According to the website of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, a few days ago, the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the China Coast Guard issued the "Typical Cases of Handling Crimes Related to Illegal Sand Mining at Sea."
In recent years, with the increasing demand for sand in the construction market, the price of sand and gravel has risen sharply, and some criminals have been driven by interests to engage in criminal activities related to illegal sand mining at sea, forming a black industrial chain of mining, transportation and marketing. Sea sand is widely distributed in China and is an important marine mineral resource second only to oil and natural gas. Illegal exploitation of sea sand not only seriously damages the country's mineral resources, but also affects coastal zones and marine geological formations, and destroys marine biodiversity. The chloride ion content of sea sand exceeds the standard, and untreated use as building materials will bring potential safety hazards to the quality of construction projects and seriously threaten the safety of people's lives and property.
In order to guide procuratorial organs and coast guard agencies to accurately apply the law, severely crack down on crimes related to illegal sand mining at sea in accordance with the law, warn the society, and protect marine natural resources and ecological environment, the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the China Coast Guard have selected five cases, including "Wang Mouming and 4 others illegal mining case", as typical cases for handling crimes related to illegal sand mining at sea, as follows:
Case one
Wang Mouming and 4 other people illegal mining case
【Keywords】
Illegal mining crime Prior conspiracy Joint crime Determination of the value of sea sand
【Essence】
If the perpetrator contacts the criminals of illegal sea sand mining in advance about the time, place, price and trading method of sea sand, and instructs or drives a transport ship to the designated sea area to directly transfer and transport and sell the sand mining vessel, it is a prior conspiracy and is convicted and punished as the crime of illegal mining.
For the value of the sea sand involved in the case, if there is a stolen amount, it is generally determined according to the amount of stolen goods; Where the amount of stolen goods is not sold, the amount of stolen goods is difficult to verify, or it is obviously unreasonable to be determined based on the amount of stolen goods, it shall be determined according to the market price and quantity of sea sand. Where the value of sea sand is difficult to determine, the determination shall be made on the basis of the report issued by the local price certification agency or the competent departments of natural resources, water administration, ocean, etc. of the people's government at or above the provincial level, combined with other evidence.
【Basic facts of the case】
In May 2020, Wang Mouming, Wang Moumou, Song Moumou, Wang Moushun and others jointly funded the purchase of a transport ship, intending to make a profit by engaging in the trading of sea sand. From July to August of the same year, Wang Mouming contacted the illegal sand miner (to be dealt with in a separate case) in advance about ordering sea sand, and instructed the crew to drive the transport ship to the waters near the mouth of the Minjiang River in Fujian Province five times to purchase sea sand and transport it to Changshu, Jiangsu Province for sale. As the captain, Wang Moumou, after receiving the geographical coordinates and high-frequency call signs sent by Wang Mouming, contacted the illegal sand mining party to transfer the sea sand. As a financial officer, Song is responsible for paying for the purchase of sand. On September 5, 7, Wang Mouming, Wang Moumou, Song Moumou, Wang Moushun and others purchased sea sand again in the above way, and were seized by coast guard law enforcement officers on the way back. After testing and assessment, the seized sea sand was fine sand, totaling 8,2020 tons.
【Case Handling Process】
Scouting collaboration. On September 2020, 9, the Baoshan Coast Police Bureau opened a case for investigation on the suspicion of Wang Mouming and others for the crime of illegal mining, and the Shanghai Railway Transportation Procuratorate was invited to simultaneously send personnel to intervene in the investigation. By combing and analyzing evidence materials such as interrogations, interrogation records, communication and chat records, billing, bank flows and the trajectory of the ship identification system, the procurators put forward specific investigation suggestions on the focus issues such as the batch, composition, quantity and value of the sea sand involved in the case, the scope of the personnel involved and whether there was prior collusion with the sand mining party: first, entrust a price appraisal agency to determine the value of the sea sand involved in the case; The second is to further ascertain the status and role of the personnel involved in all links; The third is to promptly collect evidence such as the ship's trajectory, mobile phone electronic data of the persons involved in the case, bank transfer records, and dock unloading records, and then verify the facts of previous crimes and determine whether the persons involved in the case and the illegal sand mining party have colluded in advance.
On October 2020, 10 and March 16, 2021, the Baoshan Coast Police Bureau successively requested approval for arrest of Wang Mouming, Wang Moumou, and Song Moumou, who played a major role. After the procuratorate made the decision to approve the arrest in accordance with the law, it put forward continuing supplementary investigation opinions on issues such as whether other persons involved in the case constituted a crime: First, verify whether other transport ship financiers participated in illegal sand mining. It is not appropriate to treat as a crime for a funder of a transport vessel that only proves that it contributes capital and participates in profit sharing, but cannot prove that it knows that the vessel is actually used for sea sand transportation, nor can it prove that it participates in illegal sand mining; The second is to verify whether the crew simply provides labor services, participates in profit sharing or receives high fixed wages; Third, for the funder of a transport ship that constitutes a crime, it should combine the confessions of the persons involved in the case and electronic data and other evidence to distinguish the status and role in the joint crime, and accurately identify the principal offender and the accomplice.
Review of prosecutions. On March 2021 and April 3, 22, the Baoshan Coast Police Bureau successively transferred Wang Mouming, Wang Moumou, Song Moumou and Wang Moushun to the Shanghai Railway Transportation Procuratorate for review and prosecution on suspicion of illegal mining.
After review, the procuratorate held that the WeChat chat records extracted and the evidence of the words of many people on the sand transport ship could confirm that, after consultation with some investors, Wang Mouming contacted the illegal sand mining party before going to sea to agree on the transfer location, weight, price and the high-frequency number used for the connection, and after Wang, Song and others arrived at the transfer point by boat according to the prior agreement, Wang Moumou called and directed the sand mining party to load and unload the sea sand excavated at the site through high-frequency calls, and Song Moumou paid the sand purchase price according to the prior agreement. Based on this, it can be determined that Wang Mouming and others had prior conspiracy with the sand mining party, and should be investigated for criminal responsibility for the crime of illegal mining. At the same time, the procuratorate focuses on examining whether the criminal suspect has previously illegally purchased and transported sea sand. According to the ship's navigation records, the procurator in charge found that the ship involved in the case also had five voyages between Jiangsu and Fujian, and there was a criminal suspicion of engaging in illegal sand mining in the past. The procuratorate believes that although the confessions and defenses of the criminal suspects are not consistent, there are objective evidence such as the ship's trajectory that can prove that the ship involved in the case has been to the sand mining site, and there are bills and dock unloading records that can prove the fact of purchasing and transporting sea sand, and can corroborate the confessions of some criminal suspects, and the evidence of the whole case can form a complete chain of evidence, which is sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the procuratorate additionally determined that the criminal suspects had illegally purchased sea sand, and found that the sales amount of four of them totaled 272,24,11 yuan, and the purchase price of another sea sand was 2,12407 yuan. In addition, the 52,<> tons of sea sand seized on the spot were determined to be worth more than <>,<> yuan according to the "CIF price" and the assessment report issued by relevant institutions. The procuratorial organs distinguish between principal offenders and accessories according to the size of the role played by each criminal suspect in different links such as ordering, transferring, payment, and profit distribution, and comprehensively consider the criminal facts and circumstances of each criminal suspect, the attitude of admitting guilt, and the voluntary restitution, and proposed a sentencing recommendation for Wang Mouming and the other four to be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment ranging from one year and three months to three years and five months, and a fine, and put forward a sentencing recommendation for Wang Moushun, who participated in fewer crimes and had a low proportion of funds, and proposed a sentencing recommendation for the application of suspended sentences. All four suspects voluntarily pleaded guilty and accepted punishment.
