Severely punish crimes of destroying wildlife resources in accordance with the law

　　Effectively maintain biodiversity and ecological balance

　　——The person in charge of the Research Office of the Supreme People's Court and the Legal Policy Research Office of the Supreme People's Procuratorate answered reporters' questions on the "Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Destruction of Wildlife Resources"

　　Today, the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate jointly issued the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Destruction of Wildlife Resources" (Fa Shi [2022] No. 12, hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation"), effective from April 9, 2022 to be implemented.

In order to facilitate accurate understanding and application in judicial practice, the heads of the Research Office of the Supreme People's Court and the Legal Policy Research Office of the Supreme People's Procuratorate were interviewed.

Q: Please introduce the background and main process of the Interpretation.

　　Answer: In recent years, the Supreme People's Court, alone or jointly with the Supreme People's Procuratorate, has successively formulated the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Destruction of Wildlife Resources (Fa Shi [2000] No. 37, hereinafter referred to as the Interpretation of Animal Crimes in 2000" ), "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Smuggling Cases" (Fa Shi [2014] No. 10, hereinafter referred to as "2014 Interpretation of Smuggling Crimes"), "Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases Occurring in the Sea Areas Under my country's Jurisdiction ( 2)" (Fa Shi [2016] No. 17) and other judicial interpretations, the crime of smuggling precious animals, precious animal products, illegal fishing of aquatic products, and endangering precious and endangered wild animals (before the charge was revised, was "illegal hunting , the crime of killing precious and endangered wild animals", "the crime of illegally acquiring, transporting, and selling precious and endangered wild animals, precious and endangered wild animal products"), the crime of illegal hunting and other crimes of destroying wildlife resources and relevant legal application issues make provisions.

The promulgation and implementation of the above judicial interpretation has played a positive role in severely punishing crimes of destroying wildlife resources and protecting wildlife resources and the ecological environment.

　　On February 24, 2020, the 16th meeting of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People's Congress passed the "Decision on Comprehensively Prohibiting Illegal Wildlife Trade, Eliminating the Bad Habits of Eating Wild Animals, and Effectively Protecting People's Lives, Health and Safety". Eat wild animals.

On December 26, 2020, the 24th Session of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People's Congress passed the "Criminal Law Amendment (11)", adding a paragraph as the third paragraph in Criminal Law 341: " Violating the regulations on the protection and management of wild animals, illegally hunting, purchasing, transporting or selling terrestrial wild animals that grow and breed naturally in the wild environment other than those specified in the first paragraph for the purpose of consumption, and the circumstances are serious, they shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph. After the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress and the revision of the Criminal Law, it is urgent to revise and improve the judicial interpretation of the crime of destroying wildlife resources to ensure the correct, comprehensive and uniform implementation of the law.

In addition, with economic and social development, cases involving wildlife resources have shown the characteristics of diversity and complexity in recent years, and the above judicial interpretations have some problems that cannot adapt to the current actual situation.

　　In response to the new situation and new problems of the crime of destroying wildlife resources, according to the revision of the law, the Supreme People's Court, in conjunction with the Supreme People's Procuratorate, with the strong support of the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, the General Administration of Customs, the State Forestry and Grassland Administration and other relevant departments, have carried out in-depth Investigation and research, extensive solicitation of opinions, repeated demonstrations and improvements, and drafting of the Interpretation.

The "Interpretation" was deliberated and adopted at the 1856th meeting of the Supreme People's Court on December 13, 2021, and at the 89th meeting of the 13th Procuratorial Committee of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on February 9, 2022. Since April 9, 2022 effective from today.

Q: Please introduce the main considerations for the formulation of the Interpretation.

　　Answer: The Interpretation adheres to the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, thoroughly implements Xi Jinping Thought on Ecological Civilization and Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, and makes efforts from the judicial link to punish crimes of destroying wildlife resources in accordance with the law, so as to provide a powerful tool for promoting the construction of ecological civilization. Judicial guarantee.

Specifically, in the drafting process, the following points were paid attention to:

　　First, punish crimes that destroy wildlife resources in accordance with the law, and maintain biodiversity and ecological balance.

Taking into account the large differences between different wild animals, the Interpretation is no longer only quantitative, but based on value (mainly by the State Council's wildlife protection department based on the preciousness, endangerment degree, ecological value and market of wild animals). value and other assessments) as the basic conviction and sentencing standard.

After this adjustment, the conviction and sentencing standards for crimes of destroying wildlife resources are more in line with the requirements of the principle of adapting the crime to responsibility and punishment.

