La Rongzhi, a prolific killer who lived incognito for two decades, ultimately could not escape the long arm of the law.

[4] Compiled from: Red Star News
 
Case review
Yesterday, the Nanchang Intermediate People's Court in Jiangxi Province publicly pronounced the first-instance verdict for defendant Lao Rongzhi in the case of intentional homicide, robbery, and kidnapping. The defendant Lao Rongzhi was convicted of intentional homicide, robbery, and kidnapping, and was sentenced to death, deprived of political rights for life, and had all personal property confiscated. After the first-instance verdict, the defendant Lao Rongzhi immediately stated her intention to appeal.

 
 

Upon trial, it was ascertained that the defendant, Lao Rongzhi, and Fa Ziying (already sentenced in a separate case) were in a romantic relationship. Between 1996 and 1999, the two conspired and divided roles, with Lao Rongzhi working in entertainment venues as an attendant to select targets, and Fa Ziying carrying out violence. Together, they committed four crimes of robbery, kidnapping, and intentional homicide in Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province; Wenzhou City, Zhejiang Province; Changzhou City, Jiangsu Province; and Hefei City, Anhui Province. After the crimes, Lao Rongzhi fled using aliases such as “Sherry” and was apprehended by public security officers on November 28, 2019.
 
The court, after trial, held that the defendant Lao Rongzhi, together with others, intentionally and unlawfully deprived the victims of their lives, and her acts constituted the crime of intentional homicide; that, for the purpose of unlawful possession, she used violence and threats to rob the victims of their property, and her acts constituted the crime of robbery; and that, for the purpose of extorting property, she kidnapped the victims, and her acts constituted the crime of kidnapping. Lao Rongzhi played a principal role in the joint crimes and was a principal offender, and should be punished for all the crimes in which she participated. After being brought to justice, Lao Rongzhi truthfully confessed to the facts of the kidnapping in Changzhou, which constituted a confession. Lao Rongzhi's intentional homicide caused the deaths of five people; her robbery caused one death, involved a huge amount of robbed property, and included the circumstance of burglary; and her kidnapping caused one death and involved extortion of more than 70,000 yuan in ransom. The criminal circumstances were especially egregious, the means especially cruel, the subjective malice extremely deep, the personal danger and social harm extremely great, and the consequences and crimes extremely serious, and she should be punished according to law. Although there was a circumstance of confession, it was not sufficient for a lighter punishment. Lao Rongzhi committed several crimes and should be punished cumulatively according to law. The aforesaid judgment was therefore rendered.
 
 
"Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China"
Article 232 [Intentional Homicide]
Whoever intentionally commits homicide shall be sentenced to death, life imprisonment, or fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years; if the circumstances are relatively minor, the offender shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years.
 
Article 263 [Robbery]
Whoever robs public or private property by violence, coercion, or other methods shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years, and shall also be fined; under any of the following circumstances, the offender shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years, life imprisonment, or death, and shall also be fined or have property confiscated:
(1) Robbery committed by intruding into a residence;
(2) Robbery committed on a public means of transportation;
(3) Robbing a bank or any other financial institution;
(4) Committing robbery multiple times or involving a huge amount of property;
(5) Causing serious injury or death during a robbery;
(6) Impersonating military or police personnel to commit robbery;
(7) Committing robbery with a firearm;
(8) Robbing military supplies or materials for emergency rescue, disaster relief, or relief aid.
 
Article 239 [Crime of Kidnapping]
Whoever kidnaps another person for the purpose of extorting property, or kidnaps another person as a hostage, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years or life imprisonment, and shall also be fined or have their property confiscated; if the circumstances are relatively minor, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 5 years but not more than 10 years, and shall also be fined.
Whoever commits the crime mentioned in the preceding paragraph and kills the kidnapped person, or intentionally injures the kidnapped person, causing serious injury or death, shall be sentenced to life imprisonment or death, and shall also have their property confiscated.
Whoever steals an infant or young child for the purpose of extorting property shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs.

 

 
[1] The author's perspective
Throughout the entire trial, Lao Rongzhi consistently emphasized that she was not the principal offender and had no criminal intent. She repeatedly begged the judge to give her a chance to start over, even claiming that she had recognized her mistakes, repented, and would actively compensate the victims' families. Absurdly, during the cross-examination phase, Lao Rongzhi did not actively engage in examination; she merely kept stressing how miserable her life had been and that all her past actions were coerced by Fa Ziying. To bolster her credibility, she even claimed that she had never told a lie. When the prosecutor immediately asked whether she had spoken a single truthful word during her 20 years on the run, Lao Rongzhi was again unable to answer. This shows that Lao Rongzhi's courtroom demeanor was not genuine repentance, but merely an attempt to evade legal punishment. Additionally, in order to seek a reduced sentence, Lao Rongzhi repeatedly claimed to plead guilty, yet when confronted with specific criminal facts, she vigorously argued that she had not participated in the crimes. Such contradictory behavior also demonstrates that this heinous woman does not deserve sympathy.
 
If we think carefully, if what Lao Rongzhi said is true, then Fa Ziying was executed as early as 1999. Why would she still flee for 20 years afterward instead of turning herself in? Furthermore, even if she was coerced by Fa Ziying at the time, could it be that she was never moved when one living life after another died before her eyes? When she committed each of those heinous crimes, did her conscience never feel the slightest bit of guilt? Therefore, Lao Rongzhi’s claims cannot withstand scrutiny and are even self-contradictory. The author believes that the current first-instance death sentence is lawful and reasonable, and even if Lao Rongzhi appeals, the possibility of changing the outcome is extremely slim.