The Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases Endangering Tax Collection and Management was adopted by the 1911th Meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on January 8, 2024 and the 25th Meeting of the 14th Procuratorial Committee of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on February 22, 2024. It is hereby promulgated and shall come into force as of March 20, 2024.
The Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the Supreme People’s Court
March 15, 2024
Fa Shi [2024] No.4
The Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the Supreme People’s Court
Interpretation of some problems on the application of law in handling criminal cases that endanger tax collection and management
(Adopted at the 1911th meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on January 8, 2024 and the 25th meeting of the 14th Procuratorial Committee of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on February 22, 2024, and shall come into force on March 20, 2024).
In order to punish crimes endangering tax collection and management according to law, according to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law of People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Criminal Procedure Law of People’s Republic of China (PRC), some issues concerning the application of law in handling such criminal cases are explained as follows:
Article 1 A taxpayer who makes a false tax return under any of the following circumstances shall be deemed as a means of deception or concealment as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 201 of the Criminal Law:
(1) Forging, altering, transferring, concealing or destroying account books, accounting vouchers or other tax-related materials without authorization;
(two) to sign a "yin and yang contract" and other forms of concealment or decomposition of income and property in the name of others;
(3) falsifying expenditures, offsetting input tax or falsely reporting special additional deductions;
(four) providing false materials to defraud tax incentives;
(five) fabricating false tax basis;
(6) Other deception or concealment means adopted for non-payment or underpayment of taxes.
In any of the following circumstances, it shall be deemed as "failure to declare" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 201 of the Criminal Law:
(1) Taxpayers who have registered their establishment in the registration authority according to law have failed to declare their taxes due to taxable activities;
(2) Taxpayers who do not need to register their establishment with the registration authority according to law or fail to register their establishment according to law have taxable behaviors and are notified by the tax authorities according to law to declare but fail to declare their taxes;
(3) Other persons who knowingly fail to file tax returns according to law.
If the withholding agent fails to pay or underpays the tax withheld or collected by the means listed in the first and second paragraphs, and the amount is relatively large, he shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 201 of the Criminal Law. The withholding agent promises to pay the tax on behalf of the taxpayer, and when it pays the after-tax income to the taxpayer, it shall be deemed that the withholding agent has "withheld and received the tax".
Article 2 Taxpayers who evade paying taxes of more than 100,000 yuan and more than 500,000 yuan shall be deemed as "a large amount" and "a huge amount" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 201 of the Criminal Law respectively.
The criteria for determining whether the withholding agent fails to pay or underpays the tax withheld or collected are "relatively large" or "huge" shall be in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
Article 3 A taxpayer who has evaded paying taxes as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 201 of the Criminal Law shall not be investigated for criminal responsibility if, before filing a case with the public security organ, the tax authorities have issued a notice of recovery according to law, paid the tax payable in full within the prescribed time limit or within the time limit approved for postponing or paying by installments, and fully fulfilled the administrative punishment decision made by the tax authorities. However, except for those who have been subjected to criminal punishment for evading tax payment within five years or have been given administrative punishment by tax authorities for more than two times.
If a taxpayer evades paying taxes and the tax authorities fail to issue a notice of recovery according to law, criminal responsibility shall not be investigated according to law.
Article 4 The "amount of tax evaded" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 201 of the Criminal Law refers to the total amount of taxes collected by the tax authorities that are not paid or underpaid within a certain tax payment period.
The "tax payable" stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 201 of the Criminal Law refers to the tax payable in accordance with the provisions of tax laws and administrative regulations in the year when taxable acts occur, excluding the value-added tax and customs duties collected by the customs and the tax paid in advance by taxpayers according to law.
The first paragraph of Article 201 of the Criminal Law stipulates that "the amount of tax evaded accounts for the percentage of tax payable", which refers to the ratio of the total amount of tax evaded by the actor in a tax year to the total amount of tax payable in that tax year; If the tax period is not determined according to the tax year, it shall be determined according to the ratio of the total amount of tax evasion of various taxes to the total amount of tax payable in that year in the year before the last tax evasion. If the duration of the tax obligation is less than one tax year, it shall be determined according to the ratio of the total amount of tax evasion of various taxes to the total amount of tax payable during the actual tax obligation period.
