Fifth Chongqing City People's procuratorate:

The defendant Zhou Changyong, Du Changguo, Jiang in raw commit crime of forced transaction case, Chongqing fifth intermediate people's courtYearsMonthMake (2012) Yu five French sentence final criminal No. fifteenth orders (hereinafter referred to as the fifteenth criminal verdict), petitioner thinks the decision error, a serious violation of law, special appeal, request your school to exercise legal supervision, and to protest.

Appeal: 1, undo (2012) Yu five French sentence final criminal No. fifteenth ruling;

2, shall be investigated for criminal responsibility by the complainant.

The grounds for the appeal:

One, the court of final appeal fails to identify or deliberately avoided the facts about a case.

Fifteenth criminal ruling will not be accepted fact, called "Gong Yu Zou Shunyou submitted to the court not the word" 2010 "12 notice of not filing the case, the complex" 2010 "No. second administrative reconsideration decision stated the public security organs have accused Zhou Changyong of not filing a case, blackmail and impose exactions on Zou Shun. Not be written decision Zou Shun has accused Zhou Changyong, who forced transaction crime to the public security organ." Apparently not, to find out the facts, or deliberately avoided the facts of the case. Nine inspection punishment Jiulongpo District People's Procuratorate made in September 1, 2011 without separating reception from [2011]009, the reasons for not filing the case review notice, clearly stated the following: "Zou Shunyou, Zhou Changyong, Du Changguo and other charges on your suspicion of the crime of forced transaction, blackmail and impose exactions on case review to the five branch, later transferred to our hospital on the case on file for investigation, shall not investigation, high tech District Public Security Bureau to the hospital that do not file a reason. According to the "criminal procedural law" the regulation of the people's Republic of China in eighty-seventh, the school examination that: description of the reasons for not filing the case established." How can you say, "the public security organ shall not be prosecuted Zou Shun has made no complaint Zhou Changyong commits crime of forced transaction of the written decision"? This is obviously the court to dismiss the complainant of private prosecution and specializes in the manufacture of reason.

Two, ruled that the erroneous application of the law.

China's "criminal law" the 226th regulation, by means of violence or threat, forcing others to transfer or acquiring company, enterprise shares that constitute a crime. Constitute this crime is whether the transfer price is equivalent to the actual value of shares, the law has not set up other objective elements. The complainant provides plenty of evidence of the accused to the court forced transaction, the courts were not in accordance with the law on the evidence to recognize or processing.

Even if the final ruling that said, forced transaction crime belongs to the scope of public prosecution cases, this situation does not meet the "Criminal Procedure Law of the people's Republic of China" 170th provisions of the scope of private prosecution cases and the conditions for acceptance, but according to China's "criminal law" the eighty-fourth paragraph third of the regulations, the people's court shall transfer the case to the public security authorities, rather than dismiss plaintiff prosecution. Second order is clearly erroneous application of the law, the objective is the protection of criminal suspects, indulge crime.

To sum up, (2012) Yu five French sentence final criminal No. fifteenth ruling is the wrong decision, the complainant's appeal is also in line with the provisions of China's "criminal law" article 203rd and 204 of the first and third paragraphs of this request, your school to fulfill the function of legal supervision in accordance with the law, make a protest to the ruling decision.

The complainant:

Two, one or two April 25th

Attached to: 1, the final ruling, copy;

2, nine inspection punishment not separating reception from [2011]009, the reasons for not filing the case review notice;

3, Yu Gong Gaoli word "2010" number 12 is not filed notice;

4, the complex "2010" No. second administrative reconsideration decision;

5, the private prosecutor and criminal complaint report material

6, Du Changguo issued a so-called "service fee" of 500000 yuan receipt;

In April 28, 2009 7, the same day, Zhou Changyong in the world Chongqing teahouse to private ious issued 2500000 yuan;

Evidence 8, Wu Jianhua, Jiang Hong;

9, Zhou Changju in the Shiqiaopu police interrogation record.