In the face of the destruction of evidence in a case, how to deal with the fabrication of false evid

Pursuing responsibility for the crime of aiding in the destruction or fabrication of evidence: A sentence of up to three years imprisonment or short-term detention is to be given. The crime of aiding in the destruction or fabrication of evidence refers to the act of assisting parties in destroying or fabricating evidence.

The so-called assistance refers to preparing tools, removing obstacles, making suggestions, providing conditions, supporting and encouraging the parties, strengthening their confidence in destroying and fabricating evidence, etc.

[Legal basis].Article 307 of the Criminal Law.

Whoever uses violence, threats, bribery, or other methods to prevent witnesses from testifying, or instructs others to give false testimony, is to be sentenced to up to three years imprisonment or short-term detention; where the circumstances are serious, the sentence is between three and seven years imprisonment.

Where parties are assisted in destroying or fabricating evidence, and the circumstances are serious, a sentence of up to three years imprisonment or short-term detention is to be given.

Where judicial personnel commit the crimes in the preceding two paragraphs, they are to be given a heavier punishment.

1. How to determine whether the crime of aiding in the destruction or fabrication of evidence is constituted.

1. The following four aspects can be judged whether the chaotic mountain constitutes the crime of aiding in the destruction or falsification of evidence, specifically:

1) Object element: the object is the regular activity of the judicial organ, and the object is the party;

2) Objective elements: the objective aspect is to help the parties destroy or fabricate evidence;

3) Subject elements: The subject is a general subject, that is, a natural person who has reached the age of 16 and has the capacity for criminal responsibility;

4) Subjective element: The subjective aspect is intentional, that is, the actor clearly knows that the other party is a party to the case, but in order to achieve the purpose of helping the party, he still decides to carry out the act of helping him destroy the falsified evidence.

2. Legal basis: Article 307 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China.

Crime of obstructing testimony] Whoever uses violence, threats, bribery, or other methods to prevent witnesses from testifying or instructs others to give false testimony is to be sentenced to up to three years imprisonment or short-term detention; where the circumstances are serious, the sentence is between three and seven years imprisonment.

Crime of aiding in the destruction or fabrication of evidence] Assisting parties in destroying or fabricating evidence, where the circumstances are serious, is to be sentenced to up to three years imprisonment or short-term detention.

Where judicial personnel commit the crimes in the preceding two paragraphs, they are to be given a heavier punishment.

2. How to sentence those who commit the crime of aiding in the destruction or falsification of evidence.

1. Where a party is assisted in destroying or fabricating evidence, and the circumstances are serious, a sentence of up to three years imprisonment or short-term detention is to be given;

2. Where judicial personnel commit the crime of aiding in the destruction or fabrication of evidence, they shall be given a heavier punishment.

1. This crime refers to the act of helping a party destroy or fabricate evidence in litigation activities, and the circumstances are serious.

2. The subject of this crime is a general subject, the subjective aspect is intentional, and negligence does not constitute this crime. The object of the infringement is the validity and authenticity of the evidence, thus infringing on the normal judicial activity. Objectively manifested as an act that helps a party destroy or fabricate evidence.

3. The difference between this crime and the crime of perjury is that the offender himself is not a witness, an appraiser, a recorder, or a translator, but someone else who helps the parties; The difference with the crime of destroying evidence or fabricating evidence is that it is not limited to the person who litigates the crime.

4. This crime only constitutes a crime if the circumstances are serious.

I. Judicial Interpretations on the Crime of Aiding the Destruction or Fabrication of Evidence.

Article 45 of the Criminal Procedure Law: The people's courts, people's procuratorates and public security organs have the right to collect and collect evidence from relevant units and individuals. Relevant units and individuals shall truthfully provide evidence.

Evidence involving state secrets shall be kept confidential. Anyone who falsifies, conceals or destroys evidence must be prosecuted by law, regardless of who it belongs to.

Article 47: Witness testimony must be interrogated and debated by both the prosecutor, the victim, the defendant, and the defender in court, and the testimony of witnesses from all sides must be heard and verified before it can be used as the basis for a verdict. When the court finds that a witness intentionally gave false testimony or concealed criminal evidence, it shall handle it in accordance with law.

II. Understanding of the Crime of Aiding in the Destruction or Fabrication of Evidence.

The controversy over the understanding of destruction and forgery is whether destruction includes concealment and whether forgery includes alteration. This involves the uniformity and relativity of the terminology of the criminal law.

The uniformity of terminology in criminal law means that the same term has exactly the same meaning in the same criminal code and therefore should be interpreted in the same way. The relativity of terms used in criminal law refers to the fact that the same term has different meanings in different articles or in different paragraphs of the same article. Under what circumstances and when are the same terms interpreted differently?

In general, if the same term is interpreted in the same way, the concept of justice of the criminal law can be realized, the stability of the criminal law can be guaranteed, and the needs of social reality should be met. Otherwise, the relativity of the terminology of criminal law must be recognized. In the author's opinion, when deciding whether to interpret the terms in the same way or not in the same way, if the purposefulness of the interpretation can be considered at the same time, the interpretation can be more in line with the concept of justice.