Tax evasion spans several tax years. As long as the amount and percentage of tax evasion in one tax year reach the standard stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 201 of the Criminal Law, it constitutes the crime of tax evasion. The amount of tax evasion in each tax year shall be calculated cumulatively, and the percentage of tax evasion to tax payable shall be determined according to the highest value of the percentage of tax evasion in each tax year.
"Untreated" as stipulated in the third paragraph of Article 201 of the Criminal Law includes administrative treatment and criminal treatment.
Article 5 Whoever refuses to pay taxes by violence or threat in any of the following circumstances shall be deemed as "serious" as stipulated in Article 202 of the Criminal Law:
(a) the ringleaders who gather people to resist taxes;
(two) intentional injury caused minor injuries;
(3) Other serious circumstances.
If the act of refusing to pay taxes causes serious injury or death to others, which conforms to the provisions of Article 234 or Article 232 of the Criminal Law, he shall be convicted and punished for the crime of intentional injury or intentional homicide.
Article 6 If a taxpayer fails to pay the tax payable in order to avoid the tax authorities from recovering it, it shall be deemed as "taking the means of transferring or concealing property" as stipulated in Article 203 of the Criminal Law:
(1) Abandoning due creditor’s rights;
(2) Transferring property without compensation;
(3) Trading at an obviously unreasonable price;
(4) Concealing property;
(5) Failing to perform tax obligations and leaving the supervision of tax authorities;
(6) transferring or concealing property by other means.
Article 7 In any of the following circumstances, it shall be deemed as "falsely reporting exports or other deceptive means" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 204 of the Criminal Law:
(1) Declaring export tax refund by using special VAT invoices that are falsely issued, illegally purchased or obtained by other illegal means or other invoices that can be used for export tax refund;
(2) Declaring the export business that has not been taxed or exempted as the export business that has been taxed;
(3) Declaring export tax rebates under the guise of other people’s export business;
(four) although there are exports, but the name, quantity, unit price and other elements of the taxable export business are fictitious, and the export tax rebate is declared by inflating the export tax rebate;
(5) Forging or signing a false sales contract, or obtaining export-related documents and vouchers such as export declaration forms and transport documents by illegal means such as forging or altering, and reporting export tax rebates by fabricating export facts;
(six) after the goods are exported, they are transferred to China or the same kind of goods from abroad are transferred to China for circular import and export, and the export tax rebate is declared;
(seven) falsely reporting the functions and uses of export products, and declaring products that do not enjoy the tax refund policy as tax refund products;
(8) defrauding export tax rebates by other deceptive means.
Article 8 Whoever defrauds the state of export tax refund in an amount of more than 100,000 yuan, more than 500,000 yuan and more than 5 million yuan shall be deemed as "large amount", "huge amount" and "especially huge amount" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 204 of the Criminal Law respectively.
Under any of the following circumstances, it shall be deemed as "other serious circumstances" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 204th of the Criminal Law:
(1) Making false declaration of export tax rebate for more than three times within two years, and defrauding the state tax by more than 300,000 yuan;
(2) Having received criminal punishment or administrative punishment for defrauding the state export tax rebate for more than two times within five years, and having cheated the state export tax rebate for an amount of more than 300,000 yuan;
(three) the state tax was defrauded of more than 300 thousand yuan and could not be recovered before prosecution;
(4) Other serious circumstances.
Under any of the following circumstances, it shall be deemed as "other particularly serious circumstances" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 204th of the Criminal Law:
(1) Making false declarations of export tax rebates for more than five times within two years, or defrauding export tax rebates as the main business, and defrauding the state tax of more than 3 million yuan;
(2) Having received criminal punishment or administrative punishment for defrauding the state export tax rebate for more than two times within five years, and committing the act of defrauding the state export tax rebate for more than three million yuan;
(three) the state tax was defrauded of more than three million yuan and could not be recovered before prosecution;
(4) Other particularly serious circumstances.
Article 9 Whoever defrauds the state of export tax rebate without actually obtaining the export tax rebate may be given a lighter or mitigated punishment according to the accomplished crime.
Intermediary organizations and their personnel engaged in freight forwarding, customs declaration, accounting, taxation, foreign trade comprehensive services, etc., in violation of the relevant provisions of the state on import and export operations, provide false documents for others, resulting in others defrauding the state of export tax rebates, and if the circumstances are serious, criminal responsibility shall be investigated in accordance with the provisions of Article 229 of the Criminal Law.
