Theft in an earthquake zone: punish it to the full

Introduction

At 22:55 on 17 June 2019 an earthquake of magnitude 6.0 struck Changning county, Yibin, Sichuan, killing 13 people and injuring 226. Internet users expressed their grief and sent their good wishes to the disaster area, hoping that Yibin would come through.

On 25 June 2019, however, three brothers from Guizhou, learning of the earthquake, took a train to the Yibin disaster area in order to fish in troubled waters and commit theft. They said they thought that in a disaster area they might find something good to steal, some good cigarettes and liquor. The roads into the Changning area were closed, however, and they could not get in, so the three drifted about the Yibin urban area, playing games and idling in internet cafes. When their money ran out, they climbed into a middle school in the small hours and stole from all 20-odd unlocked classrooms, taking more than RMB 10,000 in cash. The money was what pupils at the school had brought to pay their living expenses, and the school called the police the next morning after many pupils reported that their money had gone. The police trawled the surveillance footage and identified the three suspects, who have now been detained.

A breach of morality and conscience that should be punished to the full

Article 264 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, headed "theft", provides that a person who steals public or private property in a relatively large amount, or who commits theft repeatedly, enters a dwelling to steal, steals while carrying a weapon, or pickpockets, is sentenced to criminal detention, public surveillance, or fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, and is fined or not; where the amount is huge or there are other serious circumstances, the person is sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three and not more than ten years and is fined; where the amount is especially huge or there are other especially serious circumstances, the person is sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years or to imprisonment for life, and is fined or has property confiscated.

Article 1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Cases of Theft, issued on 2 April 2013, lays down general standards for what constitutes a "relatively large amount", a "huge amount" and an "especially huge amount" for theft. The starting point for a relatively large amount is RMB 1,000 to RMB 3,000, for a huge amount RMB 30,000 to RMB 100,000, and for an especially huge amount RMB 300,000 to RMB 500,000.

Article 2 of the Interpretation sets out special standards for a relatively large amount. Where certain aggravating circumstances are present, the threshold may be set at 50 per cent of the figure in Article 1. The article lists eight such circumstances. Item (4) provides that where property is stolen during an emergency such as a natural disaster, an accident or an incident affecting public security, at the place where the event occurred, the threshold for constituting the offence may be 50 per cent of that figure, so that theft is made out at RMB 500 to RMB 1,500. The reason is that theft at the scene of an emergency produces more serious consequences: stealing from disaster victims not only infringes their property rights but may unsettle other victims and become a source of social instability. The item specifies both the time and the place of the theft, defining them as "during an emergency" and "at the place where the event occurred".

Here, because the three brothers stole public and private property amounting to a relatively large sum and no special circumstance under Article 2 of the Interpretation applies, the ordinary penalty is criminal detention, public surveillance or fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, with a fine or without. If the amount stolen was less than RMB 15,000, then whether a special circumstance under Article 2 applies makes no difference to the sentence in this case.

Item (7) of Article 2 also covers theft of funds or materials for disaster relief, emergency rescue, flood control, preferential treatment to servicemen and family members of martyrs, poverty alleviation, resettlement or relief. Such funds and materials are intended for special purposes, and their theft is not only a loss of property but may cause serious harm: stealing food, medicine and other relief supplies in an earthquake zone, for example, infringes the property rights of the State and of individuals and may impede the smooth conduct of relief work. It should be noted that this provision is not limited by the time or place of the theft: whether or not it occurred during a disaster or at the place of the disaster, it applies whenever the property stolen is of that special character. After the Wenchuan earthquake of 2008, for instance, Mao Fanglin, a villager of Gongxing town in Mianzhu, stole nearly RMB 20,000 from disaster victims and was given a heavier sentence of seven and a half years. On 3 June the Shifang City People's Court heard the case in open court, and it became the first disaster-related theft in the Sichuan disaster area to attract a heavier sentence.

The three brothers had meant to get into the disaster area and see what good things, what good cigarettes and liquor, they could steal, but the roads were closed and they could not get in, which is how the theft of the pupils' living expenses came about. Their conduct is contemptible and infuriating.

The earthquake zone was in everyone's thoughts, and these three brothers thought only of fishing in troubled waters. Their conduct is not merely suspected of being unlawful and criminal but is a serious breach of morality and conscience, and it chills the heart. The public security authorities have said that unlawful and criminal conduct which loses all conscience of this kind will be struck at hard and punished to the full.