#Red Flame Instant# (Written by Chen Wei) On December 30, Chiyan News learned from family members and related channels that Ding Ting, the former director of the People's Daily Hainan Branch Editorial Center, was suspected of accepting and offering bribes. The second instance verdict was pronounced and the first instance verdict was upheld.
Because the second instance was not heard, Dingting’s family said it was obviously contrary to this year’s “two highs and two ministries” special work on increasing the rate of second instance hearings in criminal cases.
On November 22, 2021, the No. 1 Intermediate Court of Hainan Province publicly pronounced that Ding Ting was guilty of accepting and offering bribes, and was sentenced to 13 years in prison and fined 1.4 million yuan. For more than two years since then, the case has never been able to reach a second instance. Because it involves journalists, lawyers, officials, and even the vice president of the Hainan Provincial High Court, the case has attracted public attention.
The second instance of the Ding Ting case upheld the first instance verdict.
It is understood that more than two years have passed since the Hainan Intermediate People’s Court announced the verdict of the first instance, and the Ding Ting case has never been able to reach a second instance. On December 25, 2023, Chiyan News learned from Ding Ting’s family and related channels that Ding Ting was suspected of accepting and offering bribes, and the second trial will not be held in the near future.
On December 30, Chiyan News learned from Ding Ting’s family and related channels that Ding Ting was suspected of accepting and offering bribes. The second-instance verdict was: the first-instance verdict was upheld.
Ding Ting's family said: "I just received the news. The court has called the lawyer to inform the lawyer that the second trial has pronounced a verdict and upheld the first trial verdict. We have submitted a lot of new evidence. The failure to open the second trial is suspected of procedural violation, which is obviously inconsistent with the 'two highs and two ministries'" It is contrary to the special work to increase the rate of second-instance hearings of criminal cases."
Related links:
The first-instance court found Ding Ting guilty of bribery and bribery.
Ding Ting, a native of Yingcheng, Hubei Province, was born in May 1982. He graduated from Wuhan University. He has obtained a master's degree in journalism and a doctorate in constitutional law. He is the former director of the People's Daily Hainan Branch Editorial Center.
On October 16, 2020, the No. 1 Intermediate Court of Hainan Province held a public hearing on the suspected bribery and bribery case of Ding Ting, the former director of the People's Daily Hainan Branch Editorial Center. On November 22 of the following year, the No. 1 Intermediate Court of Hainan Province publicly pronounced that Ding Ting was guilty of accepting and offering bribes and was sentenced to 13 years in prison and fined 1.4 million yuan. The
judgment shows that in 2015, Sanya City carried out ecological restoration and urban repair work (hereinafter referred to as "double repair work"), and the Sanya Municipal Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau) was one of the main responsible units. In January 2016, Ding Ting, as a reporter for the Hainan branch of People's Daily, met Wang Tieming, the main person in charge of the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau, during an interview.
The verdict shows Wang Tieming’s confession. On February 19, 2016, Ding Ting named Wang Tieming in a positive publicity report on the front page of the People’s Daily. This established Wang Tieming’s political image of being diligent and pragmatic, and the main provincial and municipal leaders knew about it. His political achievements gave Wang Tieming an advantage over other equal competitors in promotions. In order to thank Ding Ting, Wang Tieming hosted a banquet for Ding Ting at a seafood restaurant on the south coast of Sanya Bay one night in the second half of 2016. He hoped that Ding Ting would make more positive publicity reports on his work in the future. After dinner, he gave Dingting 3 million yuan in cash in the parking lot of Luhuitou State Guesthouse in Sanya. This 3 million yuan in cash was the bribe Wang Tieming had received previously. The
judgment showed that Ding Ting accepted the money and took it back to her home in Haikou for storage and later used it for personal expenses. The
judgment also shows that in early 2019, the defendant Ding Ting appealed to the Hainan Provincial High Court over a dispute over the equity transfer of her husband Liao’s agency. Ding Ting asked Zhang Jiahui, the former deputy director of the Provincial High Court, for help. Zhang Jiahui agreed and then submitted the case to the Provincial High Court. The judge greeted and looked after him. In April 2019, Ding Ting gave Zhang Jiahui 3 million yuan near the west gate of a community in Haikou City.
