The lawyer of "Jiangsu Aphrodisiac Pharmaceutical Case" viewed that the physical evidence was blocked, and the legal person reminded to exclude external pressure

Guangdong e -commerce Yang Zhiwen was accused of being suspected of violating "production and sales of toxic and harmful foods" and "production and sales of pseudo -shoddy products" for two official test reports in 2020. This case listed as a case of illegally added by the Jiangsu Provincial Market Supervision Bureau and the illegal cases of health foods and the major cases of online production and sales of toxic and harmful health foods. Due to the large amount of involved cases and a wide range of affected, it is known as the "Jiangsu Aphrodisiac Pharmaceutical Case". Attention. However, the test results made by Yang Zhiwen and his family members were "racking" with the official conclusions.

After media reports, the judicial organs stated that they would start the re -inspection process.

When the lawyer took the written consent materials signed and stamped by the court to check the detained items, it was different from the public security organs, and the handling of the case was blocked. The lawyer believes that the collection procedures and methods of the seizure of items involved in the case are defective, and it is necessary to re -check, statistics, and registration. The judicial authority believes that it can be viewed, but the box cannot be dismantled. Otherwise, it will cause damage to the physical evidence and emphasize that " This is the leader commissioned me to answer your opinions. "

Legal sources said that since the seizure of the products involved in the case is not standardized, the product batch number and product characteristics are unknown, and the defense lawyer has major questions about the batch number and quantity of each product, and the lawyer should guarantee the inspection of the seizure of the detainees involved in accordance with the law. The right to register. For the case, the judicial organs must first exclude external pressure and avoid the justification of power to interfere with judicial justice.

Another suspect's report is also "qualified

In May 2020, Yang Zhiwen was accused of selling non -ingenious health care products containing Xilin's non -component in the Yangzhou Market Supervision Bureau and Jiangdu District Police in Jiangsu Province. The Jiangsu Provincial Market Supervision Bureau listed this case as a case of illegal addition of health foods and the major cases of online production and sale of toxic and harmful health foods.

After a year, the Jiangdu District Police also determined that the products sold by Yang Zhiwen did not contain Siwan Naifer, nor did they contain Chinese medicine ingredients marked in accordance with the other test reports of the Market Supervision Bureau. The crime of selling fake and shoddy products will be arrested.

It is worth noting that the inspection agencies entrusted by the law enforcement agency themselves also acknowledged that they did not obtain the qualification identification of the three items of Cordyceps, ginseng saponin, and deer.

Yang Zhiwen and his family members commissioned three testing agencies to make 4 batches of analysis reports to confirm that it does not contain the non -component of the West, and detects Chinese medicine ingredients such as ginsenosides in the inside. However, the test results recognized by law enforcement agencies were "racks". However, the results of the testing made by Yang Zhiwen's family members were not recognized by the judicial organs, and the lawyer's demands that repeatedly requested the re -test had not been answered.

On April 8 this year, Shangfa News reported the incident under the title of "The Inspection Report" Settles ", Law Experts: Re -examination before the trial."

Fang Baoguo, an associate professor of China University of Political Science and Law, said that under the current existing test reports, there are serious differences in the existing testing report and the test report of the judicial organs has obvious flaws. The third parties approved by the two parties before the trial to re -test, comply with relevant legal regulations and regulations and regulations and regulations of the law. Judicial spirit.

Tian Mougang's family commissioned the test to the third party (the interviewee confession)

After the manuscript was published, the family member of Tian Mougang, which was supplied to Yang Zhiwen, told Shangfa News that Tian Mou Gang was arrested by the same case. The family commissioned the third party to test the products involved. "The National Food and Drug Administration's drug inspection and inspection method and inspection project approval parts 2008016.2009030", the test results are: Naei, Hongyei, Westland, and He Dafei are not detected. Another test report is "the project inspection of the sample meets the GB 2762-2017 standard requirements".

