Moderator: please Peking University law school professor Zhang Qianfan speech.

Zhang Qianfan: simple to say a few words, so, the Wu Ying case I think is divided into three levels, one is the illegal fund-raising so-called Is it right? Should constitute the economic crime? The state monopoly of financial lead folk cannot borrow money, this phenomenon is caused by the behavior itself is a kind of injustice and inequality of the financial system, there is a view that the illegal fund-raising should not constitute any side of the crime, not only should not be a crime, but also should change this system. The main problem is an economist and economic jurists concerns. The second level, assuming the illegal fund-raising can constitute a crime, criminal law on the crime is just as sin. But Wu Ying this behavior Is it right? Constitute illegal fund-raising? If the illegal fund-raising, so Is it right? Should be illegal fund-raising could be sentenced to death. This problem is the problem of criminal law experts. If the case of the Wu Ying Wu Ying act constitutes a crime, but also in the practice of criminal justice in our country can be sentenced to death, should not be sentenced to death? The Wu Ying case is not just an economic case, is not only a criminal case, of course we can prove, if Wu Ying was sentenced to death, may lead to serious consequences of what to our economic reform? When come to reflect, if kill Wu Ying, can greatly facilitate the China economic reform, all the people present here that is not possible, if possible, Wu Ying was killed? This issue we relates to the problem of human life.

During the discussions, the earlier case about Yao and Li Changkui discuss the abolition of the death penalty sound more, this time about it seems likely that the Wu Ying case everyone in the technical considerations, this problem has not been started very well, I write three article recently, I want to discuss this issue. The basic idea is that I put forward, one is in a humanitarian country, the law of this country should respect everyone's life as well as the intrinsic value of life, should be abolished the death penalty at the appropriate time, at least, is to abolish the death penalty for non violent crimes. Earlier, Yao Jiaxin case or the case of Li Changkui is not a good place to discuss the abolition of the death penalty, the Wu Ying case, this time should be said, because it does not involve violence, if involved in violent crime, if hurt life, can say, this problem may be more complex, today not digress. But if we here only relates to a non violent crime, even Wu Ying advocated the establishment of economic crime, so Is it right? For non violent crimes should be sentenced to death? I think this problem should be established as a principle, after this article was published by a lot of criticism, many five hair attack. Many people worry that abolishing the death penalty for economic crime may involve many corrupt officials will be die.

Then I put forward second propositions, in fact we fear or hope is not practical. In a democratic system is underdeveloped, the loopholes in the system constantly making corrupt officials, the probability captured corrupt actually very small situation, the death penalty is not enough to deter corrupt officials.

Third, in fact, to control the economic crime death penalty for control without death, economic crime and I think that in most cases is of no use, especially the corrupt officials in the society many people cherish an undying, the death penalty for them there is no deterrent. Even the economy reflects the social folk Wu Ying case on the behavior, I believe that the death penalty may also play a role not worth mentioning. Wu Ying himself at that time just like the lawyer introduced, she is so for many years engaged in these activities, she was thought they would be sentenced to death? If she hadn't thought about this problem, economic crime death penalty, to control this kind of crime again have what use? Control of death penalty of corrupt officials and control of economic crime paltrily also does not need the death penalty.

Then I put forward third point, with a certain confidence level in law enforcement cases, deprivation of personal liberty and severe economic punishment can produce even more effective than the death penalty deterrent effect, specific claims just don't talk much about the. Can provide economic measures many, property measures. Economic crime in the crime when fully considering the own the consequences of the crime, for example for the economic crime can be coupled with a very severe penalties, such as corrupt corruption one million can be fined two million. Greedy ten million penalty ten million, the more the more corruption punishment. Even if the offender is not able to repay the legal prescribed punishment, can set certain limited collateral, let his immediate family for his responsibility, of course, such measures as appropriate Is it right? Is it right? Can be further discussions. Even in the China such a social environment, by setting a reasonable economic punishment of death penalty is completely can be replaced, the Wu Ying case, we should at least get the abolition of non violent crimes and death penalty on economic agenda, the abolition of death penalty of economic crimes can start from the Wu Ying case.

Thank you!