　　Second, special consideration should be given to cases of destruction of artificially bred wild animal resources to ensure that it conforms to the general public perception.

On the one hand, artificially bred wild animals are also wild animal resources and should be protected; on the other hand, artificially bred populations and wild populations of wild animals with mature and stable artificial breeding technology are managed according to the same standards, and the exact same conviction applies. Sentencing standards are not conducive to economic and social development and wildlife protection, nor are they in line with the general public perception.

Accordingly, the Interpretation makes special provisions on the conviction and sentencing rules for cases of destroying artificially bred wild animal resources.

　　Third, adhere to the principle of comprehensive discretion and ensure that leniency and strictness are balanced.

Although the Interpretation takes value as the basic standard for conviction and sentencing, it requires other circumstances to be taken into account in the handling of specific cases.

For example, if the ringleader of a criminal group or in order to evade supervision, use special means of transport to commit crimes, heavier penalties will be imposed.

In addition, when determining whether a relevant act constitutes a crime and deciding whether to impose a penalty, consideration should be given to whether the animal involved is artificially bred, the endangered degree of the species, the survival status in the wild, the situation of artificial breeding, whether it is included in the list of artificially bred national key protected wild animals, and the behavior Measures, the degree of damage to wildlife resources, and the degree of awareness of wild animals and their products, etc., comprehensively assess the social harm, accurately determine whether a crime is constituted, and appropriately determine the penalty to ensure that the culpability and punishment are appropriate.

Q: The protection of wild animals is an important part of maintaining biodiversity and ecological balance and promoting the construction of ecological civilization.

May I ask what the Interpretation has considered in severely punishing crimes of destroying wildlife resources and protecting wildlife resources?

　　A: At present, the crime of destroying wildlife resources is still at a high rate.

Based on the situation of the crime of destroying wildlife resources, in accordance with the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress and the spirit of the Criminal Law Amendment (11), the Interpretation will adhere to the principle of severe punishment and protect wildlife resources as a consistent main line.

Specifically, it is reflected in the following aspects:

　　The first is to strictly set the standards for conviction and sentencing of crimes of destroying wildlife resources.

The "Interpretation" sets the conviction and sentencing standards for crimes such as smuggling precious animals, precious animal products, illegal fishing of aquatic products, endangering precious and endangered wild animals, and illegal hunting, and generally adheres to the principle of severe punishment. Incriminating and Upgrading Sentencing Standards.

　　The second is to highlight the severe punishment of specific crimes that destroy wildlife resources.

The Interpretation, on the basis of setting standards for conviction and sentencing for crimes of destroying wildlife resources, and based on the requirements of the criminal policy of combining leniency with strictness, sets a heavier punishment.

Taking the crime of endangering precious and endangered wild animals as an example, the "Interpretation" stipulates that a heavier punishment shall be imposed if one of the following circumstances occurs: (1) he belongs to the ringleader of a criminal group; (2) he uses special means of transport to avoid supervision; (3) Seriously affecting the scientific research work of wild animals; (4) Those who have received administrative penalties for destroying wild animal resources within two years.

　　The third is to realize the whole chain of punishment for crimes of destroying wildlife resources.

At present, the crime of destroying wildlife resources forms an interest chain of "fishing/hunting-purchasing-selling", which not only punishes the front-end illegal fishing and hunting links, but also punishes the subsequent links of selling stolen goods.

Based on this, the Interpretation makes it clear that those who purchase or sell illegally caught aquatic products or illegally hunted wild animals may be convicted and punished for the crime of disguising or concealing the proceeds of crime.

The "Interpretation" also clarifies the conviction and sentencing standards for the crime of illegally hunting, purchasing, transporting, and selling terrestrial wildlife for the purpose of consumption, which is newly added in Amendment (XI) to the Criminal Law.

　　The fourth is to promote and improve the two-way connection mechanism of executions.

The "Interpretation" clearly stipulates that for those who are not prosecuted or exempted from criminal punishment for carrying out the relevant acts stipulated in this Interpretation, if they should be given administrative punishments, governmental sanctions or other sanctions according to law, they shall be transferred to the relevant competent authorities for handling according to law.

In the next step, we will jointly promote the establishment and improvement of law enforcement and judicial information sharing, case information, and case transfer systems with administrative law enforcement agencies and public security agencies, and promote the seamless and two-way connection between administrative law enforcement and criminal justice. ".

Q: Due to economic and social development, cases involving wildlife resources have shown the characteristics of diversity and complexity in recent years. The standards for conviction and sentencing of relevant judicial interpretations cannot fully adapt to the complex circumstances of the case, and the handling of relevant cases has aroused concern and even doubts.

