Supreme Court releases eight typical cases of environmental pollution crimes: One enterprise fined 75 million

Thread Content

Supreme Court releases eight typical cases of environmental pollution crimes: One enterprise fined 75 million | 2016-12-28 09:38 | Published by: admin | Views: 266 | Comments: 0 | Source: China Law Network. Summary: Supreme Court releases eight typical cases of environmental pollution crimes: Case 1: Liu Zuqing’s environmental pollution case； Case 2: Tian Jianguo and Li Enguo’s case of environmental pollution ； Case 3: Environmental pollution case involving Zhejiang Huidelong Dyeing and Chemical Co., Ltd. and others ； Case 4: Wang Qiu’s case of environmental pollution ； Case 5: Disposal of industrial and medical waste in Huzhou City ... Case 1: Liu Zuqing’s case of environmental pollution Discharging pollutants containing heavy metals in excessive amounts constitutes the crime of environmental pollution. (I) Basic facts of the case Since October 2013, the defendant Liu Zuqing, in conjunction with others, employed workers to manufacture shoe molds without obtaining the necessary business licenses or going through the required environmental impact assessment procedures; moreover, no environmental protection facilities such as those for water pollution control were installed. During that period, the wastewater generated was not treated and was discharged into the village drainage canal through pipes connected to the cofferdam. Monitoring showed that the concentrations of heavy metals in the wastewater discharged from the aforementioned processing plants were 23,200 mg/L for nickel, 8.64 mg/L for total chromium, 36 mg/L for copper, and 132 mg/L for zinc. These values exceeded the discharge limits specified in the \"Integrated Wastewater Discharge Standards\" (GB8978-1996) by 23,199 times, 4.76 times, 35 times, and 25.4 times respectively. 　　(II) Judgment The first-instance judgment rendered by the People’s Court of Jinjiang City, Fujian Province, and the second-instance ruling issued by the Intermediate People’s Court of Quanzhou City held that the defendant Liu Zuqing, in conjunction with others, violated relevant regulations during shoe mold processing by discharging wastewater containing nickel, chromium, copper, and zinc – levels that were 23,199 times, 4.76 times, 35 times, and 25.4 times higher than the permitted limits respectively – thereby causing severe environmental pollution; his actions constituted the crime of environmental pollution. Accordingly, the defendant Liu Zuqing was sentenced to two years and eight months in prison for the crime of environmental pollution, and fined 50,000 yuan. 　　Case 2: Tian Jianguo and Li Enguo’s case of environmental pollution – Illicit lead smelting resulting in environmental pollution; sentenced to four and a half years in prison. (I) Basic facts of the case: The defendants, Tian Jianguo and Li Enguo, rented a lead smelting plant. Without obtaining a permit for handling hazardous waste and without taking any measures to prevent pollution, they used pyrometallurgical processes to extract lead from used lead-acid batteries. From August 2012 to October 2013, the defendant Tian Jianguo purchased a total of over 13,500 tons of used lead-acid batteries worth RMB 108,330,105 from individuals such as Zhang Zhufang (who were dealt with in separate cases), using them for lead reduction production and thereby causing severe environmental pollution. The defendant, Li Enguo, leased a lead smelting plant to Tian Jianguo and provided assistance in running it. After being brought to justice, Tian Jianguo confessed truthfully to his criminal acts. 　　(II) Judgment The first-instance judgment rendered by the Yunlong District People’s Court in Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province, and the second-instance ruling issued by the Xuzhou Intermediate People’s Court held that Tian Jianguo illegally acquired used lead-acid batteries and processed them using pyrometallurgical methods to produce lead. During this illegal processing, large amounts of wastewater and waste gas were discharged without any treatment; the dust generated was collected using homemade bags, and the resulting lead ingots were stored outdoors, all of which caused severe pollution and constituted the crime of environmental pollution. Lien Guo is an accomplice in the crime of environmental pollution. Taking into account factors such as the duration of the polluting activities, the scale of operations, the extent of pollution, and the amount of pollutants emitted, the actions of the two defendants should be classified as having “especially serious consequences”. Accordingly, the defendants Tian Jianguo and Li Enguo were sentenced to four years and six months in prison each for the crime of environmental pollution, along with a fine of 100,000 yuan. 　　