| | |
| Notice by the Supreme People's Procuratorate of Issuance of the Fifty-Ninth Group of Guiding Cases of the Supreme People's Procuratorate | | 最高人民检察院关于印发最高人民检察院第五十九批指导性案例的通知 |
| The people's procuratorates of provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government; the Military Procuratorate of the People's Liberation Army; and the People's Procuratorate of Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps: | | 各省、自治区、直辖市人民检察院，解放军军事检察院，新疆生产建设兵团人民检察院： |
| As decided at the 62nd meeting of the Fourteenth Procuratorial Committee of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on November 10, 2025, six cases (SPP Cases No. 238 through 243)including People v. Wang [REDACTED]A (supervision of the filing of a defamation case) are hereby issued as the fifty-ninth group of guiding cases on the theme of supervision of case filing and investigative activities, for reference in application. | | 经2025年11月10日最高人民检察院第十四届检察委员会第六十二次会议决定，现将“王某甲诽谤立案监督案”等六件案例（检例第238-243号）作为第五十九批指导性案例（立案和侦查活动监督主题）发布，供参照适用。 |
| Supreme People's Procuratorate | | 最高人民检察院 |
| December 11, 2025 | | 2025年12月11日 |
| People v. Wang [REDACTED]A (case of supervision of the filing of a defamation case) | | 王某甲诽谤立案监督案 |
| (SPP Case No. 238) | | （检例第238号） |
| [Keywords] | | 【关键词】 |
| supervision of case filing, online defamation, seriously undermine social order, conversion from private prosecution to public prosecution, investigation and verification | | 立案监督 网络诽谤 严重危害社会秩序 自诉转公诉 调查核实 |
| [Key Points] | | 【要旨】 |
| Where on a victim's or his or her close relative's application for supervision of the filing of a case of defamation or any other crime that is handled only upon complaint, the people's procuratorate shall accept the application in accordance with the law and carry out investigation and verification. If the conditions for public prosecution such as "seriously undermining social order and the state's interests" are met, the people's procuratorate shall perform its duty to supervise case filing in accordance with the law. For an online defamation case, the people's procuratorate shall fully consider the features of online dissemination and the actual circumstances of the case, and accurately understand in accordance with the law the conditions for public prosecution, such as "seriously undermining social order and the state's interests." When handling a defamation case, the people's procuratorate shall strictly implement the system of reporting for approval to a higher procuratorate and supervise case filing in a regulated manner. | | 对于诽谤等告诉才处理的犯罪，被害人及其近亲属申请监督立案的，人民检察院应当依法受理并开展调查核实工作，符合“严重危害社会秩序和国家利益”等公诉条件的，应当依法履行立案监督职责。对于网络诽谤案件，人民检察院应当充分考虑网络传播的特点和案件实际情况，依法准确把握“严重危害社会秩序和国家利益”的公诉条件。人民检察院办理诽谤案件，应当严格落实报上级检察机关审批的制度，规范开展监督办案工作。 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| Defendant Wang [REDACTED]A, male, born in 1957, unemployed. | | 被告人王某甲，男，1957年出生，无业。 |
| In 2005, Wang [REDACTED]A sued Tianjin [REDACTED] Company for the personal injury caused to him by the medical equipment produced by it, and Wang [REDACTED]B appeared in court to respond the suit as the litigation representative of the company being sued. After trial, the people's court determined that the medical equipment was a standard product and that Wang [REDACTED]A failed to prove that his illness was caused by the product, and dismissed Wang [REDACTED]A's claims. Wang [REDACTED]A did not appeal. In 2007, Wang [REDACTED]A applied for a retrial to the trial court and was notified by the court that his application was dismissed. In 2008, Wang [REDACTED]A reported to the State Food and Drug Administration that Tianjin [REDACTED] Company had fabricated clinical trial reports for the medical equipment it produced. The Public Complaints Office of the State Food and Drug Administration replied that Tianjin [REDACTED] Company had not fabricated the reports as alleged by Wang [REDACTED]A. In 2009, Wang [REDACTED]A reported issues with the original trial to a court at the next higher level. The higher court replied that as the original court correctly dismissed his claims, and he made an untrue report, he was expected to accept the judgment and cease filing public complaints. During the period, Wang [REDACTED]A published multiple articles on online platforms such as Tianya Club to defame Wang [REDACTED]B, the original trial judges, and food and drug regulatory staff, infringing upon their reputation rights and affecting their work and lives. | | 2005年，王某甲以天津某公司生产的医疗设备对其造成人身损害为由提起诉讼，王某乙以被诉公司诉讼代理人身份应诉。人民法院经依法审理，认定该医疗设备系合格产品，且王某甲不能证明其身体疾病系使用该产品所致，驳回王某甲的诉讼请求。王某甲未上诉。2007年，王某甲向原审法院申请再审，被法院通知驳回。2008年，王某甲向原国家食品药品监督管理局举报天津某公司生产的医疗设备伪造医院临床试验报告，原国家食品药品监督管理局信访办公室复函认定天津某公司不存在王某甲所举报的伪造医院临床报告的行为。2009年，王某甲向上一级法院举报原审问题，上级法院复函认为原审法院驳回诉讼请求正确，王某甲举报不实，希望其服判息访。其间，王某甲在天涯社区等网络平台发布多篇文章对王某乙、原审法官和食品药品监督管理工作人员进行污蔑，对当事人名誉权造成侵害，影响当事人正常工作、生活。 |
