On what basis did lawyer Xu Lanting point out that the people involved in the ST Zhongyuan He Ping c

According to article 271 of the Criminal Law, the object of the crime of embezzlement is the ownership of property of a company, enterprise or other entity. Therefore, the key to whether He Ping constituted the crime of embezzlement in public office is whether He Ping took advantage of his position to infringe on the property ownership of Concord Company.

He Ping took advantage of his position and without the consent of the board of directors to set up his own name to pay himself a high performance salary, so that the property that originally belonged to the company became the private property of He Ping, that is, the ownership of that part of the company's property was infringed. Regardless of whether He Ping should have received a performance salary in addition to the huge year-end performance reward determined by the company's board of directors, even if the annual performance is unusually good, He Ping's four senior executives should reasonably distribute more performance bonuses in addition to the year-end performance reward from the industry practice, but before the company did not give the bonus to He Ping in accordance with the prescribed procedures, these bonuses are only the expected benefits of He Ping, and the ownership does not belong to He Ping, but to the company. He Ping and others cannot make their own plans to withdraw the bonuses on the basis that they may be attributed in the future, instead of the company issuing these bonuses in accordance with the company's regulations.

He Ping and his own withdrawal of the money from Concord Company violated Concord's proper ownership of the money, that is, violated the object of the crime of embezzlement in public office, so He Ping constituted the crime of embezzlement in public office.

The time limit for the trial of the first-instance trial procedure in He Ping's case was postponed twice due to the procuratorate's request for supplementary investigation, the case was extended once with the approval of the Tianjin Municipal High People's Court because the case was complicated and serious, the time limit was recalculated and extended once due to He Ping's defender's application for a new judicial evaluation, and the time limit was recalculated and extended once due to Ye Xin's defender's request for a one-time postponement of the supplementary investigation.

Xu Lanting's resume: Born in 1963, he was admitted to China University of Political Science and Law in 1981 and worked in Shenyang for three years after graduating from university in 1985. In 1988, he was admitted to China University of Political Science and Law for graduate studies, obtained a master's degree in procedural law in 1991 and stayed on to teach, and later obtained a doctorate degree in procedural law from China University of Political Science and Law.

In 1993, he was transferred to the Law Barristers as a full-time lawyer, and in 2000, he was sponsored by the European Union to go to the United Kingdom as a visiting scholar for half a year. In 2002, he was named an associate professor and served as a supervisor for master's students. In 2002, he was transferred to JunZeJun Law Offices and later joined Beijing Weiheng Law Firm.

In recent years, Xu Lanting has gone to the United Kingdom, the United States, France, the Netherlands and other countries for investigation and exchange. He is currently a member of the Criminal Affairs Committee of the National Lawyers Association and the director of the Criminal Law Committee of the Beijing Lawyers Association (2001-2008). He is an honorary member of the National Committee for Criminal Defense (NACDL), a master's tutor at China University of Political Science and Law, and a visiting scholar at Glamorgan University in the United Kingdom.

In 2003, the Criminal Defense Committee successfully applied for the Ford ** Club funded project "Research on Criminal Defense Issues and Countermeasures", and in 2005, he was selected as one of the "Top Ten Lawyers of the Year in China"."

Lawyer Xu Lanting clarified the controversial issues in the ST Zhongyuan He Ping case and pointed out: According to the provisions of the "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in the Handling of Criminal Cases", the confessions of criminal suspects and defendants obtained by illegal means such as extortion of confessions by torture, and the witness testimony and victim statements obtained by illegal means such as violence and threats are illegal verbal evidence.

The similarity in some of the confessions of criminal suspects obtained by public security expert organs in the course of investigation does not mean that public security expert organs used torture or other illegal means to extract confessions during interrogation, and cannot be found to be illegal evidence and excluded on the basis of the "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in Handling Criminal Cases".

I watched a lot of TV, according to what was said on TV, I pretend to understand, it is normal for the same part of the transcript to be the same, and the court will generally accept it, it can be seen that you have a good attitude of admitting guilt and a stable confession, and there is also a possibility that two transcripts are made at the same time, but the interrogation time is different, so you will collect evidence.

Lawyer Xu Lanting clarified the controversial issues in the ST Zhongyuan He Ping case and pointed out: According to the provisions of the "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in the Handling of Criminal Cases", the confessions of criminal suspects and defendants obtained by illegal means such as extortion of confessions by torture, and the witness testimony and victim statements obtained by illegal means such as violence and threats are illegal verbal evidence.

The similarity in some of the confessions of criminal suspects obtained by public security expert organs in the course of investigation does not mean that public security expert organs used torture or other illegal means to extract confessions during interrogation, and cannot be found to be illegal evidence and excluded on the basis of the "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in Handling Criminal Cases".