On April 2021, 4, the Shanghai Railway Transportation Procuratorate filed a public indictment with the people's court on suspicion of illegal mining by Wang Mouming, Wang Moumou, Song Moumou and Wang Moushun.
Accusation and proof of crime. On June 2021, 6, the Shanghai Railway Transportation Court held a public hearing in accordance with the law. During the trial, the four defendants and their defenders did not dispute the basic facts of the crime, but during the court argument, Wang's defender argued that he was not the direct perpetrator of the illegal mining of sea sand and should not be recognized as the main culprit.
The prosecutor replied in court: First, the determination of the principal offender and accessory should be based on whether the defendant played a primary or secondary or auxiliary role in the joint crime, and should not be identified as an accessory because the defendant did not directly participate in the illegal mining of sea sand. For the crime of illegal sand mining of "promoting mining by sales", although the sand carrier is not the direct perpetrator of the illegal mining of sea sand, but the ordering and transportation behavior directly promotes the sand mining party to carry out illegal mining activities more frequently, and the sand buyer makes huge profits through the method of "buying low and selling high", and is a participant and profitee of illegal sea sand mining, and should not be recognized as an accomplice. Second, for the funder and captain of the transport ship in the case of illegal sand mining, the identity should not be used as the standard for distinguishing between the principal offender and the accessory, and should be determined by comprehensively considering subjective knowledge, degree of participation and profit. In this case, although the four defendants were all contributors to the transport vessel, their participation roles were different, Wang Mouming, as the actual controller of the transport vessel, was responsible for contacting the sand miner to order sea sand in advance, and Wang Moumou was responsible for contacting the sand miner through high-frequency calls near the transfer point, and directed the sea sand barge, which played a major role in the joint crime and should be recognized as the main offender; Song Moumou is only responsible for paying the sand purchase price according to Wang Mouming's instructions, and Wang Moushun is only responsible for miscellaneous affairs, and his role is relatively small and the profit share obtained is small, and he should be recognized as an accomplice.
Outcome of the trial. On June 2021, 6, the Shanghai Railway Transportation Court rendered a first-instance judgment, adopting the criminal facts and sentencing recommendations charged by the Shanghai Railway Transportation Procuratorate, and sentenced Wang Mouming and the other three defendants to fixed-term imprisonment ranging from three years and five months to two years for the crime of illegal mining, and fined them between 22,80000 and 40000,30000 yuan; Wang was sentenced to one year and three months in prison, suspended for two years, and fined <>,<> yuan for illegal mining. After the verdict of the first instance was pronounced, none of the defendants appealed, and the verdict took effect.
【Typical significance】
(1) Accurately distinguish between the crime of illegal mining and the crime of concealing or concealing the proceeds of crime based on whether there is prior collusion. When reviewing the case, it should be determined whether the sand purchaser and the sand mining party have colluded in advance based on the specific contact between the perpetrator and the illegal sea sand mining criminals based on the specific contact transaction time, place, quantity, price, transaction method, etc. of the perpetrator and the illegal sea sand mining criminal. There is evidence to prove that before or during illegal sand mining, the perpetrator purchases sea sand through radio, satellite telephone, Internet communication tools, etc., and instructs or drives a transport ship to the agreed sea area to directly transfer, transport and sell sand mining site, which is a prior conspiracy and constitutes the crime of illegal mining. Those who purchase and transport sea sand after the completion of illegal sand mining without prior collusion shall be convicted and punished for the crime of concealing or concealing the proceeds of crime.
(2) Accurately determine the value of sea sand according to the situation of selling stolen goods and seizures in different links. For the value of the sea sand involved in the case, if there is a stolen amount, it is generally determined according to the amount of stolen goods; Where the amount of stolen goods is not sold, the amount of stolen goods is difficult to verify, or it is determined that it is obviously unreasonable based on the amount of stolen goods, it shall be determined according to the market price and quantity of sea sand. Illegally mined sea sand is sold in different links, and the costs incurred in the process of illegal mining, transportation, storage, etc., shall not be deducted from the amount of stolen goods. Where the value of sea sand is difficult to determine due to sales, loss, etc., but is confirmed by sales records, accounting vouchers, confessions of co-defendants and witness testimony, etc., the determination may be made on the basis of reports issued by local price certification agencies or competent departments such as natural resources, water administration, oceans and other departments of people's governments at or above the provincial level, combined with relevant evidence. Where it is necessary to assess or appraise the value of sea sand, it shall generally be based on the local sea sand market transaction price at the end of the criminal act or the average market price of local sea sand during illegal sand mining. For example, the value of sea sand seized at illegal sand mining sites and during transportation is determined by the price of effluent; The value of sea sand that has not yet been sold after completion of transportation and unloading is determined by the CIF price. If there is no sea sand market transaction price in the local county (city, district), you can refer to the sea sand market transaction price in the surrounding area.