Moderator: Thank you, Professor Zhang Qianfan advocate, I also support his ideas. Next, please speak to Ruan Qilin professor of China University of Political Science and Law College of criminal justice.

Ruan Qilin: I didn't want to say today, on this occasion that guilt or innocence with nonsense no difference, I also did not see, did not participate in the trial, no understanding of the facts of the case, and the legend of the seven hundred million official charges, 380000000, the defender also think not so big, there are a few billion, filing standards, hundreds of thousands of be able to sin, to play so much, playing off so much. That innocent is nonsense, says guilt because they don't understand the fact is nonsense, so I don't want to say. Just today lawyer Yang briefing and I absolutely understand a little piece on a conclusion, is guilty but not die.

Guilty of reason, illegal absorption of four elements of public deposits. A raised no problem, second high interest rates, no problem, just two points publicity and funding sources Is it right? Public. But the publicity and the public is a problem, if in fact comes from the public, why everybody knows, it is certainly you publicity, as for the method of propaganda way that much, so she does not constitute a financial fraud, her sources can not belong to the public? Others can be said to be That's final., have the funds have high interest, publicity and public which are pulled at. The lawyer said 11 people are friends and relatives are not public, but indirect these friends and relatives the money source that is open to the public, I think I'm afraid there is open to the public, in the local public and elastic, you can't absolute exclusion. Since the public has elasticity, she was playing so big, also lost hundreds of millions of things, I'm afraid retreats is not possible. And this indeed for many of the creditors are difficult to explain, so I felt guilty or suspected of illegal absorb public deposits crime probably to blame.

As for the intervention of government, we must think, if the government do nothing to make bigger and bigger, also retain his official post. The inlet pipe is not good, to have a chance to turn over up dead, could not guilty but fell into sin, increasing the losses, not. In a dilemma, also can not be said that the government's intervention is all bullshit things, it is also not good, after all, involving seven hundred million of the funds, so I said it was guilty.

The next question, what is the crime of illegal absorbing public deposits or fraud? The crime of illegal absorbing public deposits there is no capital crime, fraud is only death. The key difference is cheating, cheating points in this kind of case, is that she has no investment scheme and her funds have put into investment programs in. If no investment scheme or money no investment investment scheme, not the implementation of the investment plan, this is cheating. Why? She completely depends on pull later money to pay to come, no possibility of gain. This is a typical Ponzi fraud, surface points Ponzi fraud appears later comer investment pay investors maintain front funding cycle, bigger, formed in Pyramid, which is its representation. But its lane must know, deception, this deception is what she said investment plan does not exist, or is not the implementation of the investment plan, funds will not go. In this case I do not quite understand the situation, but according to the lawyers, most of her money into an investment plan investment plan, and have a reasonable return, but unfortunately broken capital chain. In this case, we should say no to the extent of her deception fraud. Frankly you can say clear? In addition to the trial of the clear, most of which are not clear. What his how much money left to investment plans to go inside, there is much space, or simply by pulling the investment pay later came to maintain such a cycle of constantly cheat, until the fund chain break, now this is not clear. This is why I said she was guilty, but which is the key point of crime, or to see if there is no deceit. To deceive the point in dispute, this is a basic point. (lawyer online network - to provide legal services)

The second is the sin not die. First of all, what she is to be sentenced to death for the crime of fraud and crime of illegal absorbing public deposits are controversial, at least this is fraud is not typical. So this sentence capital punishment from the law technically is not reasonable, this is the first point.

Second, economic activity must give it a vitality and space, must be free. This freedom is not only a relaxed policy environment, at the same time a problem should also take more tolerant attitude, the death penalty is not appropriate.

Finally, on the issue of government not bear. Business people who have made money no matter how great the risk, he charges collect fat awfully, a problem he has killed over to clean a little bear, do not help a bit uncoordinated, which I don't feel right. And if it does give people the impression, risk earn money much you charge tax everybody pours very pleased, a problem has killed for creditors, make the greatest efforts to kill him, not to the government, the government will write neatly, like this it is not a business, only to your relaxed. The government may sorry oneself from many companies there close to the tax, including adventurer there close to the taxes and fees, in this issue should not be sentenced her to death.

I just say it, thank you!