Worse than a beast! A man in his sixties refused to bury his deceased father for his own selfish desires.
[1] Compiled from: Jufa, People's Court Daily
Case Summary
[2] Jiang, over 60 years old and retired, was financially strained due to long-term illness. His father, nearly 90, owned a public housing unit. After the eldest son passed away, the father lived with his daughter-in-law and granddaughter. In recent years, the father developed Alzheimer's and suffered multiple strokes, showing signs of confusion.
[3] To prevent his father's public housing from "falling into" his sister-in-law's hands, in July 2017, Jiang moved his father to his own residence without informing his sister-in-law Chang, and subsequently refused her visits. In September 2017, he applied to the local court to have his father declared a person without civil capacity. After obtaining the court's ruling, Jiang had the neighborhood committee appoint himself as the guardian. He attempted to register his household under his father's public housing and, to overcome Chang's opposition, prepared to sue her in the father's name.
[4] An unexpected event occurred: Jiang's father died accidentally on November 23, 2017. With the father's death, his legal standing as a litigant ceased, theoretically halting Jiang's series of actions to seize property. However, Jiang left his father's body in the hospital morgue, failed to cancel his father's household registration, and continued to collect his father's pension, attempting to conceal the death.
[5] Even worse, Jiang continued to file lawsuits in his father's name with the local court, demanding that his sister-in-law Chang remove obstructions.
[6] The presiding judge and Chang were unaware of the father's death. After confirming the father was indeed the tenant of the housing, the court legally supported Jiang's claim. Thus, as the father's guardian, Jiang gained the right to enter the public housing. Overjoyed by this victory, Jiang subsequently filed other lawsuits in his father's name.
Jiang's sister-in-law, Chang, after extensive inquiries, unexpectedly learned the actual circumstances of the elderly person's death. Chang then filed a retrial application with the Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court. The court, through retrial, revoked the original judgment and changed the ruling to dismiss Jiang's lawsuit filed in his father's name.
At this point, Jiang's malicious conduct of impersonating others, fabricating case facts, and severely disrupting judicial order had crossed the legal boundary. The public security authorities have initiated an investigation into Jiang's false lawsuit case, and Jiang may face imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years.
Relevant legal provisions
"Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China"
Article 307-1: Crime of Assisting in Destroying or Forging Evidence
Whoever initiates a civil lawsuit based on fabricated facts, disrupting judicial order or seriously infringing upon the lawful rights and interests of others, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, or public surveillance, and shall also, or only, be fined; if the circumstances are serious, the offender shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years, and shall also be fined.
If a unit commits the crime in the preceding paragraph, the unit shall be fined, and the directly responsible supervisors and other directly responsible personnel shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
If the conduct described in the first paragraph involves illegally possessing another person's property or evading lawful debts and also constitutes another crime, the offender shall be convicted and given a heavier punishment in accordance with the provisions for the heavier penalty.
If judicial officers, by abusing their authority, jointly commit the acts described in the preceding three paragraphs with others, they shall be given a heavier punishment; if the conduct also constitutes another crime, the offender shall be convicted and given a heavier punishment in accordance with the provisions for the heavier penalty.
What is false litigation?
On September 26, 2018, the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate issued the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of False Litigation" (hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation"). How does the Interpretation define the criminal act of false litigation as stipulated in the Criminal Law? What are the standards for conviction and sentencing of the crime of false litigation? How is the territorial jurisdiction of criminal cases of false litigation determined? In response to the above questions, the head of the Fourth Criminal Division of the Supreme People's Court provided answers one by one.
1. How does the Interpretation define the criminal act of false litigation as stipulated in the Criminal Law?
The head of the Fourth Criminal Division of the Supreme People's Court introduced that one of the key issues the Interpretation needs to address is how to define the criminal act of false litigation as stipulated in the Criminal Law, specifically how to understand "initiating civil litigation with fabricated facts" in the crime of false litigation under the Criminal Law. The Interpretation clarifies that initiating civil litigation in a people's court by unilaterally or maliciously colluding with others, using methods such as forging evidence or making false statements, fabricating civil legal relationships, or concocting civil disputes, constitutes the criminal act of false litigation as stipulated in the Criminal Law. In practice, the following issues need to be noted:
First, the crime of false litigation is limited to "fabricating something out of nothing" acts, i.e., fabricating civil legal relationships and civil disputes arising from such relationships that do not exist at all.