【相关规定】
《中华人民共和国刑法》第二十五条第一款、第二十六条、第二十七条、第三百四十三条第一款
《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理非法采矿、破坏性采矿刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》(法释〔2016〕25号)第三条、第五条、第八条、第十一条、第十三条
案例二
米某某等8人非法采矿案
【关键词】
非法采矿罪 航道清淤疏浚 共同犯罪 宽严相济
【要旨】
行为人取得疏浚工程许可，以航道清淤疏浚为名，在未办理海域使用权证和采矿许可证的情况下，以出售疏浚物海砂牟利为目的抽采海砂，情节严重的，应当以非法采矿罪定罪处罚。
办理非法采砂共同犯罪案件，应贯彻宽严相济刑事政策，依法分层处理、区别对待。
【基本案情】
2019年6月，米某某在未取得海域使用权证和采矿许可证的情况下，挂靠某公司以每立方米1元的施工费承包了某游艇码头航道清淤疏浚工程，并办理了航道清淤疏浚工程施工手续。海南省陵水县自然资源和规划局在施工手续中明确要求，项目砂质疏浚物只能用于回填修复被损毁的海岸线，不得上岸、外运及转卖。2019年9月，米某某找到林某某、梁某甲、张某某等人，商定由林某某等人具体负责疏浚施工，将抽采出的海砂出售，所得钱款按事先约定分赃牟利。
2020年4月，林某某通过梁某乙联系租赁施工船舶，林某某父亲林某帮助签订租船合同并支付租金，梁某甲雇佣其弟弟梁某丙管理运作非法抽采海砂收支等。林某某通过梁某乙的介绍和帮助，联系到海砂收购方陈某，双方签订了疏浚物接收协议。2020年5月2日晚，张某某等人指挥施工船进行抽砂作业，陈某到实地查看海砂后，双方商定收购海砂的价格为每吨32元。次日，张某某指挥施工船将抽采的海砂过驳到运输船，陈某按照运输船满载量6700吨支付购砂款214400元，抽采的海砂被运往海南省澄迈县马村港后被查获。经鉴定，采挖的涉案疏浚物属于非金属矿产资源中的天然石英砂，方量为4093.51立方米，价值122805元。
【案件办理过程】
侦查协作。三亚海警局陵水工作站(简称海警陵水工作站)立案侦查后，鉴于案件较为疑难、证据比较薄弱，邀请陵水黎族自治县人民检察院(简称陵水县检察院)派员介入侦查、引导取证。陵水县检察院通过查阅案件卷宗、听取海警机构介绍侦查进展情况、联合召开案件讨论会等方式，及时针对案件定性和调查取证方向、策略等提出具体意见。经过海警侦查人员和检察官的通力协作，一是查明了米某某承包该疏浚工程的营利点不是发包方的施工费，而是以疏浚为名，通过出售海砂进行牟利的事实；二是收集到内部合作协议、转账记录等证明米某某、林某某、梁某甲等人商量出售海砂的关键证据，证实了米某某等人非法采矿的主观故意；三是通过调取银行流水清单，查明了该案陈某向米某某、梁某甲支付购砂款的关键事实，使本案证据链完全闭合。海警陵水工作站于2021年6月28日提请批准逮捕米某某、张某某、梁某甲，于8月17日提请批准逮捕林某某、梁某乙、林某、梁某丙。陵水县检察院依法对共同犯罪中发挥作用较大的米某某、林某某、梁某甲、张某某批准逮捕，对共同犯罪中发挥作用较小且没有社会危险性的梁某乙、林某、梁某丙不批准逮捕。
审查起诉。2021年9月3日，海警陵水工作站以米某某、林某某、张某某、梁某甲、林某、梁某乙、梁某丙、陈某等8人涉嫌非法采矿罪移送陵水县检察院审查起诉。经审查，陵水县检察院对犯罪情节轻微的从犯林某、梁某乙、梁某丙、陈某依法作不起诉处理，向陵水县综合行政执法局提出给予行政处罚、没收违法所得的检察意见。2021年10月15日，陵水县检察院以米某某、林某某、梁某甲、张某某犯非法采矿罪向人民法院提起公诉，并建议判处米某某有期徒刑一年，并处罚金20000元；林某某、梁某甲有期徒刑十个月，并处罚金15000元；张某某有期徒刑九个月，并处罚金10000元。
指控与证明犯罪。2021年12月29日，陵水黎族自治县人民法院依法公开开庭审理本案。米某某、林某某、梁某甲、张某某当庭对指控事实、罪名没有异议。被告人米某某的辩护人提出辩护意见：一是被告人米某某承包的疏浚工程已取得合法手续，其行为系合法疏浚，未实施法律及司法解释规定的非法采矿行为；二是抽采的海砂中存在杂质，海砂价格认定未去除杂质，如去除杂质海砂价值可能达不到犯罪标准。公诉人对辩护意见进行答辩：一是内部合作协议、被告人的供述和辩解等关键证据，足以证实被告人米某某与林某某、梁某甲等人共谋，以疏浚为幌子，抽采海砂出售牟利的事实。陵水县自然资源和规划局关于对该疏浚工程疏浚物处置报备的复函中，明确要求砂质疏浚物必须用于游艇码头南侧防波堤以南被损毁的海岸带回填修复，不得上岸、外运及转卖。被告人米某某等人在明知疏浚工程的砂质疏浚物相关处置要求的情况下，仍通过出售疏浚物海砂牟利，其行为的本质系抽采海砂出售牟利，疏浚工程只是幌子。二是物证海砂和鉴定意见以及支付海砂货款的银行流水清单、海砂收购方陈某的供述和辩解，足以证明涉案海砂实际出售价格达到了犯罪标准。
审理结果。2022年2月14日，陵水黎族自治县人民法院作出一审判决，采纳了检察机关指控的全部犯罪事实及量刑建议。米某某、林某某不服一审判决提出上诉，海南省第一中级人民法院二审裁定驳回上诉，维持原判。
【典型意义】
(一)未取得海砂开采海域使用权证及采矿许可证，以疏浚为名抽采海砂出售牟利的行为系非法采矿。近年来，非法采矿呈现犯罪手段多样化特点，由传统无证开采向披着合法外衣行盗采之实转变的趋势明显，隐蔽性更强。有的不法分子打着航道清淤疏浚工程的幌子，在未取得海砂开采海域使用权证及采矿许可证的情况下抽采海砂并出售牟利，本质上是一种非法采矿的行为，情节严重的，应以非法采矿罪追究刑事责任。在办理此类案件时，针对行为人提出自己是合法疏浚、没有非法采矿故意的辩解，应着重审查行为人是否以出售疏浚物海砂牟利为目的抽采海砂，坚持主客观相一致，确保定性准确。
(二)办理非法采砂共同犯罪案件应坚持宽严相济刑事政策，对涉案人员分层处理、区别对待。在办理涉案人数较多、存在不同分工的非法采砂案件中，要整体把握涉案人员在共同犯罪中的地位、作用。在提前介入、审查逮捕、审查起诉各办案阶段，坚持宽严相济，对犯罪作用大、对抗查办的涉案人员，依法从严处理；对认罪认罚、积极配合司法机关查清案件、犯罪情节较轻的涉案人员，依法从宽处理。
【相关规定】
《中华人民共和国刑法》第二十五条第一款、第二十六条、第二十七条、第三百四十三条第一款
《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理非法采矿、破坏性采矿刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》(法释〔2016〕25号)第二条、第三条、第五条、第七条、第十一条、第十三条
案例三
林某某、高某某非法采矿案
【关键词】
非法采矿罪 受雇提供劳务的人员 共同犯罪 民事公益诉讼 连带赔偿责任 替代性修复
【要旨】
对受雇为非法采矿犯罪提供劳务的人员是否以犯罪论处，不能仅考虑其是否参与利润分成或者领取高额固定工资，应当结合其在整个犯罪中发挥的作用、参与犯罪的程度、次数等进行综合判断。对受雇为非法采矿犯罪长期、多次提供劳务的人，应当以共犯论处。雇员与雇主共同破坏海洋自然资源和生态环境的，人民检察院在提起民事公益诉讼时，可以请求法院判令雇员与雇主对海洋生态环境修复承担连带赔偿责任。
民事公益诉讼被告不能直接修复受损生态环境且一次性承担全部海洋生态损害修复费用确有困难的，可以通过分期认购碳汇、劳务代偿等方式开展替代性修复。
【基本案情】