Tian Mougang's family revealed to Shangfa News that Tian's colleagues also verified from the product manufacturer Hou Moufeng, and whether there was any Chinese medicine such as deer whip, ginseng and other traditional Chinese medicines marked on the outer packaging. The other party insisted on adding. The recording of the dialogue between the two parties was provided to the family members of Yang Zhiwen Wei Zhongyu.

Tian Mougang's family told Shangfa News that they had learned from a lawyer from a lawyer that the judicial organs decided to re -test the products involved in the case.

Recently, Yang Zhiwen's defense lawyer Liu Xunfeng also confirmed to Shangfa News that he had received a call from the Jiangdu District Procuratorate and Jiangdu District Court of Yangzhou City, saying that he would re -test the products involved, but the testing agency and testing had not yet been determined. time.

Check the evidence blocked

On February 14 this year, the colleagues of Liu Xunfeng and the law firm had opened the box for the case of the case of Yang Zhiwen's case detained by the police in the warehouse. Don't let us continue to check the count. "

Yang Zhiwen's family members and defense lawyers rushed to make the derived item identification label overnight, but eventually failed to check the seizure item (the interviewee's picture)

Liu Xun and his party found that there were many categories of the items involved in the case, and the number was about 800 boxes. The column of "Features" is displayed as blank.

"The same product has the situation of commissioning two or even three manufacturers. This may produce the same name but the composition of different batches of products is also different. This situation has a significant impact on the results of re -testing. Confliction quantitative punishment has a significant impact. "Liu Xunfeng believes that in this case, the derived items are physical evidence, and the defense lawyer's detaing products in this case are inspected and counted in accordance with the law. At the same time, it also laid the foundation for the next fair and fair test. Wei Zhongyu, the family of Yang Zhiwen, also expressed his concerns to Shangfa News. After many efforts, the judicial organs finally promised to conduct a re -inspection of the items involved in the case. There are more than ten kinds of goods names, which are manually hooked in front of a certain name, but there is no detailed product manual. If the lawyer does not open the box to check, how to ensure that each product produced by each manufacturer has been re -inspected. When the case is qualitative, there may be a possibility of preference or leakage, which will be sentenced to Yang Zhiwen or unfair.

In order to further understand the types, batch numbers, and quantities of the derived items in this case, Liu Zhiwen's two defense lawyers Liu Xunfeng and Chen Ping's Beijing Chinese Law Firm, Jiangsu Carthaga Lawyer Affairs successively successively. On June 7th, the court mailing the "View, Calculating the Exclusive Items and Registration and Photo Application". On June 13, the court submitted the "Inspection and Examination Items in accordance with the law and conducting statistical registration and shooting applications" to the court. At the same time, the lawyers team conducted 6 telephone communication on February 14, February 21, February 21, March 14, April 21, June 6, and June 8, respectively. It was confirmed that the consent of the court and the public security was confirmed.

At 9:30 am on June 13, 2022, eight staff members of the two law firms came to the Office of the Jiangdu Branch of the Yangzhou Public Security Bureau to check the relevant matters related to the inspection and seizure items.

"Director Ding, who received our Ding team, did not allow us to check the seizure items on the grounds that we did not have a court's approval." Liu school recalled that the lawyer team rushed to the court and asked Judge Xu to sign the lawyer's application. sign.

Captain Ding also proposed that the application required to stamped the official seal of the court. The lawyer went to the court to let Judge Xu stamped the official seal of the Criminal Trial Division of the Jiangdu District Court.

"Police officer Jiang, who received us this time, believes that the content of the application for the signing of the signature and seal is not good. Lawyer Liu school told Shangfa News: He and a few colleagues ran back and forth from 9:30 in the morning to 4:30 pm. After being tossed for a day, he still failed to check the seizure items in accordance with the law.

What are the fundamental differences between the lawyers and public security on the issue of the items involved? Officer Ding and Police Officer Jiang of the Jiangdu District Public Security Bureau replied to Shangfa News. The unit had disciplined requirements and could not disclose the relevant cases.

