Address: Nanjing. Defendant Li, male, 1 9 6 8, from Cixi City, Zhejiang Province, Han nationality, high school culture, the actual operator of a limited company, now lives in Gulou District, Nanjing. 1, in April 2 0 0 9, he was criminally detained on suspicion of falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax, and was released on bail pending trial on April 2 7 of the same year. Defender, lawyer of Jiangsu Gefei Law Firm.
The following indictment (2 0 0 9) of Xiaguan District People's Procuratorate of Nanjing accused a company of the defendant unit and defendant Li of committing the crime of falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax, and filed a public prosecution with our hospital on June 29, 2009. Our court formed a collegial panel according to law and heard the case in public. The People's Procuratorate of Xiaguan District of Nanjing entrusted an agent to appear in court to support the public prosecution, and the litigation agent of a limited company of the defendant unit, the defendant Li and his defender attended the lawsuit. The trial is now over. It was found through trial that at the beginning of March 2 0 0 7, a defendant company in Nanjing (hereinafter referred to as Company A) falsely issued six special VAT invoices for its own account when an industrial development company in Shenzhen (hereinafter referred to as Company A) had no actual commodity transaction, and the buyer was Company A and the seller was a company in Shenzhen, so as to achieve the purpose of deducting its input tax. The false tax amount is 86,874.36 yuan. On March 1 1, 2 0 0 9, the inspection bureau of Xiaguan District State Taxation Bureau transferred the case to the public security organ. On March 3 of the same year, the public security organ arrested the defendant Li in his residence. After the incident, the defendant Li returned RMB 300,000. A company of the defendant unit and the defendant Li have no objection to the above facts, which are confirmed by witness testimony, the company's industrial and commercial registration, tax registration, accounting vouchers, special value-added tax tickets, bank acceptance bills, payment vouchers, payment vouchers, false development notices and lists, proof of arrival, list of seized items, etc., which are sufficient for identification. We believe that the defendant company is a limited company, and there is no actual commodity trading activity with Shenzhen Co., Ltd., and others issue special VAT invoices for the company, which constitutes the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices, and the amount of falsely issuing taxes is large, which should be punished according to law. Defendant Li, as the person directly in charge of a limited company, decided and implemented the act of letting others falsely issue special VAT invoices on behalf of the defendant unit, and his behavior also constituted the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices, which should be punished according to law. Defendant Li pleaded guilty after returning to the case, actively returned the stolen money and paid the fine in advance. He showed remorse and was given a lighter punishment as appropriate. The People's Procuratorate of Xiaguan District of Nanjing accused a company of the defendant unit and the defendant Li of committing the crime of falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax. The facts are clear, the evidence is true and sufficient, the charges and applicable laws are correct, and they are adopted. Defender Li proposed that the defendant was a first-time offender, pleaded guilty and repented after being brought to justice, returned the tax payable, paid the fine in advance, and requested a lighter punishment and probation as appropriate, which was adopted. Accordingly, in order to safeguard the national tax administration system from infringement and punish crimes, our hospital, according to the facts, nature, circumstances and the degree of harm to society of the defendant, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 205, Paragraph 1, Item 3, Article 72, Paragraph 2, Item 3, Article 52, Article 53 and Article 64 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) (the fine shall be paid within 10 days from the date when this judgment takes legal effect. Defendant Li committed the crime of falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax and was sentenced to three years in prison and suspended for three years. (The probation period of probation shall be counted from the date when the judgment is determined. ) 2. The illegal income of a defendant company in Xiaguan Branch of Nanjing Public Security Bureau was temporarily withheld. 86,874.36 yuan was confiscated as a supplementary tax. If you refuse to accept this judgment, you can appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province through our court or directly within ten days from the second day of receiving the judgment. If a written appeal is filed, one original and two copies of the appeal shall be submitted. Decision of the Xiaguan District People's Court of Nanjing Municipality (July 2008 13) on bail pending trial of Baixia Branch of Nanjing Public Security Bureau; Bai Gong Zi 20 12 Suspect Wang, female, address: baixia district, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, unit and occupation: omitted. Our bureau is investigating the case of Nanjing baixia district XX Industrial Investment Co., Ltd. falsely issuing special VAT invoices to defraud export tax rebates to offset tax invoices. As the criminal suspect will not cause social danger, according to the provisions of Article 51 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), it is decided to release him on bail pending trial, with the term from March 29, 20 12. The criminal suspect should accept the supervision of the guarantor XXX/pay a deposit of zero yuan. The person who is released on bail pending trial shall abide by the following provisions during the period of release on bail pending trial:
1. Do not leave the city or county where you live without the approval of the executive organ; 2. Arrive in time for arraignment; Three, shall not interfere with the testimony of witnesses in any form; Four, shall not be destroyed, forged evidence or collusion.
If a criminal suspect violates the above provisions during the period of obtaining a guarantor pending trial and has paid the deposit, the deposit shall be confiscated, and according to different circumstances, the criminal suspect shall be ordered to make a statement of repentance, pay the deposit again, put forward a guarantor or monitor his residence and be arrested. 20 12 March 29th
In the conviction and sentencing of falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax, the amount of crime is the key basis, which mainly includes three aspects: first, the amount of falsely issuing taxes; The second is the amount of tax fraud by the state; The third is the amount of tax losses caused by the state.
When it is determined that the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices has caused losses to the national interests, the tax paid by the actor to the tax authorities in advance for receiving special VAT invoices and the money returned by the actor and his family to the state shall be deducted from the actual illegally deducted taxes.
Brief introduction of the case
From April 2007 to July 2008, Lou bought special VAT invoices from the tax authorities in the name of Guangzhou XX Industry and Trade Co., Ltd., and made out 488 special VAT invoices 1799 copies for Guangzhou XX Electromechanical Cable Co., Ltd., with a total tax of RMB 654,380+0,369,000. During the period, the building also asked others to falsely write out or buy 80 forged special VAT invoices from others, and the tax amount was 1 169000 yuan, all of which were reported to the tax authorities for deduction. The court of first instance held that Lou falsely established Guangzhou XX Industry & Trade Co., Ltd. and sought illegal interests in its name, and used the method of letting others falsely write special VAT invoices for himself to deduct the tax payable, resulting in a loss of national tax of1160,000 yuan, which could not be recovered before the end of the investigation, and sentenced Lou to life imprisonment.
After the verdict, Lou refused to accept it and appealed to the Guangdong Higher People's Court. The court of second instance held that Lou did not engage in purchase and sale activities and did not need to pay VAT to the tax authorities, and his criminal behavior could not lead to the loss of state tax revenue. Therefore, the 1 160000 yuan VAT input tax falsely declared and deducted by Lou for others cannot be regarded as the loss of national interests. What really causes losses to the country is the part of the VAT input tax falsely claimed by Lou for others that was used by others to deduct the taxable amount.