2019年9月间，林某某在未取得海域使用权证和采矿许可证的情况下，指使高某某驾驶船舶，到福建省福安市湾坞镇、下白石镇“半屿”等海域非法采挖海砂，并运输至福建省宁德金蛇头工地、六都等码头，以每立方米12.5元至18元不等的价格出售给他人。林某某、高某某共盗采海砂17次，累计11295.33立方米，销售价值合计167659元。经评估认定，林某某、高某某非法开采海砂致海洋生态资源环境损害整体影响价值共计680298.19元。
【案件办理过程】
(一)刑事案件办理过程
诉讼过程和结果。本案由宁德海警局于2019年10月9日立案侦查，2020年1月2日移送宁德市人民检察院(简称宁德市检察院)审查起诉。宁德市检察院经审查认为，本案不足以判处无期徒刑以上刑罚，依照刑事诉讼法关于级别管辖的规定，将本案交由犯罪行为地的基层人民检察院福安市人民检察院(简称福安市检察院)审查起诉。同年8月24日，福安市检察院以被告人林某某、高某某犯非法采矿罪提起公诉。2021年1月11日，福安市人民法院作出一审判决，认定林某某、高某某违反矿产资源法规，未取得海砂开采海域使用权证和采矿许可证，结伙擅自采挖海砂，情节严重，其行为均构成非法采矿罪。鉴于林某某具有自首、退出违法所得、缴纳部分生态修复费用等情节，综合考量其犯罪情节且悔罪表现明显，适用缓刑对其居住社区没有重大不良影响，符合适用缓刑条件，以非法采矿罪判处林某某有期徒刑一年三个月，缓刑二年，并处罚金20000元；鉴于高某某受雇采挖海砂，在共同犯罪中罪责相对较轻，酌情从轻处罚，根据其犯罪情节和悔罪表现，适用缓刑对其居住社区没有重大不良影响，符合适用缓刑条件，判处有期徒刑十个月，缓刑二年，并处罚金15000元。判决将宁德海警局扣押的被告人林某某违法所得和海砂予以没收，对船舶上的采砂、卸砂设备予以拆除没收；其他设备及船体由扣押机关依法处理。
(二)公益诉讼案件办理过程
线索发现和立案调查。福安市人民法院一审判决发生法律效力后，宁德市检察院通过审阅林某某、高某某非法采矿案的刑事判决书，认为二被告人非法盗采海砂可能存在破坏海洋自然资源和生态环境、损害社会公共利益的情形，福安市检察院未提起刑事附带民事公益诉讼。根据福建省人民检察院、福建省自然资源厅等七部门联合印发的《关于在涉海洋公益诉讼和生态检察工作中加强协作配合的意见》，宁德市检察院协调宁德海警局委托自然资源部海岛研究中心对海洋生态损害价值进行评估，认定林某某、高某某非法盗采海砂致海洋生态资源环境损害整体影响价值680298.19元。宁德市检察院认为，有必要对林某某、高某某另行提起民事公益诉讼，遂于2021年6月25日进行民事公益诉讼立案并进行诉前公告。
提起诉讼。经诉前公告，公告期届满没有法律规定的机关和社会组织向人民法院提起民事公益诉讼，宁德市检察院于2021年9月29日向宁德市中级人民法院(简称宁德中级法院)提起诉讼，请求判令被告林某某、高某某连带赔偿生态环境损害修复费用共计680298.19元。宁德中级法院认为本案虽系宁德市检察院提起的民事公益诉讼，但诉请及目的是赔偿生态环境修复费用，属于海洋自然资源与生态环境损害赔偿诉讼，应当优先适用《最高人民法院审理海洋自然资源与生态环境损害赔偿纠纷案件若干问题的规定》，本案应由厦门海事法院管辖。2021年12月22日，宁德中级法院将本案移送厦门海事法院。厦门海事法院于2022年1月6日作出受理决定。
审理过程。2022年6月16日，厦门海事法院公开开庭审理了本案。宁德市检察院通过多媒体示证的方式就被告违法行为、损害后果、因果关系、诉讼请求逐项进行举证、质证，并安排自然资源部海岛研究中心专家出庭，就本案海域生态损失、海岸生态损失、滨海旅游损失、海滩修复成本等海洋生态环境损害价值发表专家意见。二被告对检察机关主张的违法事实、提出的诉讼请求基本无异议。但被告高某某认为，其系被雇佣参与非法采矿，应由雇主对雇员造成的损害后果承担侵权责任。检察机关认为，高某某虽为雇员，其知道或者应当知道雇主所作的指示违反法律规定且会导致海洋生态环境资源损害后果，仍然按照雇主指示实施违法行为，对海洋自然资源和生态环境资源造成破坏，其违法行为与实际损害之间具有直接的因果关系，符合侵权行为的构成要件，因此，高某某与林某某构成共同侵权，应承担连带赔偿责任。
审理结果。诉讼过程中，综合考虑本案生态修复需要、二被告的财务状态、预期收入、赔偿意愿等，宁德市检察院与二被告在厦门海事法院主持下达成以下调解协议：二被告连带赔偿海洋生态环境损害修复费用680298.19元，其中180000元由二被告以自愿认购海洋碳汇的方式分3年履行，每年10月需委托海峡资源环境交易中心一次性认购60000元的海洋碳汇；剩余赔偿款由二被告通过公益性劳务代偿方式履行，签订履约协议，承担宁德三都澳海域海洋环境治理辅助工作，包括但不限于海洋垃圾打捞、海岸维护、海洋环境保护宣传等，期限酌定为三年，期满后劳务不足以抵偿的，仍需承担赔偿责任。厦门海事法院对上述调解协议进行了为期三十日的公告，公告期满后未收到不同意见，遂于2022年10月19日作出民事调解书，对调解协议内容依法予以确认。目前，二被告正在履行调解协议过程中。
【典型意义】
(一)准确认定受雇为非法采矿犯罪提供劳务人员的法律责任。《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理非法采矿、破坏性采矿刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第十一条规定：“对受雇为非法采矿、破坏性采矿犯罪提供劳务的人员，除参与利润分成或者领取高额固定工资外，一般不以犯罪论处，但曾因非法采矿、破坏性采矿受过处罚的除外。”上述规定是贯彻宽严相济刑事政策的体现，“一般不以犯罪论处”不是“一律不以犯罪论处”，不能仅以是否参与利润分成或者领取高额固定工资作为是否追究受雇提供劳务人员刑事责任的唯一考虑因素。对于虽然系受雇佣人员，但并非单纯提供劳务，而是在犯罪过程中发挥较大作用的，不适用“一般不以犯罪论处”的规定。例如，明知他人实施非法采挖、收购海砂犯罪，仍多次为其提供开采、装卸、运输、销售等实质性帮助行为，情节较重的；在相关犯罪活动中，承担发起、策划、操纵、管理、协调职责的；多次逃避检查或者采取通风报信等方式为非法采挖海砂犯罪活动规避监管或者为犯罪分子逃避处罚提供帮助的。本案中，被告人高某某虽为雇员，但其明知林某某未取得海域使用权证和采矿许可证，仍接受指使，长期、数十余次驾驶船舶至指定海域、负责操作实施采砂作业、运输过驳海砂等，是实施非法采矿犯罪过程中不可或缺的环节，不符合司法解释中“一般不以犯罪论处”的情形，应当以非法采矿罪共犯追究刑事责任。雇员知道或者应当知道雇主所作的指示违反法律规定且会导致海洋生态环境资源损害后果，仍然按照雇主指示实施相关行为并造成海洋生态环境资源损害的，人民检察院在提起民事公益诉讼时，可以请求人民法院判令雇员与雇主按照《中华人民共和国民法典》第一千一百六十八条的规定对海洋生态环境修复承担连带赔偿责任。
