"The prosecutor may respond to the defender's arguments." The presiding judge glanced at the prosecutor's bench and said step by step.

"Okay, in response to the defender's defense, we make the following arguments:

We believe that the appellant Niu Shengming's conduct constituted the crime of extortion. The main reasons are as follows:

1. Niu Shengming reported to the relevant departments that the investment and development company's project was illegal and in violation of regulations, and his behavior was to use threats and coercion to solicit property, and it was a forcible extortion of property. The objective elements of the crime of extortion are met.

2. An agreement has been signed and compensation has been given for the demolition and relocation of Niu Shengming's house and grave, and his re-imposition of a huge amount of money to the investment and development company is not within a reasonable scope, but is intended to illegally occupy the huge amount of property of the investment and development company. It meets the subjective element of 'for the purpose of illegally occupying the property of others' in the crime of extortion.

In summary, we believe that the appellant's conduct met the subjective and objective elements of the crime of extortion and constituted the crime of extortion. Complete. The female prosecutor's face was frosty.

"The defender may respond to the prosecutor's opinion." The presiding judge looked at Fang Yi.

"Based on the prosecutor's defense and response, the defense counsel issued the following defense opinions:

The defense counsel believes that Niu Shengming's conduct does not constitute the crime of extortion either subjectively or objectively, for the following reasons:

1. Niu Shengming's conduct does not meet the subjective element of "for the purpose of illegal possession" in the crime of extortion.

The crime of extortion refers to the act of forcibly extorting public or private property for the purpose of illegal possession, by means of threats or coercion, and the amount is relatively large.

The defender argues that, under normal circumstances, illegal possession of property that is not one's own is illegal possession. But in reality, property relations are very complex and cannot be generalized. Only when the perpetrator knowingly takes possession of the property in a manner prohibited by the Criminal Law knowing that the property does not belong to him can it be determined that the perpetrator has the purpose of illegal possession.

In this case, Niu Shengming, as a demolition household, is difficult to determine in the evidence that his act of claiming compensation from the developer has the intention of illegal occupation. Here's why:

First, Niu Shengming had a dispute over the compensation for demolition, and although the Niu family had already obtained a certain amount of compensation for demolition, it did not rule out the possibility of continuing to demand compensation.

According to Article 13 of the Regulations of the State Council on the Administration of Urban Demolition and Relocation, the demolition party and the person being demolished shall, in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations, enter into a compensation and resettlement agreement on the compensation method and amount, the area and location of the resettlement house, the relocation period, the relocation transition method and the transition period.

In this case, Niu Shengming's mother signed an agreement with the demolition company on the demolition of the house, and the validity of the agreement was a key document in this case.

The ownership and use rights of the houses and graves involved in the case were jointly owned by the entire Niu family since the death of Niu Shengming's father, and the agreement signed between Niu Shengming's mother and the demolition party must strictly be agreed by the entire family, including the appellant Niu Shengming. Otherwise, the agreement is valid, but it does not take effect.

In the absence of Niu Shengming and other Niu family members, the validity of the demolition agreement in this case is pending for the following reasons:

1. In the evidence in the case, there is no evidence to prove that Niu Shengming's mother signed the agreement with the relevant departments on behalf of the whole family;

2. The ownership and use rights of the Niu family's houses and graves are shared by the whole family, and Niu Shengming's mother cannot independently exercise the right to dispose of the property shares enjoyed by others in the family;

3. According to Article 51 of the Contract Law, if a person without the right of disposition disposes of the property of another person, and the right of disposition is obtained after the right holder recognizes it or the person without the right of disposition enters into a contract, the contract shall be valid.

In this case, the Demolition and Relocation Office did not urge Niu Shengming to recognize the validity of the demolition agreement, nor did Niu Shengming and his wife, and although Niu Shengming did not raise any objection to the relevant departments on the standard of compensation for demolition and relocation, he never agreed to the demolition contract signed by his mother, and did not recognize it afterwards, so it cannot be determined that Niu Shengming and his wife have recognized the validity of the contract on the grounds that Niu Shengming received housing compensation from his mother.

On the contrary, Niu Shengming expressed his dissatisfaction with his family's failure to notify him to be present when the grave was moved, and Niu Shengming also had opinions on the demolition work, so he had the idea of re-claiming compensation for losses related to the demolition and relocation from the Demolition and Relocation Office and other units.

Second, Niu Shengming has the right to request the demolition party to reclaim compensation for demolition in accordance with the law.

Niu Shengming's reclaim for demolition compensation from the relevant departments is not prohibited by law.

According to Article 16 of the Regulations on the Administration of Urban Housing Demolition, if the demolition party and the person being demolished, or the person being demolished, or the person being demolished and the tenant of the house fail to reach an agreement on compensation and resettlement for demolition, the housing demolition management department shall make a ruling upon the application of the parties.

If the housing demolition management department is the person being demolished, the people's government at the same level shall make a ruling. The award shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application. If the parties are not satisfied with the ruling, they may file a lawsuit with the people's court within 3 months from the date on which the ruling is served.

The Reply of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Acceptance of Cases of Housing Demolition, Compensation, Resettlement, etc., also stipulates that if a dispute arises between the demolition party and the person being demolished over housing compensation or resettlement, or if one or both parties repent, and only on housing compensation, resettlement and other issues after the two parties reach an agreement, the people's court shall accept it as a civil case in accordance with the law.

The Provisions on the Causes of Action in Civil Cases formulated by the Supreme People's Court also define the cause of action of such disputes as disputes over compensation contracts for housing demolition and resettlement.

To sum up, it is okay for Niu Shengming to re-claim the demolition compensation through any means, but whether the demolition compensation can be re-obtained and how much the demolition compensation can be re-obtained should be determined by Niu Shengming through consultation with the relevant departments and units in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations.

It can be seen from this that Niu Shengming's re-claim for compensation for demolition and relocation belongs to the re-assertion of the demolished party for demolition compensation, which is within the scope permitted by law.

Niu Shengming et al.'s reclaim for demolition compensation is huge, but it is not without any factual basis, in other words, the disputed demolition compensation does not necessarily belong to Niu Shengming, but is in a state of uncertainty.

Therefore, Niu Shengming's act of seeking compensation for demolition and relocation is actually a way to exercise civil rights, and it is not for the purpose of 'illegal occupation'. ”

After Fang Yi finished saying the first point, he swallowed his saliva, cleared his throat, and glanced at the prosecutor opposite by the way, the other party's expression was serious, and he frowned from time to time, probably thinking about the content of Fang Yi's speech.

There are two shifts at 6 o'clock in the evening!

(End of chapter)