Excuse me, what does the Interpretation consider this, and how to ensure the effectiveness of the handling of relevant cases?

　　A: Since the 2000 Interpretation of Animal Crimes and the 2014 Interpretation of Smuggling Crimes stipulate the standards for conviction and sentencing of relevant crimes according to the number of animals involved, under the background of rapid economic and social development, it is difficult to adapt to the handling of relevant cases complicated situation.

Based on this, the Interpretation has made special considerations in the design of the clauses, and strives to achieve the organic unity of the "three effects" of handling criminal cases of destruction of wildlife resources.

　　First, adjust the quantitative standard of conviction and sentencing to the value standard, so as to better achieve the balance of crime and punishment.

Previous judicial interpretations have stipulated the standards for conviction and sentencing of relevant crimes according to the number of animals involved.

The "Interpretation" takes into account the large differences between different wild animals, and changes to value as the basic conviction and sentencing standard for crimes of destroying wildlife resources.

It should be emphasized that the "value" here does not only include market value, but mainly the value determined by the wildlife protection department of the State Council based on the comprehensive evaluation of the preciousness, endangerment degree, ecological value and market value of wild animals.

After this adjustment, it is no longer a "criminal" for wild animals of lesser value, but a comprehensive consideration based on value, reflecting the requirements of the principle of adapting the crime, responsibility and punishment.

　　Second, adhere to the principle of comprehensive discretion and ensure that leniency and strictness are balanced.

Considering that conviction and sentencing based solely on value standards may still be paranoid and unable to adapt to the complex circumstances of specific cases, the Interpretation on the one hand clearly stipulates the basic circumstances for determining conviction and sentencing, namely value standards, on the other hand, it does not only Axiology, but stipulates that other circumstances should be taken into account.

At the same time, in practice, the situation of cases involving wild animals is very complicated.

Based on this, the Interpretation makes special provisions so that judicial practice can be flexibly and appropriately discretionary according to the specific circumstances of individual cases, and implement the principle of adapting guilt to punishment and the criminal policy of combining leniency and severity.

　　It needs to be emphasized that in judicial practice, it is necessary to be good at using comprehensive discretionary rules, dare to exercise the discretion of prosecution and trial, and properly handle relevant cases.

For example, in judicial practice in the past, the "two prohibitions" were often used as the criminalization criteria, that is, "the use of electric fish, poisonous fish, fried fish and other prohibited methods or prohibited tools to seriously damage fishery resources in the prohibited fishing area" "during the fishing ban period" Fishing with prohibited methods or prohibited tools that seriously damage fishery resources, such as electric fish, poisonous fish, and fried fish, constitutes the crime of illegal fishing of aquatic products.

However, the quantity of aquatic products caught under the above circumstances varies greatly. Some are hundreds of kilograms or even thousands of kilograms, while others are only a few kilograms with a value of only tens of yuan. Moreover, it is the first offense, and all of them will be convicted. strict.

Based on this, the Interpretation specifically stipulates that cases of illegal fishing of aquatic products that meet the "two prohibitions" standards, according to the quantity, value, fishing methods, tools and other circumstances of the catch, it is considered that the harm to aquatic biological resources is obviously less, comprehensive consideration. Where the perpetrator voluntarily accepts administrative punishment, actively restores the ecological environment, etc., it can be determined that the crime is minor, and no prosecution or criminal punishment is waived; where the circumstances are significant and minor and the harm is not great, it shall not be treated as a crime.

This provision gives the judiciary a certain discretion, and can comprehensively evaluate the specific harm to the fishery resources by comprehensively considering the minimum mesh size of the net gear, the power intensity of the fishing gear, the proportion of juvenile fish in the catch, etc. Properly handle.

If the quantity of fished aquatic products is small and the value is small, but the damage to aquatic resources is relatively large, they should also be convicted and punished; for the fished aquatic products with small quantity and small value, and the harm to aquatic resources is obviously less, no punishment shall be given. criminal prosecution.

For another example, with the increase in the number of wild animals, the harm caused by wild animals has occurred from time to time, and even people have been injured.

Some farmers take preventive measures to hunt wild boars in order to protect crops from damage. For such cases, they should seek truth from facts and make comprehensive judgments.

Q: What does the Interpretation take into account in cases involving artificial breeding of wild animals, and how to ensure the effectiveness of judgments in relevant cases?

　　A: In recent years, the handling of some cases involving artificial breeding of wild animals has aroused social concern.

Properly clarifying the legal and policy boundaries of such cases and ensuring that the handling of relevant cases is both based on the law and in line with the people's concept of fairness and justice is one of the key issues to be considered in the formulation of the Interpretation.