| In 2010 and 2013, Wang [REDACTED]B filed two lawsuits for infringement of reputation rights with the People's Court of Dongcheng District, Beijing Municipality. After trial, the court determined that Wang [REDACTED]A had infringed upon Wang [REDACTED]B's dignity and adjudicated Wang [REDACTED]A to cease the infringement, make an apology, and compensate for mental distress. Wang [REDACTED]A failed to perform the obligations under the effective judgment, and, after the court notified the relevant online platform to delete the infringing articles, continued to publish articles on multiple online platforms such as Tianya Club and Sina Blog, abusing and defaming Wang [REDACTED]B, the original trial judges, the judges of the People's Court of Dongcheng District, and food and drug regulatory staff. | | 2010年、2013年，王某乙先后两次向北京市东城区人民法院提起名誉权侵权之诉，法院审理后认定王某甲相关行为侵害了王某乙人格尊严，依法判决王某甲停止侵权、赔礼道歉、赔偿精神抚慰金。王某甲未履行生效判决义务，并在法院通知相关网络平台删除侵权文章后，继续在天涯社区、新浪博客等多家网络平台发布文章，谩骂诬陷王某乙、原审法院法官、东城区法院法官和食品药品监督管理工作人员。 |
| In March 2019, Wang [REDACTED]B reported a case to the Dongcheng Branch of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau, claiming that Wang [REDACTED]A was suspected of committing the crime of malicious accusation. The Dongcheng Branch did not file a case. In July 2019, Wang [REDACTED]B filed a private prosecution with the People's Court of Dongcheng District, claiming that Wang [REDACTED]A was suspected of committing the crime of defamation, and the court ruled to dismiss the private prosecution. Wang [REDACTED]B appealed, and the court of second instance ruled to dismiss the appeal. In January 2020, Wang [REDACTED]B reported to the Dongcheng Branch, claiming that Wang [REDACTED]A was suspectef of committing the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. The Dongcheng Branch did not file a case. | | 2019年3月，王某乙以王某甲涉嫌诬告陷害罪向北京市公安局东城分局报案，公安机关未予立案。2019年7月，王某乙以王某甲涉嫌诽谤罪向东城区人民法院提起自诉，被裁定驳回起诉。王某乙提出上诉，被二审法院裁定驳回。2020年1月，王某乙以王某甲涉嫌寻衅滋事罪向东城公安分局报案，公安机关未予立案。 |
| [Performance of Duties by the Procuratorial Organ] | | 【检察机关履职情况】 |
| Discovery of clues: On October 10, 2020, Wang [REDACTED]B, dissatisfied with the decision of the Dongcheng Branch not to file a case, applied to the People's Procuratorate of Dongcheng District, Beijing Municipality, for supervision of case filing. | | 线索发现。2020年10月10日，王某乙因不服公安机关不予立案决定，向北京市东城区人民检察院申请监督立案。 |
| Investigation and verification: In consideration of the considerable length of this case and the large number of defamed persons, and in order to accurately perform supervisory duties in accordance with the law, the People's Procuratorate, after accepting the clue, lawfully carried out the following investigation and verification work in accordance with the Organic Law of the People's Procuratorates, the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the People's Procuratorates, and other relevant legal provisions. First, it listened to the opinion of the applicant. According to the applicant, he attempted to protect his rights by filing lawsuits for infringement of reputation rights, reporting to the Dongcheng Branch, and filing a private prosecution. However, the civil judgment had not been effectively enforced, the Dongcheng Branch had not filed a case based on his criminal report, and the court dismissed his private prosecution. Second, taking court case files and consulting the judges handling the case regarding the civil action and private prosecution. According to the verification of the civil lawsuits, the People's Court of Dongcheng District accepted Wang [REDACTED]B v. Wang [REDACTED]A (case of reputation dispute) in August 2010 and February 2013, respectively. In both cases, the court rendered judgments ordering Wang [REDACTED]A to cease the infringement, publish an apology on a website for seven consecutive days to eliminate the effects, and pay the plaintiff damages for mental distress. Wang [REDACTED]A failed to satisfy the effective judgments. Upon notification by the People's Court of Dongcheng District, the relevant online platforms deleted the infringing articles and published the main content of the judgments on the homepage of the websites for seven consecutive days. Due to the lack of clues regarding Wang [REDACTED]A's property, Wang [REDACTED]B withdrew the application for enforcement of the portion of compensation, leaving the relevant property items unenforced. Regarding the private prosecution, the courts at two levels ruled to dismiss Wang [REDACTED]B's private prosecution due to the lack of evidence that Wang [REDACTED]A had committed the crime of