In the playground burial case, the investigator stolen and brushed the seizure of the involved person and leave no loopholes in the management

　　In the playground burial case, the person involved in the case was stolen, and no loopholes should be left in the seizure management

　　Third eye

　　As a disciplinary supervisor, who can steal the bank card of the detained person during the handling of the case, the loophole is obviously worth sorting out and reflecting.

　　Unexpectedly, the much-anticipated "playground burial case" could give rise to such a side story-the then deputy county magistrate involved in the case was stolen by the investigator of 340,000 yuan during the detention period.

　　According to The Paper, the Xinhuang County cadre Long Mou who was punished for the "playground burial case" was under investigation. During the investigation, Yang Mouhui, a staff member of the Commission for Discipline Inspection who handled the case, repeatedly stolen Long Mou bank cards and Alipay." The funds in "Huabei" stolen bank credit cards and used her identity to make loans on multiple platforms, totaling 348,400 yuan for gambling and repayment.

After being reported, Yang Mouhui has been sentenced to four years in prison.

　　In the middle of last year, after the "ground burial case" was exposed, it caused widespread social concern because of the evil methods of committing crimes.

In the end, the case was solved, a number of public officials were dealt with, and the families of the victims finally waited for fairness and justice.

I didn't expect that this was not the end of the case, and such an outrageous case appeared.

　　At present, this derivative case has been concluded. Yang Mouhui, who knew the law and violated the law, paid the corresponding price for his actions. All this can be described as self-effects.

But from the perspective of learning lessons and preventing micro-faults, although Yang Mouhui can easily steal Long Mou's card and mobile phone is a case, the significance of the warning should not be underestimated.

　　It is worth mentioning that the situation similar to the idea that the person involved was seized of money and property is not a case.

In the past few days, "the Jiangxi woman was detained, but the policeman who handled the case spent 66,000 with her mobile phone" has also attracted attention.

　　In order to regulate the management of seized money and property, various departments have issued corresponding laws and regulations.

For example, the public security agency has the "Provisions on the Management of Property Involved in Public Security Organs", the Procuratorate has the "Regulations on the Management of Property Involved in Criminal Procedures of the People's Procuratorate", and the Disciplinary Inspection Department also has the "Interim Provisions on the Management of Funds and Property Involved in Cases Investigated by the Disciplinary Inspection Organization of the Communist Party of China."

　　These laws and regulations not only strictly prohibit embezzlement, embezzlement, interception, misappropriation of money and property involved in the case, etc., but also have strict and clear requirements for the detention, sealing, transfer, custody and supervision of money and property involved in the case.

Take the latter as an example, which clearly mentions that “the items involved in the case should be kept in a centralized and unified manner by the department designated by the disciplinary inspection agency” and sealed up according to the type of the object.

At the same time, in accordance with the requirements, "the disciplinary inspection agency should strengthen the supervision and inspection of the management of the money and property involved in the case, and improve the supervision and restriction mechanism."

　　So in this case, has this centralized and unified storage measure been strictly implemented?

Are there loopholes in the supervision and inspection process?

These are worthy of review.

One detail is that during the 160 days that Long was detained, the acts of stealing bank cards and embezzling identity information for loans were carried out several times.

If the supervision and restraint mechanism is sensitive enough, perhaps the "alarm" should be triggered when he just reaches out his hand.

　　Those follow-up questions need further answers.

In any case, whether it is the staff of the Commission for Discipline Inspection, or the relevant personnel of the public security organs and the procuratorate, in the process of handling the case, there is a natural convenience for contacting the seized money and property involved in the case.

In the event of a crime of theft, the case-handling personnel will "handle" themselves in, which will cause great harm to the credibility and image of relevant functional institutions.

For this reason, the existing regulations on the management of seizure of money and property involved in the case must be strictly enforced and must not be allowed to be tricked in secret by the internal "master rats".

　　□Yu Han (media person)