Case 3: Environmental pollution case involving Zhejiang Huidelong Dyeing and Chemical Co., Ltd. and others – Over 18,000 tons of distillation residues were dumped into coastal areas; a fine of 20 million yuan was imposed. (I) Basic facts of the case The defendant entity, Zhejiang Huidelong Dyeing and Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Huidelong Company”), is a chemical enterprise that produces 40,000 tons of sodium thiosulfate and 3,800 tons of other chemicals per year. Shaoxing Tengda Printing and Dyeing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tengda Company”) is mainly engaged in printing and dyeing activities. The actual controller of both companies is the defendant Yan Haixing. The distillation residues generated during the synthesis and filtration-drying of sodium hydrosulfite (containing components such as methanol, sodium formate, and sodium sulfite) are classified as hazardous waste. Between July and August 2012, in order to alleviate the pressure on Huidelong Company regarding the disposal of distillation residues, Yan Haixing, after consulting with the defendants Pan Defeng (General Manager of Huidelong Company) and Pan Hualin (Civil Engineering Supervisor at Tengda Company), arranged for Huidelong’s distillation residues to be transported to Tengda Company, which had no qualifications for handling hazardous waste. The distillation residues were mixed with the wastewater generated by Tengda Company itself and then discharged directly into the sewer network through hidden pipes; in total, more than 5,000 tons were discharged in this way. Starting in October 2012, in order to alleviate Huidelong Company’s pressure related to the disposal of distillation residues, Pan Defeng entrusted the defendant Ru Jian, who did not have the qualifications for handling hazardous waste, to transport and dispose of those residues at a price of 50–80 yuan per ton. Yan Haixing was aware of this practice and approved of it. Ru Jianguo, in collusion with the defendants Ru Jiancheng and Ru Jun, hired the defendants Xu Fusuo, Tang Changzheng, Li Zhenhua, Luo Weijie, and others to use tank trucks to transport the aforementioned distillation residues to locations such as the seawall outside the Shangyu Industrial Park in Hangzhou Bay, where they were dumped directly; a total of over 18,000 tons were dumped in this manner. The defendant Pan Defeng (warehouse supervisor at Huidelong Company), knowing full well that Huidelong Company was illegally transporting and disposing of distillation residues, still accepted Pan Defeng’s assignment to organize personnel to handle tasks such as weighing the tank trucks carrying the distillation residues and filling out supply lists. 　　(II) Judgment results: The first-instance judgment by the Shangyu District People’s Court in Shaoxing City, Zhejiang Province, and the second-instance ruling by the Shaoxing Intermediate People’s Court held that: The defendant entity, Huidelong Company, together with defendants Ru Jianguo, Ru Jiancheng, Ru Jun, and others, violated relevant regulations by discharging, dumping, and disposing of toxic substances, thereby severely polluting the environment. This constitutes the crime of environmental pollution, with particularly serious consequences. Taking into account factors such as surrendering after the crime, rendering meritorious services, giving truthful statements, returning illegal gains, and making up for the sewage treatment fees, the defendant company, Zhejiang Huidelong Dyeing and Chemical Co., Ltd., was sentenced to a fine of 20 million yuan for the crime of environmental pollution; the defendant Yan Haixing was sentenced to four years and six months in prison along with a fine of 1 million yuan; the defendants Pan Defeng and Ru Jianguo were each sentenced to four years in prison and a fine of 300,000 yuan each; the defendant Pan Hualin was sentenced to three years in prison and a fine of 60,000 yuan; the defendant Ru Jiancheng was sentenced to one year and six months in prison and a fine of 50,000 yuan; the defendant Ru Jun was sentenced to one year and three months in prison and a fine of 30,000 yuan; the defendants Pan Defeng and Xu Fusuo were each sentenced to ten months in prison, with a one-year suspension of execution, and a fine of 10,000 yuan each; the defendants Tang Changzheng and Li Zhenhua were each sentenced to six months in prison, with a one-year suspension of execution, and a fine of 10,000 yuan each; the defendant Luo Weijie was sentenced to six months in detention, with a ten-month suspension of execution, and a fine of 10,000 yuan. The defendants Xu Fusuo, Tang Changzheng, Li Zhenhua, and Luo Weijie were prohibited from engaging in any activities related to waste discharge during the probation period. 　　