Article 10 Under any of the following circumstances, it shall be deemed as "falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax or other invoices for defrauding export tax refund or tax deduction" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 205 of the Criminal Law:
(1) Issuing special invoices for value-added tax and other invoices for defrauding export tax rebates and tax deduction without actual business;
(2) Having actual deductible business, but issuing special invoices for value-added tax that exceed the tax corresponding to the actual deductible business, and other invoices for defrauding export tax rebates and deducting taxes;
(3) Issuing special invoices for value-added tax and other invoices for defrauding export tax rebates and tax deduction through fictitious trading entities for businesses that cannot be deducted according to law;
(4) Illegally tampering with electronic information related to special invoices for value-added tax or other invoices used for defrauding export tax rebates and tax deduction;
(five) in violation of regulations by other means.
For the purpose of inflating performance, financing, loans, etc., it is not for the purpose of defrauding taxes, and there is no loss caused by tax fraud due to deduction, it is not punished for this crime, and if it constitutes other crimes, criminal responsibility shall be investigated for other crimes according to law.
Article 11 Whoever falsely makes out special invoices for value-added tax or other invoices used to defraud export tax rebates or deduct taxes, with the tax amount of more than 100,000 yuan, shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of Article 205 of the Criminal Law; The amount of falsely making out tax is more than 500,000 yuan and more than 5 million yuan, which shall be deemed as "large amount" and "huge amount" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 205 of the Criminal Law respectively.
Under any of the following circumstances, it shall be deemed as "other serious circumstances" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 205th of the Criminal Law:
(1) The amount of tax that cannot be recovered reaches more than 300,000 yuan before public prosecution is initiated;
(2) Having been subjected to criminal punishment or administrative punishment for more than two times for falsely issuing invoices within five years, and falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax or other invoices for defrauding export tax rebates and tax deduction, with the amount of falsely issuing taxes being more than 300,000 yuan;
(3) Other serious circumstances.
Under any of the following circumstances, it shall be deemed as "other particularly serious circumstances" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 205th of the Criminal Law:
(a) before the prosecution, the amount of tax that cannot be recovered reached more than 3 million yuan;
(2) Having been subjected to criminal punishment or administrative punishment for more than two times for falsely issuing invoices within five years, and falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax or other invoices for defrauding export tax rebates and tax deduction, with the amount of falsely issuing taxes being more than 3 million yuan;
(3) Other particularly serious circumstances.
In the name of the same purchase and sale business, false invoices for input value-added tax, other invoices for defrauding export tax rebates and tax deduction, and false expenses, shall be calculated by the larger amount.
Whoever falsely makes out a forged special VAT invoice and meets the standards stipulated in this article shall be investigated for criminal responsibility for the crime of falsely making out a special VAT invoice.
Article 12 Under any of the following circumstances, it shall be deemed as "falsely issuing invoices other than those stipulated in Article 205 of the Criminal Law" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 205 of the Criminal Law:
(1) Making invoices for others, for themselves, for others to make invoices for themselves or introduce others without actual business;
(2) Having actual business, but issuing invoices for others, for themselves, for others to introduce others, which are inconsistent with the commodity name, service name, quantity and amount of goods in actual business;
(3) Illegally tampering with electronic information related to invoices;
(four) in violation of regulations by other means.
Thirteenth any of the following circumstances shall be deemed as "serious circumstances" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 205th of the Criminal Law:
(1) Falsely issuing invoices with a face value of more than 500,000 yuan;
(2) Falsely issuing more than 100 invoices with a face value of more than 300,000 yuan;
(3) Having received criminal punishment or administrative punishment twice or more for falsely issuing invoices within five years, and falsely issuing invoices, with the par value reaching more than 60% of the standards specified in the first and second paragraphs.
Under any of the following circumstances, it shall be deemed as "the circumstances are particularly serious" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 205th of the Criminal Law:
(1) Falsely issuing invoices with a face value of more than 2.5 million yuan;
(2) Falsely issuing more than 500 invoices with a face value of more than 1.5 million yuan;
(3) Having received criminal punishment or administrative punishment twice or more for falsely issuing invoices within five years, and falsely issuing invoices, with the par value reaching more than 60% of the standards specified in the first and second paragraphs.
Whoever makes out false invoices and reaches the standards stipulated in the first paragraph of this article shall be investigated for criminal responsibility for the crime of making out false invoices.
