Jin Zegang/Wen A divorce dispute judgment on China Judgments Online has recently attracted attention after being disclosed. In this case, both the male and female are nearly seventy years old, retired state-owned enterprise cadres and public officials respectively. The man filed a divorce lawsuit with the court on the grounds of emotional breakdown, requesting the division of the couple's joint property.

After examination, the court found that the total amount of property under the couple's name reached nearly 100 million yuan, including 14 real estate properties, large bank deposits, wealth management products, and equity holdings. There is a huge gap between the legitimate income of the two individuals and their assets under their names, and both parties accused each other of concealing huge amounts of property during the trial, but neither could explain the legitimate source of these assets. The court considers that this case is suspected of a criminal offense, and rules to dismiss the divorce lawsuit, and transfer the relevant clues to the public security organs and disciplinary inspection and supervision organs.

From an ordinary elderly divorce lawsuit to a criminal case suspected of job-related crimes, it is the public's expectation to investigate the case in accordance with the law and make a fair judgment.

If the situation of the two revealing each other's secrets is true, then as public officials, they may be suspected of more than one crime. The most direct charge among them is the crime of having a huge amount of unexplained wealth. According to the Criminal Law, if the property and expenses of a state functionary significantly exceed their legal income and the difference is huge, the state functionary may be ordered to explain the source. If the source cannot be explained, the difference shall be regarded as illegal income and sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than 5 years or criminal detention; Those with particularly large differences shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 5 years but not more than 10 years.

In this case, both parties exposed various forms of property, including huge deposits, debt, real estate, bank wealth management products, trust funds, etc., with amounts often reaching tens of millions of yuan. If the legitimate source of these assets cannot be explained and there is a huge difference between them and the legitimate income of the two individuals, it is suspected of constituting the crime of unclear source of huge assets.

If it is found that these assets were obtained through bribery by others, it constitutes the crime of accepting bribes. For example, after trial, it was found that a certain company had paid two huge amounts of property worth tens of millions of yuan. Due to the man's long-term leadership position in a state-owned enterprise, if there is business dealings between a certain company and the state-owned enterprise where the man works, or if the company's business activities are within the scope of the man's authority, these two payments may be suspected of bribery crimes.

For example, in a civil case, it was found that two individuals received over 30 million yuan in agency fees from a certain coal transportation and sales company. Is this amount legal? In the coal industry, the behavior of state-owned enterprise leaders and their relatives accepting property from affiliated enterprises under the names of "agency fees," "consulting fees," "consulting fees," etc. has always been a hidden form of bribery that disciplinary inspection and supervision agencies focus on. If this' agency fee 'is actually a bribe given by the other party in the name of agency, it may also constitute the crime of bribery.

There is also an income related to the withdrawal of shares after investment and shareholding. According to the Regulations of the CPC on Disciplinary Punishment and relevant regulations on employment restrictions for public officials, state-owned enterprise leaders, their spouses and children are strictly restricted or even prohibited from investing in shares and engaging in business activities within their jurisdiction. If it is found that the female or male party obtained tens of millions of yuan by withdrawing shares from a certain company, and the company's business activities are related to their respective powers, it may constitute a violation of business regulations or a crime of bribery.

In addition, if the above-mentioned funds are proven to be obtained through corruption and bribery, and subsequently converted into cash, financial instruments, securities, or transferred through transfer, the relevant behavior may constitute self money laundering crimes.

Perhaps some people may ask, is there any obstacle to the statute of limitations for prosecution in this case, as the parties involved are nearly seventy years old and have accumulated wealth spanning decades?

According to the Criminal Law, the statute of limitations for prosecution starts from the date of the crime; If the criminal act has a continuous or ongoing state, it shall be counted from the date of the end of the criminal act. Corruption, bribery and other job-related crimes often exhibit continuity characteristics, and the effect of prosecution is calculated from the date of the end of the last criminal act. The statute of limitations is closely related to the statutory sentence. Once it is verified that the suspected criminal amount in this case is particularly large, and the maximum statutory sentence is imprisonment for more than 10 years, it will take 15 years before no further prosecution is pursued; If the maximum statutory sentence is life imprisonment, it must be served for 20 years.

For the crime of unclear source of huge property, the act of this crime has continuity, and the statute of limitations for prosecution should be calculated from the time when the relevant department discovers the huge property and orders it to explain its source. Therefore, there is no statute of limitations barrier in this case. But if other criminal acts have indeed exceeded the statutory statute of limitations for prosecution, the suspect should still be exempted from prosecution for the corresponding charges.

(The author is a professor at the Law School of Tongji University)