defamation. Third, after asking the staff of the Dongcheng Branch about the reasons for not filing the case, it established that the Dongcheng Branch twice decided not to file a case on the grounds that Wang [REDACTED]A did not commit the elements of the crimes of malicious accusation and picking quarrels and provoking trouble and that the case should be under the jurisdiction of the people's court. Fourth, it verified that the defamation seriously undermined social order. The People's Procuratorate used intelligent retrieval and screening tools to handle the case, finding that Wang [REDACTED]A had published more than 80 articles on multiple online platforms, including Tianya Club and Sina Blog. After the People's Court of Dongcheng District rendered judgments establishing infringement of reputation rights, Wang [REDACTED]A continued to publish articles on major online platforms, defaming Wang [REDACTED]B, judges of the original trial court, and food and drug regulatory personnel. He also defamed judges of the People's Court of Dongcheng District and other food and drug regulatory personnel. He fabricated facts that Wang [REDACTED]B, as a "professional bribe-giver," repeatedly sought favors from and corrupted public officials, leading to judicial corruption; that state authorities sheltered and condoned the production and sale of counterfeit and substandard products by Tianjin [REDACTED] Company; and that multiple public officials committed crimes such as embezzlement, bribery, dereliction of duty, and perversion of justice. Since publication, the relevant articles had garnered 168,000 clicks and views in total. Among them, six articles received more than 5,000 clicks and views each, with the highest exceeding 50,000. As a result, netizens posted abusive comments targeting Wang [REDACTED]B, the judges handling the cases, and relevant personnel, adversely affecting judicial authority and government credibility. | | 调查核实。由于本案时间跨度长、被诽谤人数较多，为依法准确履行监督职责，东城区人民检察院在受理线索后，按照《人民检察院组织法》、《人民检察院刑事诉讼规则》等相关法律规定，依法开展以下调查核实工作：一是听取申请人意见。了解到申请人曾通过名誉权侵权诉讼、向公安机关报案、提起刑事自诉等多种途径维护自身权益，但其民事判决未能得到有效执行、刑事报案公安机关不予立案、刑事自诉被法院驳回。二是调取法院诉讼卷宗材料并向承办法官了解民事诉讼和刑事自诉情况。经核实，关于民事诉讼，东城区人民法院曾于2010年8月、2013年2月两次受理王某乙诉王某甲名誉权纠纷案，均判决王某甲停止侵权行为，并在网站上连续刊登7日道歉声明消除影响、赔偿原告精神抚慰金。王某甲未履行生效判决，后经东城区人民法院通知相关网络平台，删除了侵权文章并于网站首页连续刊登判决主要内容。因缺少王某甲财产线索，王某乙撤回赔偿部分的执行申请，相关财产判项未得到执行。关于刑事自诉，两级法院均因缺少证明王某甲构成诽谤罪的证据，裁定驳回了王某乙的刑事自诉。三是向公安机关工作人员了解不立案理由，核实公安机关系以王某甲的行为不符合诬告陷害罪、寻衅滋事罪犯罪构成、案件应由人民法院管辖为由，两次作出不予立案决定。四是核实诽谤行为严重危害社会秩序的事实。东城区人民检察院运用智能化检索筛选辅助办案工具，查明王某甲在天涯社区、新浪博客等多个网络平台共计发布刊登文章80余篇，特别是在东城区人民法院作出侵犯名誉权判决后，王某甲仍在各大网络平台发布文章，诽谤王某乙、原审法院法官和食品药品监督管理工作人员，并将诽谤范围扩大至东城区法院法官和其他食品药品监督管理工作人员等多人，捏造内容涉及王某乙为“职业行贿人”，多次拉拢腐蚀公职人员导致司法腐败；国家机关包庇、纵容天津某公司生产、销售伪劣产品；多名公职人员贪污受贿、渎职犯罪、枉法裁判等虚假事实。相关文章发布后，共计引发16.8万人次的点击、浏览，其中点击、浏览量超过5000人次的6篇，最高达5万余人次；引发网民跟帖谩骂王某乙、承办法官和相关工作人员，对司法权威和政府公信力造成恶劣影响。 |
| Supervision of case Filing: On November 10, 2020, the People's Procuratorate issued a Notice Requiring an Explanation of Reasons for Not Filing a Case to the Dongcheng Branch. On November 16, 2020, the Dongcheng Branch replied with an Explanation of Not Filing a Case, stating that although Wang [REDACTED]B had reported the case twice, the acts of Wang [REDACTED]A did not meet the standards for filing a criminal case. Upon examination, the People's Procuratorate deemed that Wang [REDACTED]A was suspected of committing the crime of defamation, seriously undermining social order and the state's interests, and that the conditions for converting private prosecution to public prosecution were met. On April 1, 2021, upon reporting to and obtaining consent from the People's Procuratorate of Beijing Municipality, the People's Procuratorate lawfully notified the Dongcheng Branch to file a case for the investigation of Wang [REDACTED]A for suspected defamation. | | 监督立案。2020年11月10日，东城区人民检察院向公安机关发出《要求说明不立案理由通知书》。同年11月16日，公安机关回复《不予立案情况说明》，认为王某乙虽然两次报案，但王某甲的行为不符合刑事立案标准。东城区人民检察院经审查认为，王某甲行为涉嫌诽谤罪，属于严重危害社会秩序和国家利益情形，符合自诉转公诉条件。2021年4月1日，东城区人民检察院报经北京市人民检察院同意，依法通知公安机关对王某甲涉嫌诽谤罪立案侦查。 |
| Supervisory outcome: On April 12, 2021, the Dongcheng Branch filed a case for the investigation of Wang [REDACTED]A for suspected defamation. On February 5, 2024, in accordance with the Notice by the Supreme People's Procuratorate of Issues Concerning the Handling of Criminal Defamation Cases in Strict Accordance with the Law, and upon reporting to and obtaining approval from the people's procuratorate at a higher level, the People's Procuratorate lawfully approved the arrest of Wang [REDACTED]A. On April 9, 2024, as required by the Notice, and upon reporting to and obtaining approval from the people's procuratorate at a higher level, the People's Procuratorate lawfully instituted a public prosecution against Wang [REDACTED]A. | | 监督结果。2021年4月12日，东城公安分局以王某甲涉嫌诽谤罪立案侦查。2024年2月5日，东城区人民检察院根据最高人民检察院《关于严格依法办理诽谤刑事案件有关问题的通知》，经报上级人民检察院审批同意后，依法对王某甲批准逮捕。同年4月9日，东城区人民检察院根据上述通知要求，报上级人民检察院审批同意后，依法对王某甲提起公诉。 |
