legal professional. Now that the PanShan County Public Security Bureau has decided not to prosecute Ao Moubao and others due to reasonable doubt, holding Zhang Moujin solely responsible for false accusations and framing—this outcome can only be described as “the law forcing people to do the impossible.”

From the perspective of the statute of limitations, the defense counsel also believes that Zhang Moujin cannot be held criminally liable for the crime of false accusation and framing.

The crime of false accusation and framing (Article 243 of the Criminal Law) refers to fabricating facts and falsely accusing others with the intent of subjecting them to criminal prosecution. For cases involving serious circumstances, the offender shall be sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of no more than three years, detention, or probation; if the act results in severe consequences, the offender shall be sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of more than three years but no more than ten years.

The defense argues that the Criminal Law and relevant judicial interpretations do not provide specific definitions for “serious circumstances” and “causing serious consequences.” Moreover, there are differing views on these situations both in theory and in judicial practice. Therefore, in accordance with the principle of leniency in criminal law, it is appropriate to determine that this case involves “serious circumstances” rather than “causing serious consequences.”

If this case is determined to be serious, Zhang Moujin will have already exceeded the statute of limitations for prosecution.

The above is a defense argument against false accusations and malicious defamation.

Referee's decision:

    On July 3, 2023, the People's Procuratorate of Panshan County issued Decision on Amendment of Prosecution No. 【2023】4, withdrawing the charges against Zhang Moujin for false accusation and framing. On July 20, 2023, the Panshan County Court convicted Zhang Moujin of the crime of illegal fishing of aquatic products and sentenced him to one year and three months of imprisonment.

Case Study:

After accepting the commission from Zhang Moujin’s wife, the defense attorney in this case meticulously examined and carefully analyzed the existing evidence, discovering that... In 2008, Zhang Moujin filed a lawsuit against Ao Moubao because Ao had erected a roadblock on the road. The Suizhong County Court ruled that Ao Moubao must remove the roadblock; however, Ao failed to do so voluntarily. When the court attempted to enforce the ruling by means of compulsory execution, the roadblock still remained unremoved. Under duress and with no other choice, Zhang Moujin and other villagers organized themselves to protect their contractual rights and reported the criminal activities of Ao Moubao and others to the public security authorities. At the time, several individuals made such reports. As for the multiple reported incidents, the Jianchang People's Court has already issued final judgments.

It was only because the evidence had changed at the time of the trial that the Jianchang Procuratorate withdrew the prosecution against Ao Moubao and others and decided to dismiss the case due to reasonable doubt. In this case, without first revoking the decision not to prosecute Ao Moubao, the Jianchang County People’s Procuratorate proceeded to bring criminal charges against Zhang Moujin for the very same facts—thus violating the principle of “no double jeopardy.” Both the procedural and substantive aspects of this case are therefore unlawful.

Conclusion and Recommendations:

Ensuring the proper implementation of the law and upholding social fairness and justice are the fundamental requirements for lawyers under the new Lawyers Law—and these are precisely what drive social harmony and progress. Practice has shown that cases involving lawyer participation help facilitate the resolution of disputes, assist public security organs, procuratorates, and courts in ascertaining the facts of a case and applying the law correctly according to the law, and ensure the fair resolution of disputes. Lawyers bear a professional responsibility in safeguarding social fairness and justice; after all, lawyers are legal professionals, and at the heart of the law lie fairness and justice.

In this case, it is not only essential to have a thorough grasp of substantive laws, regulations, and judicial interpretations, but also to be highly proficient in procedural legal issues, because procedural fairness serves as the safeguard for substantive fairness. Without proper procedures, substantive fairness cannot be initiated or advanced.

As a lawyer, one must not only respect the facts but also apply the law appropriately. Even more importantly, one needs to strike a balance between facts and the law. This requires not only solid foundational skills but also the art of mastering the law. Excellent interpersonal skills are an essential quality for a top-notch lawyer. To this end, in my future practice, I will intensify my learning, continually enrich myself, and build up my confidence. I will strive to remain neither humble nor arrogant, neither hasty nor impatient, and in my interactions with others, I will find my true self and achieve my long-term career goals in the legal profession.

He Zhiguang was transferred from the military to the Suizhong County Procuratorate in 2000, where he began working in public prosecution. He has spent over 17 years in this role, handling more than 2,000 criminal cases—with zero wrongful convictions. In 2017, he resigned from the procuratorate. After a two-year non-practice period, he began working full-time as a lawyer in 2019 and has been practicing ever since.