Case 4: Wang Qiuwei’s case of environmental pollution Illegal dumping of household waste near residential areas resulted in a five-year prison sentence. (I) Facts of the case Starting in October 2014, the defendant Wang Qiuwei contracted the work of backfilling land at a modern agricultural logistics park and subcontracted it to others. Knowing that the land in question was not suitable for handling household waste and that those others did not have the necessary qualifications to handle such waste, he still allowed them to dump and bury household waste there. To the northwest of the landfill is the Wusong River, and to the east are farmlands. There are 3 villages within 500 meters, with the nearest village being 125 meters away from the landfill. Wang Qiu and the defendant Li Weigen were in a partnership, with Wang Qiu being overall responsible for the landfilling work. The defendant Liu Honghai was the person in charge of the southern landfill site, and the defendant Han Yang joined the southern landfill project as a partner at Liu Honghai’s invitation. This landfill uses a layered filling method for household waste and construction waste, with household waste being filled in at one layer. After the dumping of household waste was discovered, Wang Qiu sent people to remove some of the waste from the north side, while waste continued to be dumped on the south side until March 2015. According to calculations, the amount of household waste dumped and buried on the north side is 48,236 cubic meters, while the amount on the south side is 146,935 cubic meters. Upon assessment, Wang Qiu and Li Weigen caused losses to public and private property amounting to approximately RMB 12,067,009.94 due to the dumping of household waste, while Liu Honghai and Han Yang caused losses amounting to approximately RMB 9,084,680.27 for the same reason. 　　(II) Judgment The People’s Court of Gusu District, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province ruled that the defendants Wang Qiuyi and Li Weigen were aware that the land used in the logistics park in question did not have the capability to handle household waste, and that others lacked the necessary qualifications to dispose of such waste; they allowed household waste to be dumped and buried there, resulting in significant losses to public and private property. The defendants Liu Honghai and Han Yang violated relevant regulations by dumping and burying household waste without having the appropriate qualifications, thereby causing substantial losses to public and private property. The actions of the aforementioned defendants all constitute the crime of environmental pollution, and the consequences are “particularly serious”. Accordingly, the defendant Wang Qiu was sentenced to five years in prison and a fine of 200,000 yuan for the crime of environmental pollution; the defendant Liu Honghai was sentenced to four years and eight months in prison and a fine of 150,000 yuan; the defendant Li Weigen was sentenced to three years and six months in prison and a fine of 100,000 yuan; the defendant Han Yang was sentenced to two years and six months in prison and a fine of 60,000 yuan. The judgment has taken legal effect. 　　Case 5: The environmental pollution case involving Huzhou Industrial and Medical Waste Disposal Center Co., Ltd. Illegal disposal of hazardous waste by a waste disposal enterprise with particularly serious consequences (I) Basic facts of the case Huzhou Industrial and Medical Waste Disposal Center is an enterprise qualified to handle hazardous waste; its permitted activities include the collection, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste such as medical waste, organic solvent waste, used mineral oil, and photochemical material waste, as well as medical waste, within the Huzhou area. From 2011 to April 2014, the defendant Shi Zheng (the legal representative) instructed, authorized, or consented to his subordinates in management to hand over a total of over 5,950 tons of hazardous waste collected by the center to entities and individuals without the appropriate qualifications for disposal, in order to gain profits therefrom. Among them, some hazardous waste was dumped carelessly. 　　(II) Judgment The first-instance judgment rendered by the Wuxing District People’s Court of Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province, and the second-instance judgment rendered by the Huzhou Intermediate People’s Court held that the defendant entity, Huzhou Industrial and Medical Waste Disposal Center Co., Ltd., violated relevant regulations by disposing of hazardous waste, thereby causing severe environmental pollution. The defendant Shi Zheng is the person in charge directly responsible for the defendant entity, and he instigated, ordered, or consented to his subordinates, who are the management personnel, to carry out the aforementioned actions. The actions of the defendant entity and the defendant both constitute the crime of environmental pollution, with particularly serious consequences. Taking into account all the relevant criminal circumstances of this case, the defendant entity, Huzhou Industrial and Medical Waste Disposal Center Co., Ltd., was found guilty of environmental pollution and sentenced to a fine of 400,000 yuan; the defendant Shi Zheng was found guilty of environmental pollution and sentenced to three years and ten months in prison, along with a fine of 150,000 yuan. This sentence was combined with the penalty imposed for the crime of bribery he committed, resulting in a total sentence of six years and three months in prison and a fine of 250,000 yuan. 　　