| Because the victims of defamation included judges of the Dongcheng District People's Court, the court transferred the case during trial to the People's Court of Fengtai District for trial as designated by the Beijing Higher People's Court. On December 30, 2024, the People's Court of Fengtai District lawfully rendered a judgment finding Wang [REDACTED]A guilty of defamation and sentencing him to fixed-term imprisonment of one year. Wang [REDACTED]A did not appeal, and the judgment took effect. | | 东城区人民法院审理阶段，因诽谤对象涉及东城区法院法官，经北京市高级人民法院指定，案件转交丰台区人民法院审理。2024年12月30日，丰台区法院依法判决王某甲犯诽谤罪，处有期徒刑一年。王某甲未上诉，判决已生效。 |
| [Guiding Significance] | | 【指导意义】 |
| 1. Where a victim or his or her close relative applies for supervision of filing a defamation case or any other criminal case that is handled only upon complaint, on the ground of "seriously undermining social order and the state's interests," the people's procuratorate shall accept the application in accordance with the law and carry out investigation and verification. Where, upon investigation and examination, it suspects that the relevant conduct "seriously undermines social order and the state's interests" and meets the conditions for public prosecution, it shall perform its duty of supervision over case filing in accordance with the law. | | （一）对于诽谤等告诉才处理的刑事案件，被害人或者其近亲属以“严重危害社会秩序和国家利益”为由申请监督立案的，人民检察院应当依法受理并开展调查核实工作。经调查、审查，认为相关行为涉嫌“严重危害社会秩序和国家利益”，符合公诉条件的，应当依法履行立案监督职责。 |
| 2. For online defamation cases, the people's procuratorate shall fully consider the features of online dissemination and the actual circumstances of the cases, lawfully and accurately grasp the condition for public prosecution, "seriously undermining social order and the state's interests," and supervise case filing upon application or on its own motion. Cyberspace is not a place beyond the rule of law, and the protection of personality rights is a higher rule-of-law demand of the people in the new era. Online defamation spreads rapidly and widely and more seriously undermines social order and the personality rights of the victims compared with traditional forms of defamation. Moreover, a victim who seeks relief and protection of rights through private prosecution often faces difficulties in taking evidence and initiating private prosecution procedures. The people's procuratorates shall accurately grasp the nature and features of online defamation. If a criminal suspect fabricates facts and defames multiple persons online, defames another person for multiple times or over a long period, or defames another person online with a major adverse impact, seriously undermining online social order and seriously infringing upon the personality rights of the victims, the public security organ may determine that he or she falls under the circumstances of "seriously undermining social order and the state's interests" as provided in Article 246 of the Criminal Law, and they shall lawfully supervise the public security organ in filing a case for investigation. | | （二）对于网络诽谤案件，人民检察院应当充分考虑网络传播的特点和案件实际情况，依法准确把握“严重危害社会秩序和国家利益”的公诉条件，依申请或者依职权开展立案监督工作。网络空间不是法外之地，人格权保护是新时代人民群众的更高法治需求。网络诽谤传播速度快、范围广，对于社会秩序和被害人人格权的损害，相较于传统诽谤形式也更为严重。而且如果由被害人以自诉方式救济维权，往往面临取证难、启动自诉程序难等现实困难。检察机关应当准确把握网络诽谤行为性质、特点，对于犯罪嫌疑人虚构事实，通过网络诽谤多人，或者多次、长期诽谤他人，或者网络诽谤他人造成重大恶劣影响，严重破坏网络社会秩序、严重损害被害人人格权的，可以认定符合刑法第二百四十六条“严重危害社会秩序和国家利益”情形，依法监督公安机关立案侦查。 |
| 3. When handling defamation cases, the people's procuratorate shall strictly comply with procedures and supervise case handling in a well-regulated manner. The Notice by the Supreme People's Procuratorate of Issues Concerning the Handling of Criminal Defamation Cases in Strict Accordance with the Law provides that, in handling defamation cases, people's procuratorates shall, on the basis of accurately grasping standards for distinguishing crime and noncrime and strictly distinguishing between private prosecution and public prosecution, strictly implement the system of reporting for approval of arrest and prosecution to the people's procuratorates at a higher levle. In accordance with the Notice, where the people's procuratorate supervises the filing of a defamation case, it shall, with the consent of the people's procuratorate at a higher levle, submit a supervisory opinion to the public security organ on filing a case for investigation. | | （三）人民检察院办理诽谤案件，应当严格办理程序，规范开展监督办案工作。最高人民检察院《关于严格依法办理诽谤刑事案件有关问题的通知》明确规定，检察机关办理诽谤案件，要在准确把握罪与非罪标准、严格区分自诉与公诉界限基础上，严格落实批捕、起诉报上级检察机关审批的制度。按照以上通知精神，检察机关开展诽谤案件立案监督工作的，需报经上级检察机关同意后，向公安机关提出立案侦查的监督意见。 |
