Model Cases

Posted on Updated on

Case 1:

The case of Zhang Wanqi who fabricated false or terrorizing information

(1) Brief case details

Around 19:00 on 23 March 2007, because of an economic dispute between her and her ex-boyfriend Gong so-and-so, the defendant Zhang Wanqi went to the Peking University 2nd Gymnasium’s dance hall, run by Guo so-and-so, to collect that day’s business income. After this was refused, Zhang Wanqi used her mobile phone to make a “110” report, falsely alleging that there was a bomb in the Peking University 2nd Gymnasium, resulting in public opinion organs dispatching numerous police forces to rush to the scene and conduct inspections, and the evacuation of more than 200 persons from inside the Peking University 2nd Gymnasium.

(2) Judgment result

The Beijing Municipality Haidian District People’s Court decided in the first instance, and the Beijing Municipal First Intermediate People’s Court ruled in appeal that: the defendant Zhang Wanqi disregarded the law of the land, fabricated the bomb threat and other such terrorizing information, which gravely upset social order, and her acts constituted the crime of fabricating false and terrorizing information. In view of the fact that Zhang Wanqi was a person of limited capacity, and her attitude in admitting guilt was relatively good, she could be punished relatively lightly according to the law, and defendant Zhang Wanqi was convicted to a fixed-term prison sentence of two years.

Case 2:

The case of Pan Jun who fabricated false or terrorizing information

(1) Brief case details

Around 13:30 on 30 November 2010, the defendant Pan Jun called the “110” reporting line in Chisha Nanyue Street in Haizhu District, Guangzhou Municipality, Guangdong Province, fabricating the false and terrorizing information that a bomb had been placed inside the Guangzhou police station of the Haizhu District sub-bureau of the Guangzhou Public Security Bureau, and that it would explode within fifteen minutes, resulting in public security organs dispatching numerous police forces to conduct investigations in the Guangzhou police station and its surroundings.

(2) Judgment result

The Guangdong Province Guangzhou Municipality Haizhu District People’s Court decided in the first instance, and the Guangzhou Municipal Intermediary People’s Court ruled in appeal that: the defendant Pan Jun fabricated false and terrorizing information about a bomb threat, gravely upsetting social order, and his acts constitute the crime of fabricating false or terrorizing information, the defendant Pan Jun was convicted to a fixed-term prison sentence of one year and three months.

Case 3:

The case of Xiong Yi fabricating false and terrorizing information

(1) Brief case details

Around 22:00 on 30 August 2012, the defendant Xiong Yi learnt that his creditor would travel by air to him to demand payment, in order to prevent or delay the creditor’s arrival, Yi called the customer service and complaints telephone of Shenzhen airport, falsely alleging that there is a bomb on that day’s Shenzhen Airlines flight ZH9706 from Xiangyang to Shenzhen, and that it would explode 45 minutes after the aircraft’s take off. After Shenzhen Airlines received notification, it immediately started first-level response procedures, and coordinated with air traffic control departments to direct flight ZH970s to make an emergency diversion to Wuhan Tianhe airport. The emergency diversion resulted in nine underway flights making emergency evasive manoeuvres, take-offs of flights at Wuhan Tianhe Airport who were awaiting orders were suspended and the second-level emergency response procedure was initiated, fire-fighters, military police and other departments mobilized more than 200 people to the scene to handle the emergency, Shenzhen Airlines provisionally added two flights to transport the passengers stranded at the airport, causing direct economic damage to Shenzhen airlines of more than 170.000 Yuan.

(2) Judgment result

The Hubei Province Xiangyang High and New Technology Industry Development Park People’s Court found that the defendant Xiong Yi wilfully fabricated false and terrorizing information, gravely upset social order, and that his acts constituted the crime of fabricating false or terrorizing information, the defendant Xiong Yi was sentenced to a fixed-term prison sentence of four years. After the judgment was announced, the defendant Xiong Yi did not appeal, the judgement has taken legal effect.

 

One thought on “Model Cases

    […] of order in crowded public venues, such as shopping centres, stations or airports. Gauging from the three brief model cases that the SPC published together with this Interpretation, this may be where the focus point of this […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s