If a genuine civil legal relationship exists, and the perpetrator uses methods such as forging evidence to alter the facts of the case and initiates civil litigation in a people's court, it cannot be determined as the crime of false litigation. If the perpetrator's actions constitute other crimes, they may be held liable under other charges, such as the crime of forging seals of companies, enterprises, or institutions, or the crime of obstructing testimony.
Fabricating facts can be either an active act or a specific form of passive act. If a person conceals the fact that the other party has fully repaid the debt and files a civil lawsuit in the People's Court demanding performance of the debt, it may also constitute the crime of false litigation.
Second, the specific methods of committing the crime of false litigation can be manifested as "single-party fraud type" and "malicious collusion type."
The crime of false litigation in criminal law is not entirely equivalent to the false litigation acts stipulated in Articles 112 and 113 of the Civil Procedure Law. In addition to malicious collusion between both parties, if one party files a civil lawsuit based on fabricated facts with the intent to cause the other party to lose the case, aiming to illegally obtain the other party's property, it may also constitute the crime of false litigation.
Third, civil enforcement procedures fall under "civil litigation" in the crime of false litigation.
Applying to the People's Court for civil enforcement based on fabricated facts may also disrupt judicial order and seriously infringe upon the lawful rights and interests of others, requiring criminal measures for regulation. In practice, applying to the People's Court for enforcement of arbitration awards or notarized creditor's rights documents based on fabricated facts, or raising objections to enforcement targets or applying to participate in the distribution of enforcement property based on fabricated facts during civil enforcement, may all constitute the crime of false litigation.
Fourth, to highlight the focus of crackdown and facilitate correct application and accurate understanding of the crime of false litigation in judicial practice, the "Interpretation" provides enumerated provisions for acts of fabricating civil legal relationships in common and frequent types of cases, such as spousal debt determination, debt repayment with property, corporate debt, intellectual property infringement and unfair competition, enterprise bankruptcy, and civil enforcement. It also further clarifies in a catch-all provision how acts of fabricating civil legal relationships should be defined.
This method of stipulation is a non-exhaustive enumeration. Theoretically, false litigation crimes may exist in almost all types of civil and commercial cases. In specific judicial practice, appropriate understanding and judgment must be made based on the provisions of the Criminal Law and the Interpretation.
2. How does the Interpretation stipulate the standards for conviction and sentencing of the crime of false litigation?
According to the head of the Fourth Criminal Division of the Supreme People's Court, based on the Criminal Law, both disrupting judicial order and seriously infringing upon the lawful rights and interests of others constitute conditions for the establishment of the crime of false litigation, and either one alone is sufficient for conviction. However, in practice, disrupting judicial order and seriously infringing upon lawful rights and interests are difficult to separate completely and require comprehensive consideration and integrated assessment.
Based on summarizing judicial work experience, the Interpretation clarifies that initiating civil litigation with fabricated facts, causing the people's court to adopt preservation measures, or to hold court hearings, interfering with normal judicial activities, or issuing judgment documents, producing property distribution plans, or filing for enforcement of arbitration awards and notarized creditor's rights documents, should be convicted and punished as the crime of false litigation.
Furthermore, in accordance with the principle of unity of subjective and objective elements, determining the criminal responsibility of the defendant and the penalty to be executed must consider both the objective harmfulness of the act and the subjective malice and personal danger of the perpetrator.
The Interpretation clarifies that even if the above circumstances are not present, if the perpetrator has a prior record of false litigation crimes or has repeatedly engaged in false litigation acts, it should still be determined as the crime of false litigation.
A spokesperson from the Fourth Criminal Division of the Supreme People's Court stated that clarifying the above conviction standards is conducive to reasonably determining the scope of criminal law regulation and aligning with the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law. The spokesperson explained that, according to criminal law, the condition for applying the second-tier statutory punishment for the crime of false litigation is "serious circumstances." Logically, "serious circumstances" here should include both situations where judicial order is seriously disrupted and where the lawful rights and interests of others are seriously infringed upon.
The Interpretation fully considers the above two situations and explicitly stipulates six specific circumstances for applying the second-tier statutory punishment. Given the vast differences in practical situations, making exhaustive provisions difficult, the Interpretation also sets a catch-all clause for conviction and sentencing standards.
[1] The author's perspective
The crime of false litigation is a new offense created in response to a large number of civil false litigation acts. Perpetrators filing civil lawsuits based on fabricated facts inevitably disrupt judicial order, trap courts in difficulties, and easily damage judicial authority. Whether or not the perpetrator's false litigation claims are seen through by judges, public resources are inevitably wasted. This offense was established precisely to nip false litigation acts in the bud to the greatest extent possible.
