Did Lai Changqing catch it?

In the second year, the Canadian Ministry of Justice rejected Lai Changxing's appeal for repatriation.

Just as Lai Changxing's luxury bulletproof vest was waiting for auction in Junbo, recently, the Canadian Ministry of Justice, on behalf of the Canadian government, submitted a reply to Lai Changxing's application for "refugee status" as an appellee to the Canadian federal court.

On June 5438+065438+1October 18, 2004, legal experts concerned about the case pointed out in an interview that it was difficult for Lai Changxing to win the case. However, denying Lai Changxing's refugee status does not necessarily mean that he can be repatriated immediately.

Procedure: appeal and defense

Lai Changxing's case entered the judicial process, and the Canadian Ministry of Justice completely rejected Lai Changxing's appeal.

According to Yang Cheng, a senior researcher at the Canadian Center for International Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Policy, in February 2004, Lai Changxing filed a request for judicial reconsideration with the Canadian federal court, which rejected his appeal. The Canadian federal court accepted Lai Changxing's appeal, and the Canadian Ministry of Justice, as the appellee, submitted a reply to the Canadian federal court on behalf of the Canadian government. Lai Changxing's case has entered the judicial process in Canada.

It is understood that the reasons for Lai Changxing's appeal are still those in the past: the evidence provided by China to Canada is not credible; Many evidences adopted by Canada itself are questionable; During the first trial of the Canadian Refugee Court, many questions raised by Lai Changxing were not answered, so Lai believed that the judgment was unfair and should be retried.

In its defense, the Canadian Ministry of Justice completely refuted the arguments put forward by Lai Changxing. Lai Changxing hinted that China used torture to extract confessions when handling Yuan Hua's case. The Canadian government retorted that there were some witnesses who claimed that they had been abused by the China government, but when the Canadian government asked them to confirm the process of abuse, these witnesses overturned their original testimony. According to the principle of "who advocates, who gives evidence", Lai bears the burden of proof, but at present Lai has no evidence, so his view is not credible.

Besides, Lai also believes that China's promise not to impose the death penalty is not credible. The Canadian Ministry of Justice replied that, according to the opinions of all the expert witnesses who appeared in court, the diplomatic commitment of the China government has always been credible, and there was no record of the China government publicly violating its diplomatic commitment in the past. In this case, Lai's statement is groundless.

Case closed: the year after the earliest.

It is a strategy of Lai Changxing to delay time through cumbersome litigation.

On June 5438+065438+1October 65438, Ruan Qilin, a professor of criminal law at China University of Political Science and Law, told reporters that this was only a legal detail in the long process of repatriating Lai Changxing. Lai Changxing's current lawsuit is similar to domestic administrative litigation. The refusal of his refugee status by the Ministry of Justice is equivalent to an administrative act. Lai Changxing can file an administrative lawsuit if he refuses to accept it, and as a government agency, he will file a defense.

After analyzing the reasons for Lai Changxing's appeal, Professor Ruan Qilin also thinks that there is nothing new. "What he said may be persecuted and treated unfairly, but he can't produce evidence. Without new facts and evidence, it is difficult for him to win the case. "

Yang Cheng, a senior researcher at the Canadian Center for International Criminal Law Reform and Policy, expressed his personal opinion from the perspective of a professional lawyer: in terms of the contents of the legal documents submitted by both parties, the Canadian government still has an advantage. Because the government's basis is very specific, and many of Lai's bases are inferential, it is difficult to produce concrete evidence that is beneficial to them. "From this perspective, I think it is inevitable that Lai Changxing will lose the case."

Lai's lawyer has publicly stated that he will continue to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada after losing the case. If the Supreme Court of Canada accepts the case, it will be delayed for at least another year from next summer. If it is not accepted, there will be a more concrete result in about half a year from next summer. Ruan Qilin said that delaying time through cumbersome litigation is a strategy of Lai Changxing.

Trouble: evasion and procrastination

Repatriation is also restricted by other factors, and the possibility that Lai Changxing fled to a third country is not ruled out.

Ruan Qilin, a professor of criminal law at China University of Political Science and Law, said that not having refugee status does not necessarily mean that Lai Changxing can be repatriated to China. If it is confirmed that Lai Changxing is not qualified as a refugee, there are two possibilities: first, whether Lai Changxing will flee to a third country to escape the result of possible deportation. Second, they may be detained on the grounds of illegal entry.

Ruan Qilin said that in the process of repatriation, it is common to delay the repatriation time. On the one hand, by delaying time, the contradictions between the two sides are gradually consumed, thus avoiding "hand-to-hand combat"; On the other hand, by delaying time, we can sit tight and wait for the right time.

Yang Cheng, a senior researcher at the Canadian Center for International Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Policy, recently clarified the statement about the extradition of Lai Changxing: extradition is based on extradition treaties. Since there is no bilateral extradition treaty between China and Canada, the Canadian government's treatment of Lai Changxing only started the repatriation procedure. The Canadian government does not need to consider whether Lai Changxing is a crime for Canada. You only need to prove that Lai Changxing is not eligible to take refuge in Canada, so you can send Lai Changxing out of Canada.

Property: extravagant and moving

Even if there is no money, Lai Changxing still has the right to sue, but the litigation team is not ready yet.

Some people think that Lai Changxing has been able to go to court to avoid being repatriated, mainly because he has transferred a lot of property. If one day its property runs out, it will be difficult to go to court again, and repatriation will be logical.

It is understood that the use of judicial procedures in Canada is naturally Lai Changxing's first choice, and it is also the goal of Martas, a famous refugee lawyer hired by Lai Changxing.

When Lai Changxing's family first arrived in Vancouver, they spent money like water, bought luxury houses and indulged in casinos. Because many bank accounts were frozen and litigation costs were high, Lai Changxing had to sell his mansion and move into an apartment. According to media reports interviewing Lai Changxing's family, there is a big screen TV, a plastic fruit bowl, messy family photos and some crystal animals in the closet. Mr. and Mrs. Lai Changxing, who used to have unlimited scenery, and their three children live in such a dim apartment. However, according to local Chinese newspapers, Lai Changxing's wife said that when they were investment immigrants, they brought $6,543,800+to Canada, of which $800,000 was frozen by Canadian law enforcement agencies, leaving $200,000. In addition, it is said that people in the United States and other places remit money to them from time to time, so Lai Changxing has enough money for him to go to court.

Many people think that if Lai Changxing's own economy goes bankrupt, his lawsuit will naturally drag on. Ruan Qilin believes that if Lai Changxing continues to file a lawsuit, the amount of property he occupies will not have much impact on his lawsuit, and his litigation rights are still there. There are also local systems to protect the litigant's litigation rights, but his litigation team will not be as complete as it is now.