(二)探索以分期给付碳汇、劳务代偿等方式承担生态环境替代性修复责任。《最高人民法院关于审理环境民事公益诉讼案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第二十条第一款规定：“原告请求恢复原状的，人民法院可以依法判决被告将生态环境修复到损害发生之前的状态和功能。无法完全修复的，可以准许采用替代性修复方式。”办理海洋自然资源与生态环境民事公益诉讼案件，应当综合考量生态环境破坏造成的损失、修复成本和被告的经济状况、修复能力等，对由于侵权地现实条件不能进行原位同质直接修复，且被告没有能力一次性承担全部海洋生态损害修复费用的，公益诉讼起诉人可以与被告协商通过分期给付海洋碳汇、提供公益性劳务代替金钱赔偿等方式开展替代性修复。海洋碳汇，又称“蓝碳”，是指利用海洋活动及海洋生物来吸收大气中的二氧化碳，并将其固定、储存在海洋的过程、活动和机制。通过购买碳汇抵消生态损失，在一定程度上可实现碳平衡的目的，是实现碳中和最经济的方式之一。通过劳务代偿，不仅可以修复海洋生态环境，还可以让被告亲身参与到受损生态环境修复工作中，增强保护海洋自然资源和生态环境的意识。
【相关规定】
《中华人民共和国刑法》第二十五条第一款、第三百四十三条第一款
《中华人民共和国民法典》第一千一百六十八条、第一千二百三十四条、第一千二百三十五条
《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》(2021年修订)第五十八条第二款
《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理非法采矿、破坏性采矿刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》(法释〔2016〕25号)第十一条
《最高人民法院关于审理环境民事公益诉讼案件适用法律若干问题的解释》(法释〔2015〕1号)第二十条第一款
案例四
王某某、孙某某、谢某某等人非法采矿案
【关键词】
非法采矿罪 共同犯罪 涉案船舶处置 供犯罪所用的本人财物
【要旨】
运输海砂的船舶能否认定为“供犯罪所用的本人财物”，应当结合船舶权属、主要用途和行为人的客观行为、主观明知等因素综合判断。行为人以非法运输海砂为业，明知是非法采挖海砂仍一年内多次实施非法运输海砂犯罪活动，构成共同犯罪或者相关犯罪的，涉案船舶可以认定为“供犯罪所用的本人财物”，依法予以没收。检察机关应当引导侦查机关及时、全面收集证明涉案船舶为作案工具的证据材料。
【基本案情】
2020年10月，王某某、孙某某、谢某某伙同陈某、孙某、朱某某(均另案处理)合资购买“宏运611”号船用于运输非法开采的海砂。2020年10月至2020年12月间，王某某、孙某某等人在明知王某等人(均另案处理)系非法开采海砂的情况下，六次向王某等人预约购买海砂，安排“宏运611”号船舶在闽江口附近海域现场等待王某等人的采砂船非法开采海砂后，再从采砂船上过驳海砂，并将海砂运至指定码头出售给陈某某等人(均另案处理)，前三次向王某等人转账支付购砂款合计118万元。经认定，后三次非法开采的海砂价值337.88万元。2020年12月至2021年3月间，王某某、孙某某等人在明知采砂船系非法开采海砂的情况下，四次接受“黄总”委托，安排“宏运611”号船舶在闽江口附近海域现场等待采砂船非法开采海砂后，再从采砂船上过驳海砂，并将海砂运至指定的码头交给指定人员。2021年3月17日，王某某、孙某某、谢某某第四次接受“黄总”委托，使用“宏远611”号船舶运输非法开采的海砂前往舟山途中，被莆田海警局当场查获，缴获海砂18506.74吨。经认定，王某某、孙某某、谢某某等人使用“宏运611”号船舶为“黄总”运载的海砂价值合计377.03万元。
【案件办理过程】
侦查协作。2021年3月17日，莆田海警局查获非法运输海砂的“宏远611”号船后，遂予以立案侦查。经传唤讯问当场查获的王某某，锁定孙某某、谢某某及孙某、陈某、朱某某五名运砂船出资人，并先后对王某某等6名犯罪嫌疑人执行刑事拘留。鉴于该案系有证船舶运载非法开采的海砂且案值较大，莆田海警局即主动商请莆田市人民检察院派员提前介入侦查。通过调取通话记录、微信聊天记录、银行账户流水、船舶挂靠协议书、船舶登记材料等，重点就涉案船舶是否为作案工具进行全面调查，初步掌握王某某等人购买“宏运611”号船舶的主要目的系运输海砂，并在笔录中予以固定。经查证，陈某出资比例为35%，王某某出资比例为15%，同时担任“宏运611”号船船长，孙某某和谢某某出资比例各占10%，孙某和朱某某出资比例各占15%。王某某、孙某某、谢某某等人先后十次利用“宏运611”号船舶运输非法开采的海砂，从中非法获利135万元。
审查起诉。2021年6月28日，莆田海警局以王某某等人涉嫌非法采矿罪移送莆田市人民检察院审查起诉，莆田市人民检察院将该案交由莆田市秀屿区人民检察院办理。承办检察官在审查中发现该案证据未达到确实、充分的证明标准，遂向海警机构制发详尽的补充侦查提纲，要求补充犯罪嫌疑人购买船舶的用途、提取手机内电子数据、调取关键人员的转账记录、梳理核实资金交易记录及去向等证据。海警机构根据检察机关补充侦查提纲，进一步收集固定犯罪嫌疑人购买“宏远611”号船舶目的、团伙犯罪分工及查实涉案海砂价值等证据。承办检察官综合分析现有证据足以认定王某某、孙某某、谢某某等人涉嫌非法采矿罪，同时认为该犯罪团伙为降低转移涉案海砂成本而合伙出资购买“宏远611”号船舶，在不到半年的时间内多达十次用运砂船从事运输海砂的犯罪活动，涉案金额高达800多万元，该船舶与非法开采海砂的犯罪行为存在密切关联，应当认定为“供犯罪所用的本人财物”，依照刑法第六十四条规定，应当予以没收。2022年1月4日，莆田市秀屿区人民检察院对王某某、孙某某、谢某某以非法采矿罪向莆田市秀屿区人民法院提起公诉。
指控与证明犯罪。2022年3月11日，莆田市秀屿区人民法院依法公开开庭审理本案。检察机关根据该团伙犯罪特点，重点围绕犯罪谋划联络、人员分工、船舶管理与使用、资金去向等问题进行举证、质证，详细出示了王某某、孙某某等人在微信“股东群”中商议倒卖非法开采的海砂后，共同出资购买“宏远611”号船舶用于转移海砂的聊天记录、银行转账记录、“宏远611”号船舶的13条船舶识别系统记载的航行轨迹、船员的陈述等关键性证据，锁定“宏远611”号船舶系“供犯罪所用的本人财物”的重要事实。在被告人手机内提取的电子数据证据运用上，检察机关通过出示鉴定意见、鉴定机构资质、鉴定人资质证明，结合被告人供述，形成完整的证据链，有力指控犯罪事实。被告人王某某、孙某某、谢某某当庭对指控事实及罪名均无异议。
审理结果。2022年10月24日，莆田市秀屿区人民法院作出一审判决，采纳了秀屿区人民检察院指控的犯罪事实和意见，以非法采矿罪判处王某某有期徒刑三年九个月，谢某某有期徒刑三年六个月，孙某某有期徒刑三年，均并处80000元至150000元不等罚金，判决没收作案工具“宏运611”号船舶及船载设备六台。一审判决后，被告人王某某、谢某某、孙某某不服判决提出上诉。二审期间，被告人孙某某通过其家属退出违法所得，并主动缴纳罚金。2023年3月6日，莆田市中级人民法院作出终审判决，判处孙某某有期徒刑二年十个月，其余二人均维持原判。
【典型意义】
(一)准确认定涉案船舶为“供犯罪所用的本人财物”。《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理非法采矿、破坏性采矿刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第十二条第二款规定，对用于非法采矿、破坏性采矿犯罪的专门工具和供犯罪所用的本人财物，应当依法没收。运输海砂的船舶能否认定为“供犯罪所用的本人财物”，应当结合船舶权属、主要用途和行为人的客观行为、主观明知等因素综合判断。实践中，对于行为人以非法运输海砂为业，明知是非法采挖海砂仍一年内多次实施非法运输海砂犯罪活动，构成共同犯罪或者相关犯罪的，可以将运砂船认定为“供犯罪所用的本人财物”予以没收。本案中，王某某等人共同出资购买涉案船舶并非用于合法运输经营活动，而是为了将非法开采的海砂顺利转移，将船舶用于犯罪的主观目的明确。王某某等人不仅使用该船舶多次转移本团伙非法开采的海砂，还接受他人委托，先后四次使用该船舶协助他人转移非法开采的海砂并收取相应运输费用，该涉案船舶符合仅用于犯罪活动、没有其他合法用途的特征，应当作为“供犯罪所用的本人财物”依法予以没收。