Article 14 Whoever forges or sells forged special VAT invoices under any of the following circumstances shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of Article 206 of the Criminal Law:
(a) the face tax is more than one hundred thousand yuan;
(2) Forging or selling more than ten forged special invoices for value-added tax with a face tax of more than 60,000 yuan;
(three) the illegal income of more than ten thousand yuan.
Forging or selling forged special invoices for value-added tax with a face tax of more than 500,000 yuan, or more than 50 copies with a face tax of more than 300,000 yuan, shall be deemed as "a large quantity" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 206 of the Criminal Law.
Within five years, those who have received criminal punishment or more than two administrative punishments for forging or selling forged special invoices for value-added tax, and have forged or sold forged special invoices for value-added tax, whose face tax amount reaches more than 60% of the standard stipulated in the second paragraph of this article, or whose illegal income is more than 50,000 yuan, shall be deemed as "other serious circumstances" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 206 of the Criminal Law.
Forging or selling forged special invoices for value-added tax with a face tax of more than 5 million yuan, or more than 500 copies with a face tax of more than 3 million yuan, shall be deemed as "a huge amount" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 206 of the Criminal Law.
Within five years, those who have received criminal punishment or more than two administrative punishments for forging or selling forged special invoices for value-added tax, and have forged or sold forged special invoices for value-added tax, whose face tax amount reaches more than 60% of the standard stipulated in the fourth paragraph of this article, or whose illegal income is more than 500,000 yuan, shall be deemed as "other particularly serious circumstances" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 206 of the Criminal Law.
Whoever forges and sells the same special VAT invoice shall be punished as the crime of forging and selling forged special VAT invoices, and the quantity shall not be counted repeatedly.
Whoever alters a special VAT invoice shall be punished as forging a special VAT invoice.
Article 15 Whoever illegally sells special invoices for value-added tax shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the conviction and sentencing standards in Article 14 of this Interpretation.
Article 16 Whoever illegally purchases special VAT invoices or purchases forged special VAT invoices with a face tax of more than 200,000 yuan, or more than 20 invoices with a face tax of more than 100,000 yuan, shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 208th of the Criminal Law.
Illegal purchase of two kinds of special invoices for value-added tax, true and false, the cumulative amount of calculation, do not implement combined punishment for several crimes.
Those who buy forged special VAT invoices and sell them are convicted and punished for selling forged special VAT invoices; Illegal purchase of special VAT invoices is used to defraud tax deduction or export tax refund, and at the same time constitutes the crime of illegal purchase of special VAT invoices, the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices and the crime of defrauding export tax refund, and shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of heavier punishment.
Article 17 Whoever forges, manufactures or sells other invoices forged or manufactured without authorization for defrauding export tax rebates or tax deduction shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 209 of the Criminal Law:
(a) the face value can be refunded or deducted by more than 100,000 yuan;
(2) Forging, manufacturing or selling more than ten forged or manufactured invoices without authorization, and the face value can be refunded or deducted by more than 60,000 yuan;
(three) the illegal income of more than ten thousand yuan.
Forging, manufacturing or selling other forged or unauthorized invoices that can be used to defraud export tax rebates and tax deductions, where the face value of the invoices can be refunded or deducted more than 500,000 yuan, or where more than 50 invoices can be refunded or deducted more than 300,000 yuan, shall be deemed as "a huge amount" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 209 of the Criminal Law; Forging, manufacturing or selling other forged or unauthorized invoices that can be used to defraud export tax rebates and tax deductions, where the face value of the invoices is more than 5 million yuan, or more than 500 invoices with the face value being more than 3 million yuan, shall be deemed as "extremely huge" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 209 of the Criminal Law.
Whoever forges, manufactures or sells invoices stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 209 of the Criminal Law without authorization shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of that paragraph in any of the following circumstances:
(1) The face value is more than 500,000 yuan;
(2) Forging, manufacturing or selling more than 100 forged or unauthorized invoices with a face value of more than 300,000 yuan;
(three) the illegal income of more than ten thousand yuan.
Forging, manufacturing or selling invoices stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 209 of the Criminal Law without authorization shall be deemed as "serious" in any of the following circumstances:
(a) the face value of more than two million five hundred thousand yuan;
(2) Forging, manufacturing or selling more than 500 forged or unauthorized invoices with a face value of more than 1.5 million yuan;
(three) the illegal income of more than fifty thousand yuan.