Case 6: Environmental pollution case involving Jiantao (Hebei) Coking Co., Ltd. – Excessive levels of volatile phenols released into the atmosphere led to a fine of 2.45 million yuan. (I) Basic facts of the case In March 2014, the activated sludge in the biological treatment tank of the second-phase biological treatment facility at the defendant company, Jiantao (Hebei) Coking Co., Ltd., died, preventing the facility from treating ammonia-containing wastewater to the required standards. After discovering this situation, the defendants Wang Chengwu (general manager of the company), Zhang Jianfu (manager of the Public Works Department), Hu Xiaojing (deputy manager of the Public Works Department), Chen Rui (director of the Phase II biochemical treatment station), and Zhang Zhu (person responsible for the relevant tasks) failed to take effective measures to ensure that the ammonia-vaporizing wastewater was treated to meet the required standards. In order to evade supervision by environmental protection authorities, Zhang Jianfu instructed Chen Rui and Zhang Zhu to fabricate false water quality test reports showing that the wastewater met the standards. This untreated ammonia-vaporizing wastewater was then used to supply water to the coking tower, resulting in the volatile phenols present in the wastewater being released directly into the atmosphere and causing severe environmental pollution. Tests showed that the level of volatile phenols in the water used for the coking tower exceeded the specified standards by 137 times. 　　(II) Judgment The People’s Court of Qiaodong District, Xingtai City, Hebei Province ruled that the defendant, Jiantao (Hebei) Coking Co., Ltd., violated relevant regulations by discharging pollutants that posed a serious threat to the environment and human health, thereby causing severe environmental pollution and constituting the crime of environmental pollution. The defendants Zhang Jianfu, Zhang Zhu, Chen Rui, Wang Chengwu, and Hu Xiaojing, as the persons in charge who are directly responsible or other persons directly liable, shall bear corresponding criminal responsibilities. After the incident, the defendant company, Jiantao (Hebei) Coking Co., Ltd., invested a large amount of capital in upgrading its equipment to meet environmental standards, which may warrant a lighter punishment as a consideration. Accordingly, the defendant entity, Jiangtao (Hebei) Coking Co., Ltd., was sentenced to a fine of RMB 2.45 million for the crime of environmental pollution; the defendant Zhang Jianfu was sentenced to one year in prison and a fine of RMB 50,000; the defendant Zhang Zhu was sentenced to ten months in prison and a fine of RMB 30,000; the defendant Chen Rui was sentenced to ten months in prison and a fine of RMB 30,000; the defendant Wang Chengwu was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for one year, and a fine of RMB 20,000; and the defendant Hu Xiaojing was fined RMB 20,000. The judgment has taken legal effect. 　　Case 7: Bai Jialin and Wu Shuqin’s case of environmental pollution – Illegally disposing of packaging barrels containing mineral oil constitutes the crime of environmental pollution. (I) Basic facts of the case: Mineral oils such as lubricants are classified as hazardous waste. According to the **List of Hazardous Wastes**, discarded packaging and containers that contain or are contaminated with hazardous waste also fall under the category of hazardous waste. From October 2014 to April 2015, the defendant Bai Jialin, without obtaining a license to handle hazardous waste, purchased used packaging drums contaminated with mineral oil, paint waste, and waste organic solvents from defendants such as Wu Shuqin, and then hired workers to clean or cut them before selling them. Regarding the wastewater generated from cleaning used packaging drums, Bai Jialin ordered workers to dump it on the ground and discharge it into the external environment through installed pipes. It was found that Wu Shuqin sold a total of 50.5 tons of used packaging drums contaminated with lubricant to Bai Jialin on various occasions. 　　(II) Judgment The People’s Court of Yubei District, Chongqing, ruled in the first instance that the defendant Bai Jialin violated relevant regulations by illegally disposing of more than three tons of hazardous waste, thereby causing serious environmental pollution; the defendant Wu Shuqin, knowing that Bai Jialin did not possess a business license, supplied him with hazardous waste, also contributing to serious environmental pollution, and thus both were found guilty of joint crime. Based on this, and taking into account factors such as the fact that the defendant Wu Shuqin is a first-time offender and pleaded guilty voluntarily during the trial, the defendant Bai Jialin was sentenced to one year and eight months in prison for the crime of environmental pollution, along with a fine of 150,000 yuan; the defendant Wu Shuqin was sentenced to one year in prison with a two-year suspension, and a fine of 80,000 yuan. After filing an appeal, the defendant Bai Jialin applied to withdraw it, and the First Intermediate People’s Court of Chongqing granted the request following a review. 　　