(二)全面收集能证明涉案船舶为作案工具的证据材料。案件办理过程中，检察机关应当引导侦查机关及时全面收集能够证明涉案船舶属于专门用于运输海砂的作案工具的证据材料。在提取言词证据时，应注意查清行为人购买船舶的目的及用途，是否以非法运输海砂为业，是否存在合法经营情形等；在扣押相关物证、书证时，应注意查扣航次航图、航海日志、卫星电话及通话记录等，提取船舶识别系统、卫星定位系统数据，分析判断涉案船舶非法运输海砂的动态行驶轨迹；同时，注意向相关部门调取船证材料、进出港申报记录、行政处罚记录等，查清涉案船舶权属及以往经营情况。
【相关规定】
《中华人民共和国刑法》第二十五条第一款、第六十四条、第三百四十三条第一款
《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理非法采矿、破坏性采矿刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》(法释〔2016〕25号)第二条、第三条、第十二条第二款
案例五
陈某甲、郑某某、陈某乙掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得案
【关键词】
掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得罪 运输无合法来源证明的海砂 推定明知 上游犯罪的查证
【要旨】
明知是他人非法采挖的海砂而予以窝藏、转移、收购、代为销售或者以其他方法掩饰、隐瞒的，以掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得罪定罪处罚。行为人是否明知是非法采挖的海砂，可以通过行为人收购、运输过程中是否存在故意关闭船舶自动识别系统、不如实填写航海日志等违反海事监管规定的行为、行为人是否曾在同一海域因实施转移、代为销售非法采矿犯罪所得海砂受过行政处罚等方面综合认定。
认定掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得罪，其上游犯罪非法采矿的犯罪事实应当查证属实。非法采矿的犯罪事实，可以根据有关部门出具的涉案海域未设置海砂矿业权、涉案海砂系从前述海域吸砂所得、查扣的涉案海砂已达非法采矿罪入罪标准等方面综合认定。
【基本案情】
In October 2019, in the process of operating a sand farm in Zhoushan, Chen Moujia and Chen Mouyi knew that Fujian "Minjiang Sand" had no legal source certificate, and Chen Moujia contacted the upstream sand mining vessel and agreed with Zheng Mourong, the owner of the Fujian "Zhonggangen" ship, to use the vessel to transport "Minjiang Sand" to its sand yard from the waters of Fujian's Minjiang estuary. On October 10, according to Zheng Mourong's instructions, Zheng Moumou directed the "Zhonggang En" ship to the waters of Fujian Minjiang Estuary to load sea sand, and after obtaining information such as sand loading time, high-frequency channel and latitude and longitude of the sand mining vessel at Chen Moujia, he contacted the "Haisheng 10" ship to load sand through high frequency. In the early morning of the next day, the "Haisheng 28" ship successively transferred a total of 69,69 tons of "Minjiang Sand" to the "Zhonggangen" ship, during which Zheng instructed the crew of "Zhonggangen" to turn off the ship's automatic identification system (with the functions of identifying ships, assisting in tracking targets, simplifying information exchange, providing auxiliary information, and avoiding collisions). In accordance with the Technical Rules for the Statutory Inspection of Vessels Sailing Domestic Navigation (1), the automatic identification system of ships shall be able to automatically and continuously provide information to the competent authorities and other ships without the involvement of persons on board. Therefore, the ship should continuously open the automatic identification system during navigation and anchorage to ensure that other ships can correctly identify the ship's position and correctly assess the risk of collision), and do not record the latitude and longitude in the logbook. After the sand loading was completed, the "Zhonggang En" ship sailed to the Chenmoujia sand field in Zhoushan. On November 7, the ship "Zhonggangen" was seized by the Zhoushan Coast Police Bureau while berthed to unload sand.