| [Relevant Provisions] | | 【相关规定】 |
| Articles 98 and 246 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China | | 《中华人民共和国刑法》第九十八条、第二百四十六条 |
| Articles 990, 991, and 1024 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China | | 《中华人民共和国民法典》第九百九十条、第九百九十一条、第一千零二十四条 |
| Article 113 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (2018 Amendment) | | 《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》（2018年修正）第一百一十三条 |
| Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Handling of Defamation through Information Networks and Other Criminal Cases (SPC Interpretation No. 21 [2013]) | | 《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理利用信息网络实施诽谤等刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》（法释〔2013〕21号） |
| Articles 1 and 320 of the Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (SPC Interpretation No. 1 [2021]) | | 《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法〉的解释》（法释〔2021〕1号）第一条、第三百二十条 |
| Articles 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, and 563 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the People's Procuratorates (SPP Interpretation No. 4 [2019]) | | 《人民检察院刑事诉讼规则》（高检发释字〔2019〕4号）第五百五十七条、第五百五十八条、第五百五十九条、第五百六十条、第五百六十一条、第五百六十三条 |
| Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security on Relevant Issues on the Supervision of Filing of Criminal Cases (for Trial Implementation) (SPP No. 5 [2010]) | | 《最高人民检察院、公安部关于刑事立案监督有关问题的规定（试行）》（高检会〔2010〕5号）第四条、第五条、第七条、第八条、第九条 |
| Notice by the Supreme People's Procuratorate of Issues Concerning the Handling of Criminal Defamation Cases in Strict Accordance with the Law (SPP No. 18 [2010]) | | 《最高人民检察院关于严格依法办理诽谤刑事案件有关问题的通知》（高检发侦监字〔2010〕18号） |
| Case-handling procuratorate: People's Procuratorate of Dongcheng District, Beijing Municipality | | 办案检察院：北京市东城区人民检察院 |
| Handling procurator: Zhen Jing | | 承办检察官：甄静 |
| Drafters: Shen Qian, Zhao Jie, and Wang Xingping | | 案例撰稿人：沈谦、赵杰、王兴平 |
| People v. Zhong [REDACTED] (case of supervision of the filing of a theft case) | | 钟某某盗窃立案监督案 |
| (SPP Case No. 239) | | （检例第239号） |
| [Keywords] | | 【关键词】 |
| supervision of case filing, disapproval of arrest due to insufficient evidence, follow-up supervision, improper withdrawal of a case, re-filing of a case, supervision of investigation and cooperation | | 立案监督 证据不足不捕 跟踪督促 不应当撤案而撤案 重新立案 侦查监督与协作配合 |
| [Key Points] | | 【要旨】 |
| Where the people's procuratorate decides to disapprove arrest on the ground of insufficient evidence, it shall outline requirements for supplementary investigation and continuously follow up and supervise the public security organ's timely conduct of supplementary investigation. Where it discovers that the public security organ has withdrew the case or terminated an investigation, it shall explore and understand the reasons, and where necessary, conduct investigation and verification or an investigation on its own. Where it discovers that the withdrawal or termination is improper, it shall lawfully give a supervisory opinion requiring the re-filing of the case and continued investigation. The people's procuratorate shall maximize the active role of the mechanism and office for supervision of investigation and cooperation and strengthen coordination with public security organ and internal coordination to join forces to supervise case handling and ensure lawful and effective punishment of crimes. | | 人民检察院以证据不足为由作出不批准逮捕决定的，应当列明补充侦查提纲并持续跟踪督促公安机关及时开展补充侦查工作，发现公安机关撤销案件或者终止侦查的，应当跟踪了解撤案或者终止侦查的理由，必要时进行调查核实或者自行侦查，发现撤案或者终止侦查不当的，应当依法提出重新立案、继续侦查的监督意见。要充分发挥侦查监督与协作配合机制及其办公室的积极作用，加强检警机关内外部协作和检察机关的内部协同，形成监督办案合力，确保依法有效惩治犯罪。 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| Defendant Zhong [REDACTED], male, born in 1987, truck driver. | | 被告人钟某某，男，1987年出生，货车司机。 |
| Zhong [REDACTED] was a driver employed by [REDACTED] Logistics Company. Under the transportation contract concluded between [REDACTED] Logistics Company and [REDACTED] Livestock Company, Zhong [REDACTED] was responsible for using a vehicle of [REDACTED] Logistics Company to transport the bulk feed produced by [REDACTED] Livestock Company to the feed warehouses of farmers bound by agreements with [REDACTED] Livestock Company. According to transportation requirements, a truck loaded with feed would be secured with a steel wire seal by [REDACTED] Livestock Company; after the feed was transported to a farmer's feed warehouse, the farmer would cut the steel wire seal, and the driver would cooperate in verifying the integrity of the seal and unload the feed. However, due to the epidemic, Zhong [REDACTED] was required to unload the vehicle independently, record videos of the cutting of the steel wire seal and the empty truck compartment after unloading, and send the videos to "Unloading Video Reporting," the WeChat group established by [REDACTED] Livestock Company. | | 钟某某系某物流公司聘用司机。按照物流公司与某畜牧公司所签订的运输合同，钟某某负责驾驶物流公司车辆将畜牧公司所生产的散装饲料运送至畜牧公司协议养殖户料仓。按照正常运送要求，货车装载饲料后需由畜牧公司加装钢丝封签，运送至养殖户料仓后，由养殖户剪断钢丝封签，司机配合验证封签完整性并完成卸货。因受疫情影响，卸货过程由钟某某独立完成，但需录制剪断钢丝封签过程、卸货后货车空厢视频发送至畜牧公司建立的“卸料视频反馈”微信群。 |