Case 8: Environmental pollution case involving Zhejiang Jinfanda Biochemical Co., Ltd. and others – Illicit dumping of over 35,000 tons of glyphosate mother liquor; a fine of 75 million yuan imposed. (I) Basic facts of the case Fangbu Chemical Factory is a subsidiary of Zhejiang Jinfanda Biochemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jinfanda Company), and it is specialized in the production of the pesticide glyphosate. In 2011, the hazardous waste of glyphosate mother liquor generated by the Fangbu Chemical Plant accumulated in the storage facilities due to lack of timely treatment. In order not to disrupt production and reduce handling costs, the defendants Du Zhongxiang (deputy general manager of Jinfanda Company) and Song Qiuqin (manager of the domestic trade department at Jinfanda Company), with the tacit approval of the defendant Pu Jianguo (general manager of Jinfanda Company), entrusted chemical raw material suppliers with whom they had business relations – namely Hangzhou Lianhuan Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Lianhuan Company”), Huzhou Dexing Chemical Materials Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Dexing Company”), Fuyang Boxin Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Boxin Company”), and Quzhou Xinhé Agricultural Production Materials Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Xinhé Company”) – to illegally transport and dispose of glyphosate mother liquor. The defendant Li Xiaofeng (the deputy factory director in charge of the property management department at Fangbu Chemical Plant) knew full well that the glyphosate mother liquor generated during production should be disposed of by enterprises with the appropriate qualifications for such tasks, yet he was still responsible for contacting Song Qiuqin in order to arrange for companies like Xinhe Company to illegally transport away this glyphosate mother liquor. From October 2011 to May 2013, Jinfanda Company illegally disposed of over 35,000 tons of glyphosate mother liquor by directly dumping it into the environment. 　　In the second half of 2011, in order to gain profits, the defendant company, Xinhe Company, acted in violation of relevant regulations by handling hazardous waste without the necessary qualifications. With the approval of the defendant Wu Guichang (the legal representative of Xinhe Company), the defendant Hong Guonv (the deputy general manager of Xinhe Company) got in touch with Du Zhongxiang and Song Qiuqin, and an agreement was reached to handle glyphosate mother liquor for Jinfanda Company, charging a disposal fee of 80–100 yuan per ton. From the beginning of 2012 to May 2013, Xinhe Company used tank trucks operated in partnership by the defendants Huang Xiaodong and Wang Fei to transport more than 5,000 tons of glyphosate mother liquor from Fangbu Chemical Plant to Quzhou, where it was dumped in streams, beaches, forests, and other areas. The company paid Huang Xiaodong and Wang Fei a disposal fee of 50–60 yuan per ton. The defendant Yan Qi (a shareholder of Xinhe Company) was responsible for settling the costs associated with the disposal of glyphosate mother liquor with Huang Xiaodong, Wang Fei, and Jinfanda Company, as well as for issuing invoices. The defendants Lin Shumu, Shu Wenzhong, Chai Ronggui, Yang Jianyun, Fu Guoxiang, Chen Xuerong, Zhang Xianguo, Fang Yueliang, Qiu Tuliang, and Jiang Donghua, as drivers and escorts of tank trucks, were involved in the transportation of glyphosate mother liquor and assisted in its dumping. 　　(II) Judgment The first-instance judgment rendered by the People’s Court of Longyou County, Zhejiang Province, and the second-instance ruling issued by the Intermediate People’s Court of Quzhou City, Zhejiang Province, held that the defendant entities, Zhejiang Jinfanda Biochemical Co., Ltd. and Quzhou Xinhé Agricultural Production Materials Co., Ltd., together with the defendants Huang Xiaodong, Wang Fei, and others, violated relevant regulations by dumping and disposing of hazardous waste, thereby causing severe environmental pollution. Their actions constituted the crime of environmental pollution, and the consequences were particularly serious. Taking into account factors such as surrendering after the crime, giving a truthful confession, and returning the illegal gains, the defendant entity Zhejiang Jinfanda Biochemical Co., Ltd. was sentenced to a fine of 75 million yuan for the crime of environmental pollution; the defendant entity Quzhou Xinhé Agricultural Production Materials Co., Ltd. was sentenced to a fine of 4 million yuan; the defendant Du Zhongxiang was sentenced to six years in prison along with a fine of 1 million yuan; other defendants were also sentenced to corresponding terms of imprisonment and fines. 　　In addition, the People’s Courts of Fuyang District, Xiaoshan District in Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, the Intermediate People’s Court of Hangzhou City, the People’s Court of Deqing County, and the Intermediate People’s Court of Huzhou City have all rendered judgments in accordance with the law against the involved companies such as Boxin Chemical, Lianhuan Chemical, Dexing Chemical, as well as the relevant defendants.