"First of all, external pressure"

"We proposed that the three houses of the Public Prosecution Law were inspected and checked in the case, and evidence of fixed evidence was used with synchronous recording. But the other party was still not loose." Liu school told Shangfa News: The two sides have been deadlocked until June 13, and the lawyer team has been stalemate until June 13, and the lawyer team has been He was forced to complain to the seventh inspection team of the Jiangsu Provincial Party Committee. Three public prosecutors said that after the study, the Jiangdu District Court gave a uniform answer.

On July 1, the Jiangdu District Court first responded to Liu Xunfeng. After research, the Criminal Procedure Law stipulated the inspection and inspection of the public security organs. It is said that the defender can be inspected and reviewed.

Liu Xun's objection to this, believed that the lawyer's inspection and inspection of the physical evidence and the public security organs in accordance with the law was two completely different behaviors. If you do not disassemble the box, it is impossible to confirm the production quantity and batches of various manufacturers, so that you cannot check all the inspection.

"The court asked us to check the purpose of the item, and learned that it was to cooperate with the re -inspection and think that our requirements are reasonable. But the final answer is' You can view, but the box cannot be dismantled. "As for which leader, don't ask." For the requirements of the lawyer, the other party said that he could report to the leader again. At present, Liu Xuefeng, Chen Ping's lawyers and their team have not received the latest reply from the judicial organs.

The reply from the judicial authority of the Jiangdu District Court to the lawyer (the interviewee confessed)

The lawyer Chen of Beijing Jingshi Law Firm stated that during the trial stage of the case, the lawyer could apply to the court to check the detention items involved in the court to determine whether the procedures and procedures for the seizure of the investigation organs complied with the law. If the investigation agency violates relevant regulations, it cannot ensure that the authenticity and non -pollution of the physical evidence involved should be excluded as illegal evidence. If the critical evidence of the case is excluded, there is no sufficient evidence, and the defendant should be convicted and released.

Fan Chen believes that if key evidence cannot be ruled out as an illegal evidence, it can also be required to re -identify the court without the attributes of the derived items. There are major flaws in the seizure procedure, or if the lawyer has reasonable doubts, you should re -count and identify the seizure items. Through re -identification, the truth can be restored. The lawyer proposes to check out the batch, quantity and manufacturer of the product to ensure that the court finds the facts and accurate sentencing of the case. The requirement is reasonable and legal, and it should be supported.

Du Zhaoyong, a lawyer of Beijing Jingding Law Firm, evaluated the case that if the defense lawyer had no right to check the object certificate before the trial, he could not fully understand the facts of the case and not to fulfill his defense responsibilities in accordance with the law. Therefore, from the date of the review and prosecution of the case on the case of the case of the people's procuratorate, check the physical certificate (including the types, batch numbers, and quantities of the physical evidence) in accordance with the law. Guarantee. At present, this case has reached the trial stage, and the derived items should be transferred to the court according to law, not controlled by the public security organs. The court has the right to allow lawyers to check the derived items according to law and not be disturbed by the public security organs. Du Zhaoyong pointed out that the defense lawyer of this case requires the reason for the requirements of the items involved in the case reasonable and legal. On the other hand, the police's practice is suspected of existence. Although the physical evidence is extracted by the investigation authority, all the evidence is in court, and the investigation authority does not have the right to monopoly. In addition, the investigation agency should fully extract the evidence of the object, and cannot extract evidence that it is unfavorable to the parties. Since the detaing list of the products involved in the case is not standardized, the product batch number and product characteristics are unknown, and the defense lawyer has major doubts about the batch number and quantity of each product, and the lawyer should ensure the right to inspect and register the detainee products involved in accordance with the law. When returning to this case, the staff who handled the case mentioned that some leaders were making decisions. I think that the judicial organs must first rule out external pressure and avoid power to interfere with judicial justice. (Sun Tao)

- END -