Huawei employee detained for 251 days speaks again: I won't make a fuss anymore, I'm scared
[4] The Huawei 251 incident has kept the phrase "Born 985, work 996, leave 251, rights protection 404" trending.
[5] Recently, Li Hongyuan, a 12-year Huawei veteran, was reported by the company for extortion after resignation, detained for 251 days in court, later acquitted, and received 100,000 yuan in state compensation.
[6] Huawei responds:
Huawei has the right and obligation to report suspected illegal acts to judicial authorities based on facts.
If Li Hongyuan believes his rights have been harmed, Huawei supports him in using legal tools to protect his rights, including suing Huawei.
On December 3, Li Hongyuan told the media that he was heading back to his hometown."I'm not going to bother with this anymore, I'm scared now." 。
As Hu Xijin said: Huawei's statement has been criticized. It treated the Li Hongyuan incident as a purely legal case, and its statement was legally flawless. However, it failed to respond warmly to public sentiment, and it must be said that Huawei lost on the "emotional" front this time.
A lawyer from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm stated that Huawei's response shows its legal team was fully prepared for any situation, and based on the existing evidence, it is indeed insufficient to hold Huawei legally accountable.
First, the common question now is whether Huawei can be charged with false accusation or perjury. The answer is no.
Article 30 of China's Criminal Law on the scope of criminal liability for units: Companies, enterprises, institutions, state organs, and organizations that commit acts harmful to society, where the law stipulates such acts as unit crimes, shall bear criminal liability.
A unit is not the subject of the crime of false accusation or perjury. Criminal law adheres to the principle of legality, meaning that Huawei, as a company, cannot constitute the crime of false accusation or perjury.
If it comes to holding a specific employee criminally liable, it is very difficult because a mistaken accusation is not the same as a false accusation, and the legal consequences of the two are completely different. In this incident, proving false accusation is extremely difficult and also contradicts the当事人's demand for an apology from Huawei.
Article 111, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates the forms and requirements for reporting, accusing, and informing:
Reporting, accusing, and informing can be made in writing or orally. Staff who receive oral reports, accusations, or information shall make a record, which, after being read and confirmed to be correct, shall be signed or sealed by the reporter, accuser, or informant. Staff who receive accusations or information shall explain to the accuser or informant the legal liability for false accusations.However, as long as the facts are not fabricated or evidence forged, even if there are discrepancies in the accusations or reports, or even if they are mistaken, they must be strictly distinguished from false accusations. Public security organs, people's courts, or people's procuratorates shall ensure the safety of whistleblowers, accusers, informants, and their close relatives. If whistleblowers, accusers, or informants do not wish to disclose their names or the acts of reporting, accusing, or informing, confidentiality shall be maintained for them.
Furthermore, regarding civil compensation, if the losses suffered by the party during detention have already been compensated through state compensation, it is difficult to further demand compensation from Huawei or any specific actor.
