SPC reports crime crackdown developments
Liu Guixiang, the court’s judicial committee’s full-time member, reports on developments in the court’s special campaign against crime on July 21.
The Supreme People’s Court reported developments in its special campaign against crime, emphasizing consequences for those refusing to carry out a court ruling, at a press conference on July 21.
Liu Guixiang, the court’s judicial committee’s full-time member, reported on developments in the campaign, which is a group initiative by the court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security. In addition to unveiling ten typical cases at the press conference, the court explained several legal issues concerning any person’s resistance to or disregard of a court’s ruling, and disclosed revisions to the several regulations on capping consumption by the convicted. The campaign was launched in November 2014.
People’s courts have sentenced 864 criminals in 807 cases involving resistance to court rulings as of June 30. They were investigated by public security organs and prosecuted by the procuratorates. During the campaign, a total of 58,478 people in 55,772 relevant cases were detained.
The Supreme Court’s explanation of legal issues concerning resistance to court rulings had four main aspects. First, it clarified what constitutes grave circumstances as defined in penal laws. Second, it specified the circumstances under which judges can make their own decisions. Third, it stipulated that private prosecution procedures can be applied in some cases involving resistance to court rulings. Fourth, it clarified general jurisdiction principles in dealing with the resistance cases.
The Supreme Court had unveiled regulations on capping consumption of the convicted in 2010. The current revision to those regulations has three main provisions. First, the court extended the capping to extravagant and unnecessary livelihood consumption whether or not related to business operations. Second, it clarified measures limiting consumption that should be imposed on the convicted who break their commitments to the court. Third, it increased the purview and strength of measures limiting consumption.