　　On the one hand, artificial breeding of wild animals also belongs to the category of wild animals and is also within the scope of protection of the criminal law.

Article 28 of the Wildlife Protection Law stipulates that "for wild animals under national key protection with mature and stable artificial breeding technology, after scientific demonstration, they shall be included in the list of artificially bred wild animals under national key protection formulated by the competent department of wildlife protection under the State Council". When adjusting the list of wildlife under national key protection as prescribed in Article 10, according to the protection of relevant wild populations, the artificial population of wild animals with mature and stable artificial breeding technology as specified in the preceding paragraph may no longer be included in the list of wildlife under state key protection. , implement different management measures from those in the wild, but shall obtain the artificial breeding license and special identification in accordance with the provisions of Article 25, paragraph 2 and the first paragraph of this article.

From this, it can be clearly drawn that the wild animals under national key protection include artificially bred animals.

For example, many giant pandas are artificially bred.

Excluding artificially bred giant pandas from the protection of the criminal law is obviously not in line with the law, nor is it in line with common sense.

　　On the other hand, artificial breeding of wild animals does have particularity and complexity, which requires specific analysis and differentiated treatment.

In view of this, the "Interpretation" further clarifies the handling rules for cases of artificial breeding of wild animals, stipulating that the animals involved are artificially bred, and if one of the following circumstances occurs, the case involved will generally not be treated as a crime; , shall be dealt with leniently in accordance with the law:

　　First, it is included in the list of artificially bred national key protected wild animals.

With the development of economy and society and the improvement of scientific research level, breakthroughs have been made in the artificial breeding of many wild animals, and some rare and endangered wild animals have formed stable artificial breeding populations that are completely independent of wild resources.

According to the first paragraph of Article 28 of the Wildlife Protection Law, there are currently three batches of 30 species of animals that have been included in the corresponding artificially bred national key protected wild animal list.

　　The second is that the artificial breeding technology is mature and has reached a scale, and it is used for pet trading and transportation.

From a practical point of view, some wild animals have been artificially bred for a long time and the technology is mature, and the criminal investigation of related cases should be more cautious.

For example, according to media reports, the native place of Fei's peony parrot is the African tropical jungle, which is listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and has been approved as a national second-class protected wild animal.

Since the 1980s, the Fei's peony parrot was introduced into my country. It has been artificially bred for more than 30 years, and the technology is very mature.

Due to historical reasons, most of the documents are incomplete.

For such cases, the investigation of criminal responsibility should be particularly cautious, and the focus should be on solving them through the improvement of relevant administrative management.

Question: "Only law is not enough." After the "Interpretation" was released, what did the "two high authorities" think about the implementation work?

　　A: The Interpretation is an important measure for the "two highs" to thoroughly implement Xi Jinping's thought on ecological civilization.

The promulgation and implementation of the Interpretation will surely play an important role in punishing crimes of destroying wildlife resources in accordance with the law, protecting the ecological environment, and maintaining biodiversity and ecological balance.

In the next step, the "two highs" will guide the local people's courts and people's procuratorates at all levels to strictly implement the provisions of the Criminal Law and the "Interpretation", give full play to the role of judicial functions, and continuously increase the criminal judicial protection of wildlife resources.

　　The first is to punish crimes of destroying wildlife resources in accordance with the law.

The "two highs" will take effective measures to guide the local people's courts and people's procuratorates at all levels to correctly understand and accurately apply the Criminal Law and the "Interpretation", and handle the smuggling of precious animals, precious animal products, illegal fishing of aquatic products, harm to precious and endangered wild animals in accordance with the law Animals, illegal hunting and other related cases, highlight the key points of the crackdown, demonstrate the stance of severe punishment, and respond to social concerns.

　　The second is to strengthen the source management and comprehensive management of crimes of destroying wildlife resources.

Further improve and improve the construction of the execution link mechanism in the field of wildlife resources, help to promote the relevant administrative departments to strengthen the administrative law enforcement and management of wildlife resources, and effectively prevent the occurrence of crimes of destroying wildlife resources from the source.

　　The third is to strengthen law popularization and publicity.

Conscientiously implement the responsibility system of "who enforces the law, who popularizes the law", handle related criminal cases related to the destruction of wildlife resources, pay attention to publicizing the concept of restorative justice in the field of ecological environment, guide the general public to strengthen the concept of protecting wild animals, promoting the harmonious coexistence of humans and nature, and eliminate abuses. The bad habit of eating wild animals, maintain biological security and ecological security, and effectively strengthen the construction of ecological civilization.