| From February 2021 to February 2022, Zhong [REDACTED] circumvented supervision by secretly withholding part of the feed during unloading and making false unsealing and empty truck compartment videos to illegally possess and resell part of the feed for profit. | | 2021年2月至2022年2月，钟某某采取卸货时秘密截留部分饲料，提前录制虚假拆封过程、货车空厢视频等欺骗监管方式，非法占有部分饲料并转卖他人获利。 |
| On February 13, 2022, the Public Security Bureau of Ningdu County, Jiangxi Province, filed a case for the investigation of Zhong [REDACTED] for theft. On February 18, it made a request to the People's Procuratorate of Ningdu County for approval of arrest. After examination, the People's Procuratorate deemed that the failure to ascertain the rights and obligations among Zhong [REDACTED], [REDACTED] Logistics Company, [REDACTED] Livestock Company, and the farmers, as well as the quantity of withheld feed, in this case, could affect the decision on crime and non-crime and how to distinguish crimes . Therefore, on the ground that the facts were unclear and the evidence was insufficient, it lawfully decided to disapprove his arrest and issued an outline for supplementary investigation into the relevant issues. | | 2022年2月13日，江西省宁都县公安局对钟某某盗窃案立案侦查，并于2月18日向宁都县人民检察院提请批准逮捕。宁都县人民检察院审查后认为，本案中钟某某与某物流公司、某畜牧公司、养殖户等四方之间的权利义务关系未查明，截留饲料数量未查清，可能影响罪与非罪、此罪彼罪认定，遂以案件事实不清、证据不足为由，依法作出不批准逮捕决定，并针对以上问题制发补充侦查提纲。 |
| [Performance of Duties by the People's Procuratorate] | | 【检察机关履职过程】 |
| Discovery of clues: After the decision, the People's Procuratorate designated special procurators to follow up on the supplementary investigation of the case through the Office for Supervision of Investigation and Cooperation. It also held meetings with investigators to discuss the investigation and evidence collection and jointly seek opinions from the victim, [REDACTED] Livestock Company. When the supplementary evidentiary materials were taken, neither [REDACTED] Livestock Company nor the farmers provided explanations or evidentiary materials supporting the number and quantity of thefts, and the Public Security Bureau failed to ascertain the number of thefts committed by Zhong [REDACTED] and the specific quantity of feed stolen. On November 24, 2023, the Public Security Bureau decided to withdraw the case on the ground that the criminal suspect should not be held criminally liable. In January 2024, [REDACTED] Livestock Company applied in writing for supervision to the People's Procuratorate in the belief that the Public Security Bureau had improperly withdrawn the case. | | 线索发现。作出不批准逮捕决定后，宁都县人民检察院依托侦查监督与协作配合办公室，指派专门检察官跟踪案件补侦情况，并先后多次以联席会方式与侦查人员就侦查取证工作进行会商，共同听取被害畜牧公司意见。补充调取部分证据材料后，因畜牧公司、各养殖户均无法说明和提供证明失窃次数、数量的证据材料，公安机关长期未能查清钟某某实施盗窃行为的次数和盗窃饲料的具体数量。2023年11月24日，宁都县公安局以不应对犯罪嫌疑人追究刑事责任为由，对案件作出撤销决定。2024年1月，该畜牧公司认为公安机关撤销案件不当，向宁都县人民检察院提出书面监督申请。 |
| Investigation and verification: Upon its application, the People's Procuratorate investigated and verified the following. First, it examined the farming agreements between [REDACTED] Livestock Company and the farmers, the transportation contract between [REDACTED] Livestock Company and [REDACTED] Logistics Company, and the employer-employee relationship between Zhong [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] Logistics Company, and established the rights and obligations of the parties. According to the findings, Zhong [REDACTED] provided labor services during transportation and was not responsible for managing the feed in the truck compartment. Therefore, his withholding of feed constituted secret theft committed by taking advantage of facilitation resulting from his work, such as familiarity with the crime environment and ready access to the target. Second, it consulted the investigators in the case and verified the reasons why the Public Security Bureau decided to withdraw the case: as Zhong [REDACTED] regularly performed transportation multiple times and the consignee farmers failed to measure and confirm the weight of the feed received, the investigators deemed it impossible to determine that Zhong [REDACTED] had committed theft. Third, after thoroughly analyzing the wheel path of Zhong [REDACTED] among the evidentiary materials on record, it discovered the abnormal conduct by Zhong [REDACTED]: he had repeatedly stopped at locations where he possibly disposed of the stolen goods. Through further investigation, it ascertained the criminal facts that Zhong [REDACTED] disposed of the stolen goods immediately after the theft and improved the chain of evidence proving that Zhong [REDACTED] committed the crime of theft. By further taking and comparing transaction records between Zhong [REDACTED] and Yang [REDACTED], who was suspected of purchasing stolen goods, it established the quantity and value of the feed stolen by Zhong [REDACTED]. | | 调查核实。