Legal subjectivity:

After one year of release on bail or expiration of one year, if the criminal facts are clear and the evidence is sufficient, criminal liability should be investigated according to law. Can the investigation agency transfer it to the procuratorate for review and prosecution? There is no clear provision in the Criminal Procedure Law on this issue. I think it should be possible without a doubt. However, things are not that simple. Article 2 of the Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Handling of Criminal Compensation Cases by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate stipulates: Although the case has not been withdrawn, a decision not to prosecute or a verdict of acquittal has been made after the detention or arrest measures have been lifted or revoked, the following conditions must be met: In any of the circumstances, the termination of criminal liability under Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of Article 17 of the State Compensation Law falls under the following circumstances: (1) The case-handling agency decides to terminate the investigation of the criminal suspect; (2) The bail pending trial is terminated or revoked, After residential surveillance, detention, or arrest, the case-handling agency fails to transfer the case for prosecution, make a decision not to prosecute, or withdraw the case for more than one year; (3) After the legal period of bail pending trial or residential surveillance expires, the case-handling agency fails to transfer the case for prosecution or make a decision for more than one year. The decision not to prosecute or the case is withdrawn; (4) The People’s Procuratorate withdraws the prosecution without making a decision not to prosecute more than 30 days ago; (5) The People’s Procuratorate fails to make a decision not to prosecute more than 30 days after the People’s Court decides to withdraw the prosecution; (6) The people's court allows the private prosecutor in a criminal private prosecution case to withdraw the case, or the people's court decides to treat the criminal private prosecution case as withdrawn. If the organ responsible for compensation has evidence proving that the criminal liability investigation has not been terminated, and it is verified by the Compensation Committee of the People's Court, it shall decide to reject the compensation requester's application for compensation. A criminal case handled by this public security comrade was rejected by the public prosecution agency based on the above provisions because the compulsory measure of lifting bail pending trial lasted for more than one year. I don't agree with this. I think it is debatable whether the interpretations of the two Supreme Courts on criminal compensation can regulate the criminal litigation activities of judicial organs. First of all, bail pending trial is a type of criminal coercive measure stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Law, and criminal coercive measures are used to ensure the smooth progress of criminal proceedings and are methods used to restrict a certain degree of personal freedom of criminal suspects, but this does not mean that they cannot After such compulsory measures are taken, or for a period of time after the compulsory measures expire or are lifted, criminal proceedings cannot continue. The absence of criminal compulsory measures is not inconsistent with the normal conduct of criminal proceedings. Secondly, the reason why the two high-level criminal compensation interpretations have such provisions is actually to protect citizens’ rights to demand state compensation, and to prevent some cases from being delayed for a long time and causing citizens’ rights to demand state compensation to be denied relief. For the protection of rights, this provision should only apply to state compensation cases and cannot be used to regulate criminal litigation activities. It is inappropriate for the public prosecution agency to refuse to accept the case on this ground. In fact, the last sentence of this article already explains this conclusion, "If the agency responsible for compensation has evidence to prove that the pursuit of criminal liability has not been terminated, and it is true after review by the Compensation Committee of the People's Court, it shall decide to reject the compensation application of the compensation claimant." Even if In criminal compensation, as long as the agency responsible for compensation can prove that the pursuit of criminal liability has not been terminated, and if it is true upon review, the compensation application should be rejected. It can be seen that the criminal compensation interpretations of the two high authorities cannot replace the Criminal Procedure Law and stipulate the time limit for terminating criminal liability. In other words, the lifting of compulsory measures such as bail pending trial or the expiration of more than one year does not necessarily lead to the termination of criminal liability. Whether to terminate criminal liability Criminal liability should still be based on the actual situation. As for how to prove that the pursuit of criminal liability has not been terminated, for the trial of criminal compensation cases, the agency responsible for compensation should provide evidence that the case is still in the investigation stage. First, the case has basic criminal facts and it is necessary and possible to continue investigation. nature, such as co-defendants being at large, witnesses not being found, and other objective reasons that lead to the fact that some facts in the case cannot be ascertained and cannot be transferred for review and prosecution. However, in order to punish the crime, it is necessary and possible to continue the investigation. As for criminal proceedings, not only should the public prosecution agency not refuse to accept the case, there is also no need for the public security agency to issue evidence to prove that the case has not terminated criminal liability. As long as it meets the conditions for transfer for review and prosecution, it does not even need to be clear facts and sufficient evidence. should be accepted. If the investigation activities do violate the procedures in handling the case, we should put forward suggestions to correct the violation. If the facts are unclear and the evidence is insufficient, we should make a decision not to prosecute in accordance with the law, and should not directly block the case. In this way, regardless of whether it is a crime, Neither punishment nor protection of the rights of the parties involved in the case is helpful. Of course, although I believe that the lifting of compulsory measures such as bail pending trial or the expiration of more than one year does not necessarily lead to the termination of criminal liability, if the criminal facts are clear and the evidence is sufficient, it can still be transferred to the procuratorate for review and prosecution. However, we should also try to avoid this situation and avoid protracted criminal cases, which not only ensures that criminal crimes are punished in a timely manner, but also protects the litigation rights of the parties.

Legal objectivity:

Article 67 of the "Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" The people's courts, people's procuratorates and public security organs may, against criminal suspects or defendants who have any of the following circumstances, To be released on bail pending trial: (1) Those who may be sentenced to public surveillance, criminal detention or independent additional penalties; (2) Those who may be sentenced to a penalty of fixed-term imprisonment or above, and being released on bail pending trial will not pose a social risk; (3) Those who suffer from serious diseases, cannot take care of themselves, are pregnant Or a woman who is breastfeeding her own baby, and being released on bail pending trial will not pose a social risk; (4) The detention period has expired and the case has not been settled, and it is necessary to be released on bail pending trial. Release on bail pending trial shall be carried out by the public security organs.