Viewpoint | On Criminal Compensation Issues in State Compensation Cases

China's State Compensation Law provides for two types of compensation systems, administrative compensation and criminal compensation, administrative compensation refers to the administrative organs and their staff in the exercise of administrative functions and powers when the violation of personal rights and property rights, the victim or the victim's heirs have the administrative compensation procedures to obtain compensation in accordance with the law. Criminal compensation refers to the violation of personal rights or property rights by the organs exercising the functions and powers of investigation, prosecution and trial, as well as the administrative organs of detention centers, prisons and their staff, when exercising the functions and powers conferred by the criminal law or the criminal procedure law, and the victim or the victim's heirs have criminal compensation procedures for obtaining compensation in accordance with the law.

According to Articles 17 and 18 of the State Compensation Law, the scope of criminal compensation in my country includes the following types:

Article 17 of the State Compensation Law lists the following types of state compensation for infringement of personal rights and interests as stipulated in the State Compensation Law:
 

1. Those who take measures to detain citizens in violation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, or take measures to detain citizens in accordance with the conditions and procedures stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Law, but the detention time exceeds the time limit stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Law, and then decide to cancel the case, Not to prosecute or acquit the verdict to terminate the investigation of criminal responsibility;

2. After taking measures to arrest a citizen, he decides to dismiss the case, not to prosecute, or to terminate the investigation of criminal responsibility by declaring innocence;

3, according to the trial supervision procedure retrial to change the acquittal, the original sentence has been executed;

4. Extorting a confession by torture or causing bodily injury or death to a citizen by beating or maltreatment, or by instigating or indulging others by beating or maltreatment;

5. The illegal use of weapons or police equipment causes bodily injury or death to citizens.

What needs to be pointed out here is that the above-mentioned category 4 situations take the word "etc" as an overview, and in judicial practice, the tort of "disability or death caused by failure to provide timely assistance" is also included in the scope of criminal compensation. (See case attached below for details)

Article 18 of the State Compensation Law stipulates that the following circumstances fall within the scope of state criminal compensation.
 

1. Illegal measures such as sealing up, seizure, freezing and recovery of property;

2, in accordance with the trial supervision procedure retrial to change the acquittal, the original fine, confiscation of property has been executed.

1. Application for compensation.The criminal compensation procedure stipulated in the State Compensation Law requires the submission of an application for compensation to the organ liable for compensation and the submission of an application for state compensation. The organ liable for compensation shall decide whether to compensate and the amount of compensation within two months after receiving the application for state compensation. If the compensation decision is not made within the time limit or the compensation claimant is not satisfied with the compensation amount, compensation items and non-compensation of the compensation decision, the compensation claimant may, within 30 days from the date of expiration of the time limit, apply to the higher-level organ of the compensation obligation organ for reconsideration.

2. Review proceedings.The organ for reconsideration, which is the organ under compensatory obligations, shall make a reconsideration decision within two months from the date of receipt of the application for reconsideration of state compensation.

3. Apply to the compensation committee of the people's court for a decision on compensation.If you are not satisfied with the reconsideration decision, you may, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the reconsideration decision, apply to the compensation committee of the people's court at the same level where the reconsideration organ is located to make a compensation decision. If the reconsideration organ fails to make a decision within the time limit, it may, within 30 days from the date of expiration of the time limit, apply to the compensation committee of the people's court at the same level where the place where the reconsideration organ is located to make a compensation decision.

4. If you are not satisfied with the compensation decision of the compensation committee of the people's court at the same level, you can file a complaint with the compensation committee of the people's court at the next higher level.

5. If the organ under compensatory obligations is a people's court, if the claimant is not satisfied with the compensation decision of the organ under compensatory obligations, he may apply to the compensation committee of the people's court at the next higher level for a compensation decision within 30 days from the date of receipt of the compensation decision.

Case 1. Lackleness in performance of duties
 

If the prison management organ and its staff fail to fulfill the obligation of timely treatment of the detained criminals with sudden illness, it should be determined that there is a certain causal relationship between them and their death, and the prison management organ should compensate them. At the same time, it should comprehensively consider the role of the behavior of neglecting to perform its duties in the process and result of damage, and appropriately determine the proportion of responsibility and the amount of compensation.