收到畜牧公司监督申请后，宁都县人民检察院开展了以下调查核实工作。一是经审查该畜牧公司与养殖户签订的养殖协议、与某物流公司签订的运输合同以及钟某某与该物流公司形成的雇佣劳动关系，核实四方权利义务关系，查明钟某某在运输过程中仅提供劳务服务，对车厢内饲料不承担管理职责，其截留饲料行为系基于工作关系熟悉作案环境、易于接触作案对象等便利条件而实施的秘密窃取行为。二是经向本案侦查人员了解，核实公安机关作出撤销案件决定的原因，系侦查人员认为在钟某某常规多次履行运输任务、收货养殖户未对收到饲料进行称重确认的情况下，无法查清钟某某实施盗窃行为的犯罪事实。三是经细致分析在案证据材料中钟某某车辆行车轨迹，发现钟某某卸载饲料后，有多次停留于疑似销赃地点的异常行为，进一步侦查能够查明钟某某盗窃后立即进行销赃的犯罪事实，完善证明钟某某构成盗窃犯罪的证据链条；同时，通过进一步调取、比对钟某某与涉嫌收赃的杨某某之间的交易记录，能够查明钟某某盗窃饲料数量和价值。 |
| Supervisory opinion: Based on the investigation and verification results and the evidentiary materials on record, the People's Procuratorate deemed that the existing evidentiary materials were sufficient to prove the strong suspicion that Zhong [REDACTED] committed the crime of theft, that the relevant clues were worth an investigation, that after further investigation, sufficient evidence of the criminal facts could be obtained, and that the Public Security Bureau had improperly decided to withdraw the case. In September 2024, the People's Procuratorate, through the office for supervision of investigation and cooperation, gave a supervisory opinion to the Public Security Bureau, requiring it to re-file the case for the investigation of Zhong [REDACTED] for suspected theft, and to file a case for investigation of Yang [REDACTED] for suspected crime of concealing or disguising proceeds of crime. On September 27, the Public Security Bureau lawfully decided to file a case for the investigation of Zhong [REDACTED] and Yang [REDACTED] in accordance with the opinion of the People's Procuratorate. | | 监督意见。综合调查核实情况和在案证据材料，宁都县人民检察院认为，现有证据材料能够证明钟某某有实施盗窃犯罪的重大嫌疑，相关线索具有可查性，进一步侦查后能够获取有效证明犯罪事实的证据，公安机关作出撤销案件的决定不当。2024年9月，宁都县人民检察院经侦监协作办公室向公安机关提出监督意见，要求公安机关就钟某某涉嫌盗窃犯罪案件重新立案侦查，并对杨某某涉嫌掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得犯罪开展立案侦查工作。9月27日，宁都县公安局根据检察机关意见，依法对钟某某、杨某某作出立案侦查决定。 |
| After the Public Security Bureau filed the cases, the People's Procuratorate focused on the following key works based on the challenges and difficulties in investigation and evidence collection in the original case: First, it held case meetings through the office for supervision of investigation and cooperation, proposed the Public Security Bureau to make adjustments, shifting the focus of investigation and evidence collection from ascertaining the quantity of feed stolen from [REDACTED] Livestock Company and the farmers to establishing the quantity of feed disposed of by Zhong [REDACTED] and to improving the chain of evidence that Zhong [REDACTED] committed the crime of theft. Second, in response to the Public Security Bureau's failure to comprehensively retrieve Zhong [REDACTED]'s transportation records and GPS wheel path, it better communicated and reasoned with [REDACTED] Livestock Company and [REDACTED] Logistics Company, and took transportation records and GPS driving reports from Zhong [REDACTED]'s joining [REDACTED] Logistics Company to the occurrence of the case. By doing so, it ascertained his abnormal wheel path after unloading. Third, it proposed the Public Security Bureau to comprehensively retrieve transaction records between Zhong [REDACTED] and Yang [REDACTED], such as WeChat transfers and bank statements, and thoroughly compare them with the transportation records and abnormal wheel path to identify suspected transactions involving the disposal of stolen goods. Fourth, it designated procurators through the office for supervision of investigation and cooperation to closely follow up on the implementation of the above opinions and proposals and to improve the chain of evidence in a timely manner. | | 公安机关立案后，宁都县人民检察院针对原案面临的侦查取证堵点、难点，重点开展了以下工作：一是依托侦监协作办公室组织开展案件会商，建议公安机关调整侦查方向，将侦查取证重点从查清畜牧公司、养殖户被盗饲料数量，转为查清钟某某销赃数量，完善证明钟某某实施盗窃犯罪的证据链条；二是针对公安机关未能全面调取钟某某运输记录、GPS行车轨迹问题，加强对畜牧公司、物流公司的沟通说理，完整调取钟某某入职物流公司后至案发前的运输记录、GPS行车报告等，查清钟某某卸货后异常行车轨迹；三是建议公安机关全面调取钟某某与杨某某之间的微信转账、银行流水等交易记录，结合运输记录、异常行车轨迹等进行细致比对、发现疑似销赃交易记录；四是依托侦监协作办公室，指定检察官密切跟踪上述意见建议落实情况，及时完善证据链条。 |
| Supervisory outcome: Through close follow-up supervision and cooperation, the People's Procuratorate and the Public Security Bureau finally ascertained that Zhong [REDACTED] had stolen 43,000 kilograms of feed by secret withholding, and that Yang [REDACTED] knowingly purchased feed worth 116,000 yuan that had been stolen by Zhong [REDACTED]. On January 14, 2025, after a lawful trial, the People's Court of Ningdu County convicted Zhong [REDACTED] of the crime of theft and Yang [REDACTED] of the crime of concealing or disguising proceeds of crime, and meted out punishments. | | 监督结果。经密切跟踪督促、协作配合，检警机关最终查明钟某某通过秘密截留手段，盗窃饲料4.3万公斤；杨某某明知是钟某某盗窃的饲料而予以收购的犯罪行为，涉案金额11.6万余元。2025年1月14日，宁都县人民法院经依法审理，以钟某某犯盗窃罪，杨某某犯掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得罪定罪处罚。 |