According to the technical appraisal of mineral resources by Fujian Geological Survey Institute, the sea sand involved in the "Zhonggangen" ship is natural sea sand, which belongs to the fine sand of Zone 3, which meets the requirements of Class II sand technical indicators in the national standard "Construction Sand" (GB/T14684-2011). The Department of Natural Resources of Fujian Province issued a "Situation Statement" to prove that there is no sea sand mining right in the sea area of Fujian Province, and there is no effective sea area use right for sea sand mining. After the price determination of the Zhoushan Price Certification Center, the total value of the sea sand involved at the time of seizure was 110.5 million yuan.
【Case Handling Process】
Scouting collaboration. On November 2019, 11, during the boarding inspection, the Zhoushan Coast Police Bureau found that the sea sand transported by the ship "Zhonggangen" did not have legal source certification procedures, so it filed a case for investigation, and after summoning and interrogating Zheng Moumou, locked up the three shareholders of the sand field of criminal suspects Chen Moujia, Chen Mouyi and Chen Moucing, and criminally detained four criminal suspects. After the Zhoushan Coast Police Bureau filed the case for investigation, it took the initiative to ask the procuratorate to send personnel to intervene in the investigation in advance. Relying on the investigation supervision and coordination and cooperation mechanism, the Zhoushan Municipal People's Procuratorate sent personnel to intervene in advance to guide the investigation and collection of evidence, and through reviewing case materials, listening to case introductions, and conducting case consultations, put forward a number of evidence collection opinions such as further improving verbal evidence and objective evidence, and clarifying the criminal responsibility of personnel such as the business steward of the "Zhonggang En" ship, the duty crew and the ordinary crew member. After conducting in-depth investigation and collecting evidence, the Zhoushan Coast Police Bureau requested approval to arrest criminal suspects Zheng Moumou and Chen Moujia. On December 2 of the same year, Zheng Moumou and Chen Moujia were arrested. The criminal suspects Chen Mouyi, Chen Moubing, and Zheng Mourong were released on bail by the Zhoushan Coast Police Bureau on the same day.
Review of prosecutions. On January 2020, 1, the Zhoushan Coast Police Bureau transferred the case to the Zhoushan Municipal People's Procuratorate for review and prosecution on suspicion of the crimes of concealing and concealing the proceeds of crime by criminal suspects Zheng Moumou, Chen Moujia, Chen Mouyi and Chen MouC, and the Zhoushan Municipal People's Procuratorate handed over the case to the Dinghai District People's Procuratorate of Zhoushan City for handling on February 16 of the same year. During the review, the procurator in charge found that the evidence in the case did not meet the standard of sufficient certainty, so he formulated and issued a detailed supplementary investigation outline to the coast guard agency, requiring additional evidence on more than 2 sub-items in five major items, including whether the suspects subjectively knew that the sea sand involved in the case was transferred and acquired as proceeds of crime, whether the facts of the upstream illegal mining crime were established, whether the perpetrator and the owner of the upstream sand suction vessel had prior or intentional contact, whether there was legal sea sand mining rights in the sea area involved in the case, and the identification and value determination of the sea sand mineral quality involved in the case. and clarify the purpose, method and means of strengthening evidence. In accordance with the supplementary investigation outline of the procuratorial organs, the coast guard agency comprehensively collects and fixes evidence such as the subjective knowledge of the criminal suspects that sea sand is the proceeds of illegal mining upstream of the sea, the intentional evasion of the coast guard's maritime investigation during the transportation process, the administrative punishment of criminal suspects Chen Moujia and Zheng Moumou for buying and selling and transporting illegally mined sea sand, the industry common sense of sand farm owners and transport ship managers knowing that sea sand is illegal gains, mineral resources technical appraisal and price determination, and other evidence. The procuratorate comprehensively analyzed the available evidence and held that Chen Moujia, Zheng Moumou and Chen Mouyi had purchased and transported sea sand knowing that it was illegally mined, and filed a public prosecution against the three to the Dinghai District People's Court of Zhoushan City for the crime of concealing and concealing the proceeds of crime; It is believed that Chen Moubing only contributed capital but did not participate in the management of the sand farm, and did not know the source of the sand field intake, and the facts of Chen Moucing's participation in the crime were unclear and the evidence was insufficient, and he was not prosecuted according to law. As to whether Zheng Mourong constituted a crime, after returning it for supplementary investigation and supplementary investigation on his own, the analysis found that the existing evidence could not determine that he knew about the transportation of illegal sea sand when negotiating the charterparty with the criminal suspect Chen Moujia, and could not prove that he had instructed the criminal suspect Zheng Moumou to deliberately evade maritime investigation, so the coast guard agency was supervised to withdraw the case according to law.