Case:On August 23, 2001, Xie Yongming was admitted to Chaohu Prison in Anhui Province for theft. At about 7: 00 on April 30, 2011, the police found that Xie Yongming was unwell during an inspection, and immediately arranged for two prisoners to be sent to the prison hospital for treatment. At around 9:40, the hospital issued a critical illness notice. At about 20 o'clock on May 2, Xie Yongming's condition worsened, and Chaohu Prison sent Xie Yongming to the Second People's Hospital of Chaohu City for treatment. At 5: 50 on May 3, Xie Yongming died after ineffective rescue. On July 8, 2011, the Judicial Appraisal Center of Wannan Medical College concluded that Xie Yongming's cause of death was: Xie Yongming was in line with acute suppurative infection of multiple organs of the whole body, with sepsis, DIC and toxic shock; leading to acute respiratory function, death due to multiple organ failure such as cardiac function and renal function. Ye Chunmei, a relative of Xie Yongming, and others filed an application for state compensation to Chaohu Prison. Because they did not accept the reconsideration decision of non-compensation made by the Anhui Provincial Prison Administration, they applied to the Compensation Committee of the Anhui Higher People's Court for a compensation decision.

The Compensation Committee of the Higher People's Court of Anhui Province held that Chaohu Prison was negligent in performing its duties during the treatment of Xie Yongming's illness and failed to fulfill its obligation to transfer to the hospital for treatment in a timely manner. There is a certain connection between Xie Yongming's death and should bear the corresponding compensation. liability.

The proportion and amount of compensation should be appropriately determined by considering the role of the act of neglecting to perform its duties in the process and result of the damage. In view of the fact that the direct cause of Xie Yongming's death was his illness, Chaohu prison's failure to transfer to hospital in time played a secondary role in causing Xie Yongming's death, and the amount of compensation should be determined according to the proportion of 40%. On December 11, 2012, the Compensation Committee of the Higher People's Court of Anhui Province made the (2012) Anhui Law Committee Compensation Zi No. 00001 National Compensation Decision, and Chaohu Prison compensated Ye Chunmei and others for death compensation, funeral expenses of 339616 yuan, and mental damage comfort money. 32000 yuan.

Case 2. Huang Moumou and others applied for state compensation for death by torture by a public security bureau (storage number: 2023-15-4-121-001)

If the staff of the criminal investigation organ commit the illegal act of extorting a confession by torture to the victim in the course of interrogation, and there is a causal relationship between the act of extorting a confession by torture and the injury or death of the victim, it belongs to the situation of causing physical injury or death of citizens as stipulated in the State compensation Law and falls within the scope of state compensation.

Case:On July 30, 1997, Wei Moumou was summoned by a police station of a public security bureau on suspicion of theft. From July 30, 1997 to August 1, police officers Huang Mouhao and Huang Mouwen interrogated Wei Moumou three times for more than 30 hours. During this period, Huang Mouhao and Huang Mouwen used corporal punishment and beating to extract confessions. On August 1 of the same year, Wei Moumou hanged himself in the detention room of the police station. According to forensic identification, many injuries on Wei's body were caused by blunt force, which was a minor non-fatal injury. The conclusion was that Wei was hanged before his death. On January 7, 1998, the Heyuan City Intermediate People's Court found that police officers Huang Mouhao and Huang Mouwen both constituted the crime of extorting confessions by torture, and they were held criminally responsible in accordance with the law. On December 8, 1997, Huang Moumou, a relative of Wei Moumou, and others applied for state compensation from a certain public security bureau on the grounds that Wei Moumou died due to extended detention and torture. On February 20, 1998, a public security bureau made (1998) the decision of no criminal compensation: no compensation. Huang and others refused to accept and applied to the reconsideration organ, the Public Security Bureau of XX City. The Public Security Bureau of XX City did not make a decision within the time limit. Huang and others were dissatisfied and applied to the Compensation Committee of the Heyuan Intermediate People's Court for a compensation decision. The Compensation Committee of Heyuan Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province made (1999) Decision No. 1 of Hezhong Law Committee on November 3, 1999: A public security bureau in 1. compensated Wei Moumou with compensation and funeral expenses totaling 20 times of the average annual salary of employees in the previous year, totaling RMB 149580 yuan. After deducting the cremation expenses of a public security bureau for Wei Moumou from RMB 3300 yuan, the actual compensation was RMB 146280 yuan; A public security bureau in 2. should pay the living expenses of Wei Moufeng and Wei Mouyong, who were raised by Wei Moumou before his death, totaling 17745 yuan. Among them, Wei Mouyong is seven years and Wei Moufeng is four years, four months and 15 days of living expenses. A public security bureau in 3. should pay Wei's parents Wei Moujin and Huang Moutian the living expenses of RMB 3120 yuan per year from August 1, 1997 until the time of death. The living expenses of Wei Moujin and Huang Moutian from August 1, 1997 to August 30, 1999 totaled 6240 yuan, and the rest of the living expenses were paid every other year. [Reasons for Judgment] The court's effective decision held that: According to Article 15, Paragraph 4 of the "the People's Republic of China State Compensation Law", the victim has the right to compensation if torture or assault and other violent acts cause physical injury or death to citizens. During the interrogation of Wei, the police officers of the police station of the compensation obligation organ used corporal punishment, beatings and other methods to extract a confession, carried out the illegal and tort acts stipulated by the law, and produced the consequences of Wei's death. Therefore, we should be responsible for state compensation for Wei's death. The compensation obligation agency did not compensate Wei Moumou's death on the grounds that Wei Moumou's injuries were all minor non-fatal injuries, and the death was caused by "hanging himself". The reason was not established and it was not supported.