stated in Zhang Jiahui’s witness statement that in March 2019, Ding Ting asked Zhang Jiahui for help, and Zhang Jiahui agreed to greet the judge. In the end, the Provincial High Court made a judgment and supported Ding Ting’s husband’s appeal request. A month later, Ding Ting gave Zhang Jiahui 3 million yuan in cash at the west gate of a certain community. The cash was packed in two trolley cases. After receiving the money, Zhang Jiahui placed the 3 million in cash in a safe at home and gave it to her husband Liu for handling. Later, Liu used the money to develop the Shuiyuntian project and for family and personal expenses.
The defender raised many points that were inconsistent with common sense, but the court of first instance did not accept them.
As for the defendant Ding Ting’s accusation of accepting bribes, the defender pointed out that there were many unreasonable circumstances in Ding Ting’s bribery, such as the unclear time of accepting bribes, Wang Tieming’s motive for bribery, and the source of the bribe money. In line with common sense, the whereabouts of the stolen money has not been found out. Wang Tieming suffers from gout and has undergone femoral head surgery. He cannot eat seafood, drive, or lift heavy objects. It was unreasonable for Wang Tieming and Ding Ting to hand over trolley boxes in a hotel parking lot in Sanya City in a public place.
The court held that the defendant’s confession during the supervision and investigation stage and the review and prosecution stage were basically consistent except for a few details. They were voluntary confessions and were mutually corroborated with the witness testimony of the briber Wang Tieming. There are also other witness testimonies and relevant documentary evidence to support and be accepted.
The court held that the whereabouts of the bribe money did not affect the determination of the crime of bribery, and the defendant's confession also explained the whereabouts of the bribe money. Wang Tieming's motivation and purpose of bribery are not inconsistent with the selection and appointment procedures for leading cadres. Wang Tieming should have the physical condition to perform his duties when he was selected and appointed as a cadre in November 2016. Even if he suffers from illness, it is not necessarily related to the fact that the defendant accepted bribes. Accordingly, the defender proposed that Wang Tieming was suffering from a serious illness and could not eat seafood, drive, or lift heavy objects. The place where he ate did not exist, the motive for the bribe, the location of the bribe, the source of the bribe was unreasonable, and the whereabouts of the bribe was unknown. It is inferred that the defendant did not accept Wang Tieming's defense opinion of 3 million yuan, which was not justified and was not accepted. The defendant's room reservation information and travel reimbursement voucher at a hotel in Sanya in the second half of 2016 support the defendant's confession about the time period for accepting bribes and traveling by car. They are relevant and shall be adopted. The briber, Wang Tieming, gave a clear and complete statement on the time, place, amount, motive, purpose, and source of the bribe, etc., which was mutually corroborated with the defendant's confession and was accepted. The defender of
raised the issue that the law clearly stipulates that the maximum detention period of the Supervisory Committee is only 6 months. Dingting was still detained by the Supervisory Committee for an extended period after the expiration of 3 months + 3 months. The court held that according to relevant superior documents, the retention period was three months and two days after deducting the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic, "so the retention period was not exceeded."
The defender also pointed out that the trolley case containing 3 million yuan in cash weighed 45 kilograms. , with the defendant’s height of 162 centimeters and weight of 45 kilograms, can he move the trolley case containing 3 million yuan in cash from the trunk of the car?
The court held that, depending on the weight of the trolley case, whether ordinary people can move the trolley case on and off the vehicle, or whether they can successfully overcome obstacles when towing the trolley case, varies from person to person in reality. The defender subjectively concluded based on the defendant's height and weight only that it was impossible for the defendant to move the trolley box containing 3 million yuan in cash. This was insufficient and was not accepted.
Based on this, the Hainan Intermediate People's Court found that Ding Ting was guilty of bribery and sentenced to 10 years in prison and 6 years in prison for bribery. The combined term was 13 years in prison and was fined 1.4 million yuan. The stolen money that was not withdrawn was 3 million yuan. Yuan continued to pursue the payment.
After the first instance verdict was pronounced, Ding Ting expressed his appeal in court.
editor Li Ying program editor Zhao Yaqi