Accusation and proof of crime. At the trial stage, the defendants Chen Moujia and Zheng Moumou both claimed that they did not know that the "Minjiang Sand" carried by the "Zhonggangen" vessel was illegally mined sea sand, arguing that the sand yard was normal procurement and the "Zhonggangen" ship was a normal transportation behavior; The defenders of defendants Chen Moujia and Zheng Moumou both submitted that the crime of illegal mining upstream was not verified, so they pleaded not guilty to the second defendant. The prosecutor replied that the evidence in the case proved that in order to evade law enforcement inspection, the defendant Chen Moujia was relatively concealed and cautious in the process of sea sand transportation and resale, whether it was from the bank or the choice of time and method of sand transportation, and that the "Zhonggangen" vessel was contacted and instructed by the defendant Zheng Moumou when it anchored in the waters of the Minjiang estuary and loaded sea sand from the sand suction vessel, and subjectively knew that it was sea sand without legal source, and contacted the transport ship to illegally load sea sand for resale for profit; The defendant Zheng Moumou, as the ship's steward, directed the voyage of the ship "Zhonggangen", during which he also instructed the crew to deliberately turn off the equipment of the ship's identification system and fill in the logbook truthfully to avoid maritime supervision, and the "Zhonggangen" ship had also been administratively punished for illegally loading sea sand from the waters of the Minjiang estuary in Fujian Province before, and subjectively had a certain understanding of the illegal loading of sea sand, but still participated in the illegal loading of sea sand without legal sources. Regarding the determination of the predicate crime in this case, according to Article 8 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Concealment or Concealment of Criminal Proceeds and Proceeds of Crime, if the predicate crime has not been adjudicated in accordance with law, but it is verified to be true, it does not affect the determination of the crime of concealing or concealing criminal proceeds or proceeds of crime. The certificate issued by the Fujian Provincial Department of Natural Resources confirmed that the sea sand transferred from the mouth of the Minjiang River in this case was illegally mined, and the amount had reached the standard for the crime of illegal mining. During the trial, in response to the defender's objections to the evidence collection procedures and the conclusions of the sea sand and sand identification, the procuratorate notified the investigators and evaluators of the coast guard to testify in court, explaining the relevant investigation procedures and professional issues of appraisal.
Referee results. The Dinghai District People's Court of Zhoushan City all adopted the procuratorial organs' charges and sentencing recommendations, found that defendant Chen Moujia and Chen MouB were the principal offenders, defendant Zheng Moumou was an accessory, and defendant Chen Mouyi had the circumstances of turning himself in, and on May 2021, 5, sentenced defendant Chen Moujia to three years and two months in prison, defendant Zheng Moumou to two years in prison, and defendant Chen Mouyi to two years and eight months in prison, suspended for four years, and imposed fines ranging from 19,50000 yuan to 100000,2021 yuan. After the first-instance judgment, the defendants Chen Moujia and Zheng Moumou appealed against the judgment. On September 9, 2, the Zhoushan Intermediate People's Court ruled to dismiss the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Standardize the handling of similar cases. In conjunction with the handling of this case, the Dinghai District People's Procuratorate summarized and refined more than 20 standards for handling more than <> criminal cases involving illegal sand mining, such as the crimes of concealing and concealing the proceeds of crime involving sea sand, the subjective knowledge determination of the crime of illegal mining, the types and methods of subjective knowledge of objective behavior, the types of evidence necessary for the composition of the two crimes and the key points of review and judgment, and the procedures for identifying the quality of sea sand and determining the price, etc., which later played a role in regulating and guiding the handling of similar cases by the coast guard agency and the Zhoushan Municipal Procuratorate. On this basis, the Zhoushan Intermediate People's Court, the Zhoushan Municipal People's Procuratorate, and the Zhoushan Coast Police Bureau jointly formulated the Guidelines for the Collection and Review of Evidence in Cases of Concealing and Concealing the Proceeds of Crime involving Sea Sand, in which the procuratorial organs and the coast guard improve the working mechanism for investigation supervision and coordination, form consensus on the collection, use and review and judgment standards of evidence, and unify the judicial standards for law enforcement.
【Typical significance】
(1) Accurately determine that the defendant has subjective knowledge that the sea sand involved in the case is illegally mined. It is determined that the perpetrator has committed the crime of concealing or concealing the proceeds of crime, and the perpetrator must subjectively know that the sea sand he illegally purchased and transported is illegally mined sea sand. In practice, coast guard agencies and procuratorial organs may collect relevant evidence that can prove the following circumstances to prove that the criminal suspect subjectively knows: intentionally turning off the ship identification system or having multiple sets of ship identification systems on the ship, deliberately discarding or destroying shipborne satellite phones, ship identification systems, satellite positioning system data, and mobile phone storage data; Intentionally detour and transport on normal routes and terminals, in hidden waters or at obviously unreasonable concealed times; Using "three no" vessels, ships with false names or illegally modified vessels, or deliberately obscuring ship numbers to conceal hull features; Falsely record the ship's navigation log or engine logbook, or fail to declare or make false declarations in and out of the port; Failure to issue a legal and valid certificate of source of sea sand, refusal to provide proof of true source of sea sand; evading or resisting law enforcement inspections; Wait a minute. In one or more of the above circumstances, unless the defendant can give a reasonable explanation or has contrary evidence to prove that he did not know that illegal sand mining is carried out, it can generally be determined that he subjectively knew it. In this case, when the defendant transported sea sand without proof of legal source, refused to truthfully confess that the sea sand supplier argued that it was not known to be illegal mining of sea sand, the coast guard agency and the procuratorate collected and fixed evidence that each defendant clearly knew the location of the "Minjiang Sand" barge area, implemented the automatic identification system for shutting down ships, and did not truthfully fill in the navigation logbook, etc., combined with the common sense that Fujian "Minjiang Sand" was illegal sea sand, it was presumed that the defendants had subjective knowledge of the predicate crime, which was consistent with the cover-up. The subjective elements of concealing the proceeds of crime were upheld by the court.
(二)全面收集证明上游非法采矿犯罪事实的证据。认定非法运输、购买、代为销售海砂构成掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得罪，应以上游非法采矿罪事实成立为前提。上游犯罪尚未依法裁判，但查证属实的，不影响掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得罪的认定。由于海上犯罪环境的复杂性、特殊性，且行为人往往采取关闭船舶识别系统、不如实填写航海日志等手段逃避执法检查，采、驳、运、购各环节又采取高频电话联系难以查证上游盗采方或供货方，使得非法采运海砂行为具有极大的隐蔽性，给海警机构侦查和检察机关指控证明犯罪带来困难。本案犯罪行为涉及闽、浙海域，涉案海砂来源地为福建闽江口、销售地为浙江舟山金塘，各被告人采取跨省配合作案模式，链条长且行为隐蔽。检察机关围绕非法采矿罪构罪要件，引导海警机构收集到福建海域未设置海砂矿业权、无有效的涉海砂开采的海域使用权，涉案海砂系在福建闽江口分次过驳、分次过驳间隔时间能够排除返回陆港装载的合理怀疑，涉案海砂矿质鉴定和价格认定等关键证据，从而认定本案上游吸砂船存在非法采矿的犯罪事实。
【相关规定】
《中华人民共和国刑法》第二十五条第一款、第三百一十二条
《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理非法采矿、破坏性采矿刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》(法释〔2016〕25号)第七条第一款
《最高人民法院关于审理掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得、犯罪所得收益刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》(法释〔2021〕8号)第八条