A new electronic technology company and Wei Moumou applied for a criminal illegal seizure and recovery of state compensation by a procuratorate (storage number: 2023-15-4-131-002)
 

referee gist]Failure to promptly return property unrelated to the case after the conclusion of a criminal case is a criminal offense. If the criminal investigation organ seizes the property of an outsider in the course of investigating a case, and fails to return the property unrelated to the case in time after the conclusion of the criminal case, it is a criminal illegal seizure. If the seized property belongs to bank deposits or cash, the liability for compensation shall be paid at the same time as the return or compensation of the property.

basic case]Wei is the chairman and general manager of a company and is responsible for the company's finances. In November 2004, Wei Moumou lent 200000 yuan of his unit funds to others for real estate development without authorization. In April 2006, the discipline inspection department transferred to a procuratorate Wei Moumou suspected of misappropriating 200000 yuan of funds. A procuratorate collected 200000 yuan of stolen money returned by Wei Moumou on July 14, 2006, and seized a company's 1.612 million yuan of funds in three times from April to June 2006. Since then, a prosecutor's office has transferred the case to the jurisdiction of a district prosecutor's office. The People's Court of Jiangyang District, Luzhou City, Sichuan Province (2006) Jiangyang Xingchuzi No. 183 Criminal Judgment found Wei guilty of embezzlement of funds and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment and four years' probation. The Intermediate People's Court of Luzhou City, Sichuan Province (2006) Criminal Ruling No. 146 upheld the original sentence. A company and Wei Moumou believed that a certain procuratorate should deal with the seized money in a timely manner after the court judgment in the case of Wei Moumou's misappropriation of funds took effect, but a certain procuratorate has not lifted the seizure and returned the 1.812 million of the seized money, which violated the property rights of the enterprise. Apply to a certain procuratorate for state compensation and apply to the Sichuan Provincial People's Procuratorate for reconsideration. A procuratorate believed that the compensation application of a company and Wei Moumou had passed the time limit for compensation, and made Lu Jian Compensation Shentong (2016) No. 1 notice to review the criminal compensation application, and did not support the compensation request. The Sichuan Provincial People's Procuratorate did not make a decision. After that, a company and Wei Moumou applied to the Compensation Committee of the Sichuan Higher People's Court for a compensation decision. On February 27, 2017, the Compensation Committee of the Sichuan Higher People's Court issued (2016) Sichuan Committee Compensation No. 32 State Compensation Decision, deciding to revoke the notice of a procuratorate's Lujian Compensation Shentong (2016) No. 1 review of criminal compensation application, and A procuratorate returned a new company's seized funds of 1.812 million yuan, paid interest of 180250.48 yuan, and rejected Wei Moumou's other compensation applications.

Referee reason]The effective decision of the court held that, according to Article 39 of the State compensation Law of the People's the People's Republic of China of China, the time limit for the claimant to request state compensation is two years, which shall be calculated from the date when he knows or should know that the acts of state organs and their staff in the exercise of their functions and powers infringe upon their personal and property rights. Although the infringement of property rights by a company occurred in 2006, due to the seizure and recovery of its property by a procuratorate, it has not been returned according to law. with reference to the reply of the supreme people's court (1996) no 4 "on how to understand the continuous issue of infringement of property rights", it should be deemed as the continuation of the infringement, and the application for compensation has not exceeded the time limit for requesting. According to the provisions of Item 1 of Article 18 of the State Compensation Law of the People's the People's Republic of China of China that "where measures such as sealing up, detaining, freezing or recovering property are taken illegally, the victim shall have the right to obtain compensation", and Item 2 of Article 36 of the Law that "where property is sealed up, seized or frozen, the sealing up, detaining or freezing of property shall be lifted, causing property damage or loss, in accordance with the provisions of the third and fourth items of this article, the provisions of" compensation "and the seventh item" return the execution of fines or fines, recovery or confiscation of money, the release of frozen deposits or remittances, shall pay the bank deposit interest for the same period 0 provisions, a procuratorate shall return the seized and disposed of property to a new company, and pay the corresponding interest. A company is a victim of Wei's criminal case of misappropriation of funds. The 200000 yuan of funds involved belongs to the legal property of a new company and should be returned in time. The procuratorial organ seized 1.612 million yuan of the funds of a new company. Although it contains the off-account funds kept by Wei Moumou, which may bring about the corresponding legal liability for illegal management of funds, the ownership of the funds in custody has not been transferred and still belongs to a company. Therefore, the procuratorial organ mistakenly seized and recovered the property of outsiders.