| Extended performance of duties: When handling the original case, the Public Security Bureau failed to effectively carry out an investigation after disapproval of arrest resulting from insufficient evidence and to effectively implement the People's Procuratorate's outline for supplementary investigation and follow-up supervision opinions. To address these issues, the People's Procuratorate discussed them with the Ningdu County Public Security Bureau through the office for supervision of investigation and cooperation. By doing so, it established a working mechanism related to follow-up supervision of cases involving disapproval of arrest resulting from insufficient evidence, a sound monthly peer-to-peer follow-up and communication mechanism for such cases, as well as a dynamic investigation progress assessment mechanism. On this basis, they jointly conducted a special review of cases involving disapproval of arrest resulting from insufficient evidence since 2017. They followed up on, studied, and analyzed clues in long-pending cases one by one, and gave opinions and proposals for lawful handling as appropriate. As a result, they effectively promoted the lawful and proper disposal of long-standing unresolved cases. | | 延伸履职。针对原案办理过程中，证据不足不捕后公安机关未有效开展侦查工作，检察机关补充侦查提纲、跟踪督促意见未能得到有效落实等问题，宁都县人民检察院与宁都县公安局依托侦监协作办公室，会商建立证据不足不捕案件持续跟进监督的相关工作机制，健全完善对证据不足不捕等类型案件的每月点对点跟踪、沟通机制，以及对侦查新进展的动态评估机制。在此基础上，双方共同就2017年以来证据不足不捕案件进行了专项梳理，对于其中发现的长期“挂案”线索，逐案跟踪研判，根据不同情况提出依法处理的意见建议，有效推动长期未结案件得到依法妥善处置。 |
| [Guiding Significance] | | 【指导意义】 |
| 1. For cases involving disapproval of arrest resulting from insufficient evidence, the people's procuratorate shall outline a supplementary investigation, follow up on the progress of case handling, and lawfully give opinions and proposals. For such cases, the people's procuratorate shall continuously supervise the public security organ's timely supplementary investigation in accordance with the law. If it discovers that the public security organ has decided to withdraw the case or terminate the investigation, the people's procuratorate shall examine and ascertain the reasons for the decision. Where necessary, it may conduct an investigation and verification or carry out an investigation on its own to collect relevant evidentiary materials. Where it discovers that the decision is improper, it shall, in a timely manner, give supervisory opinions to the public security organ requiring the re-filing of the case and continued investigation. | | （一）对于证据不足不批准逮捕的案件，人民检察院应当列明补充侦查提纲并持续跟踪案件侦办进展，依法提出意见建议。对于证据不足不捕的案件，检察机关要持续跟踪督促公安机关依法及时开展补充侦查工作，发现公安机关作出撤销案件或者终止侦查决定的，检察机关要跟踪了解公安机关撤销案件、终止侦查的理由，必要时可以进行调查核实或者自行侦查，收集调取相关证据材料。发现公安机关撤销案件或者终止侦查决定不当的，及时向公安机关提出重新立案、继续开展侦查工作的监督意见。 |
| 2. The people's procuratorate shall maximize the active role of the mechanism and the office for supervision of investigation and cooperation, strengthen coordination with the public security organ and internal coordination, and, together with the public security organ, improve institutional mechanisms related to the supervision of investigation and coordination, so as to join forces in the supervision of case handling. A procurator responsible for case handling shall lawfully perform duties to supervise case handling, conduct examinations in accordance with high standards and with efficiency, and give opinions and proposals on investigation, evidence collection, and supervisory corrective actions. A procurator responsible for the work of the office for supervision of investigation and cooperation shall actively maximize the role of the office in organization, coordination, supervision, cooperation, urge of implementation, consultation, and guidance, and ensure the lawful and effective punishment of crimes. | | （二）人民检察院要充分发挥侦查监督与协作配合机制及其办公室的积极作用，加强检警机关内外部协作和检察机关内部协同，会同公安机关健全完善侦查监督与协作配合相关制度机制，形成监督办案合力。负责案件办理的检察官要依法履行监督办案职责，高质效开展审查工作，提出侦查取证、监督纠正的意见建议；负责侦监协作办公室工作的检察官要积极开展沟通联络工作，充分发挥办公室组织协调、监督协作、督促落实、咨询指导作用，确保依法有效惩治犯罪。 |
| ．．．．．． | | 【相关规定】 |
| | 《中华人民共和国刑法》第二百六十四条、第三百一十二条 |
| | 《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》（2018年修正）第九十条、第九十一条 |
| | ．．．．．． |
Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com
| |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区，如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户，请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员 。如有问题请来电咨询；
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | |
| | | |