The incident of Liang Li's gold collecting case

Liang Li placed the cardboard box in the disabled toilet for nearly six hours. The public security organ issued a prosecution opinion on Liang Li's case on suspicion of theft. Subsequently, the procuratorial organ officially approved the arrest of Liang Li on suspicion of theft
it was here that Liang Li picked up the cartons with gold ornaments.
1. The cartons involved were not beside the trash can, but were removed by Liang Li on the luggage trolley at the beige line in front of counter 19
Bao'an District procuratorate also explained several key facts of Liang Li's case to the media:
according to the victim's statement, the testimony of relevant witnesses and the on-site monitoring video, at the time of the case, the luggage trolley with the cartons involved was parked by the victim Wang at the yellow line one meter in front of counter 19, about 11 meters away from the nearest garbage can
Liang Li's own argument about "picking up" the cardboard boxes involved from the garbage can is inconsistent with the facts. 2. Before Liang Li removed the involved cartons from the luggage trolley, no other personnel were found beside the trolley
Liang Li herself argued that at the time of the crime, she saw a woman of about 50 years old with a child sitting on a basket of a luggage trolley. Then the two of them and another young woman hurried into the security checkpoint and left. At that time, there was a small cardboard box (i.e. the cardboard box involved) in the basket of the luggage trolley. After three or four minutes, no one came to pick it up. They thought that the passenger didn't want it. Without asking anyone, they moved the small cardboard box to their own cleaning trolley
according to the victim's statement, relevant witness testimony and on-site monitoring video, the above situation does not exist. 3. It took about 1 minute from the time the victim left to the time Liang Li took away the cartons involved
according to the victim's statement, testimony of relevant witnesses and on-site monitoring video, the time when the victim left counter 19 was about half a minute away from the time when Liang Li arrived at counter 19 and found the luggage trolley with the cartons involved
after that, it lasted about half a minute from Liang Li's inspection of the cartons involved to the removal of the cartons from counter 19. 4. Liang Li did not voluntarily hand over the stolen goods to the police, but was forced to admit and hand them over after the police found them
after investigation, at about 16:00 on the day of the crime, my colleague Cao found Liang Li and told her that some passengers in the airport terminal had lost their gold and had called the police
at about 18:00, the three police officers who handled the case went to Liang Li's home. After showing their work certificates to identify themselves, Liang Li's husband opened the door of the home. The police questioned Liang Li according to law about whether she had brought back property from the airport. Liang Liyu denied it. The police then advised him for more than 20 minutes. In the process, the police found the cardboard box stored under the bed in the living room of Liang Li's home. Liang Li was forced to admit that the cardboard box was the one lost at the airport
Liang Li's argument that she did not cooperate in handing in the stolen goods in time because she was afraid of being a fake policeman is inconsistent with the facts. It should know that the person who came was the real police, and the purpose of coming was to find the cartons involved. On September 25, 2009, due to insufficient evidence, Shenzhen Bao'an District procuratorate reported to Liang Litong that it did not constitute theft, revoked the bail pending trial measure, and did not initiate a public prosecution. However, the procuratorate believes that this case is more in line with the constitutional characteristics of the crime of embezzlement, and sends the case back to the public security organ in accordance with the principle of "doubt but light punishment"; Whether to sue Liang Li is decided by the aggrieved party Dongguan Jinlong Jewelry Co., Ltd
since the Xu Ting case, grassroots case supervision has become a reality. The professional judgment of the judiciary can not deviate from the original intention of achieving substantive justice that the people can believe. Without the rule of law universally recognized by the people, there can be no justice. Therefore, with the development of the Internet and the media, the judiciary should not be "disturbed" by the so-called public opinion, but should establish its judicial authority with open and transparent procedures, meticulous and rigorous legal principles, and face the supervision of countless pairs of eyes
from this case, the "sunshine case handling" work needs to be improved. The case occurred in December 2008 and caused heated discussion after media reports in May 2009. Several details in the report have become the focus of serious doubts about judicial justice by public opinion and legal figures, including Liang Li's "finding gold near the garbage can" and "taking the initiative to hand in gold". If these are true, the criminal investigation by the judicial organs is obviously inappropriate. However, since the relevant reports appeared in May and aroused doubts, the judicial authorities have not clarified, only after deciding not to prosecute Liang Li, did they release the details of the case, saying that the relevant reports were untrue. Liang Li's case did not involve state secrets. In the face of public doubts, the judiciary should have responded in a timely manner, instead of allowing doubts and even misunderstandings to circulate for four months and allowing their negative effects to expand. Now it is more like making circumstantial evidence for its own decision to publish the case after making the decision not to prosecute, and its credibility will naturally be compromised. The judicial organs should try their best to actively inform the society of the facts of the case, so as to avoid the misunderstanding of the law by the people and let the people believe in the law. The procuratorate has decided not to prosecute Liang Li, that is, she is not guilty of theft; Before that, the judicial authorities arrested him for "theft" and detained him for 9 months. Obviously, judging from the "common sense" of justice, Liang Li was "caught by mistake", and the government should give Liang Li a "statement". However, there is a serious "gap" between the current legal system and this simple concept of Justice - China's scope of state compensation is relatively narrow, and Liang Li's "wrong catch" is excluded. According to the provisions of the state compensation law, according to the provisions of Article 15 of the Criminal Procedure Law (the statutory crime of "handling only after complaint"), the State shall not be liable for those who are not held criminally responsible but detained. Liang Li's alleged "crime of embezzlement" belongs to the statutory crime of "handling only after telling". Therefore, Liang Li, who was detained by the judicial organ for 9 months and was not prosecuted in the end, will hardly receive state compensation