Whoever illegally sells other invoices for defrauding export tax rebates or deducting taxes shall be convicted and sentenced according to the provisions in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article.
Whoever illegally sells invoices other than special invoices for value-added tax or invoices used to defraud export tax rebates or deduct taxes shall be convicted and sentenced in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4 of this article.
Eighteenth in any of the following circumstances, it shall be deemed as "a large number" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 210-1 of the Criminal Law:
(1) Holding forged special invoices for value-added tax or other invoices with a face value of more than 500,000 yuan; Or more than fifty copies with a face tax of more than 250,000 yuan;
(2) Holding forged invoices other than those specified in the preceding paragraph with a face value of more than 1 million yuan, or more than 100 copies with a face value of more than 500,000 yuan.
If the number, face value or face value of forged invoices reached more than five times the standard stipulated in the preceding paragraph, it shall be deemed as "a huge amount" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 210-1 of the Criminal Law.
Article 19 Whoever knowingly provides an account number, credit certificate or other assistance to another person who commits a crime endangering tax collection and management shall be punished as an accomplice in the corresponding crime.
Twentieth units to implement the crime of endangering tax collection and management of conviction and sentencing standards, in accordance with the provisions of this interpretation of the standards.
Article 21 If the crime of endangering tax collection and management is committed, resulting in national tax losses, and the actor pays back the tax, recovers the tax losses, and makes effective compliance and rectification, he may be given a lenient punishment; If the circumstances of the crime are minor and there is no need to be sentenced to punishment, prosecution may not be initiated or criminal punishment may be exempted; If the circumstances are obvious, minor and harmless, it will not be treated as a crime.
For the implementation of the provisions of this interpretation, the relevant acts are not prosecuted or exempted from criminal punishment, and it is necessary to give administrative punishment, administrative punishment or other punishment, which shall be transferred to the relevant competent authorities for handling according to law. The relevant competent authorities shall promptly notify the people’s procuratorate and the people’s court of the results.
Article 22 This Interpretation shall come into force as of March 20, 2024. Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the NPC Standing Committee’s Decision on Punishing the Crime of Falsely Making Out, Forging and Illegally Selling Special VAT Invoices (Fa Fa [1996] No.30), Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Cheating Export Tax Refund (Fa Shi [2002] No.30) and Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Tax Evasion and Refusal (No.30) If the judicial interpretations previously issued by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate are inconsistent with this interpretation, this interpretation shall prevail.
Punish typical criminal cases that endanger tax collection and management according to law
Catalogue
1. The tax evasion case of a food company in Sichuan and Zheng Moumou.
2. A catering company in Beijing, Chen Mou and Gong Mou evaded the case of recovering tax arrears.
Third, Shi Moumou and others defrauded the export tax rebate case.
Four, a technology company in Zhenjiang, Hong Moumou, Zhou Mou and others defrauded the export tax rebate, and a trading company in Shenzhen falsely issued a special VAT invoice.
V. The case of Jin Moumou and others falsely issuing special VAT invoices.
Six, an industrial company in Shanghai, Zhang Moumou falsely issued a special VAT invoice.
7. A waterproof material company in Shandong and Xu Moumou falsely issued a special VAT invoice.
Eight, Yang’s false invoicing case
Case 1
Tax evasion case of a food company in Sichuan and Zheng Moumou
-entity enterprises actively pull losses and rectify after breaking the law, and are lenient according to law.
(1) Basic facts of the case
Defendant Sichuan Food Co., Ltd. is a small-scale food production enterprise with the qualification of general taxpayer. From 2017 to 2019, Zheng Moumou, the legal representative of the company, arranged for the company’s financial personnel to make false tax returns by deception and concealment, and evaded paying taxes totaling 1.27 million yuan, with the annual tax evasion rate ranging from 80% to 97%. On September 29, 2021, the tax authorities issued the Decision on Tax Treatment and the Decision on Tax Administrative Punishment to the defendant unit, ordering them to pay the evaded taxes and fines within a time limit. The defendant unit failed to pay on time. On October 14 of the same year, the tax authorities again served the defendant with the Notice of Tax Matters, limiting him to pay the above amount before the 28th of that month. After the expiration of the period, the defendant unit still failed to pay. On May 6, 2022, the tax authorities handed over the clues of the company’s suspected tax evasion crime to the public security organs. The public security organ filed a case for investigation the next day. Zheng surrendered himself after receiving the telephone notice from the public security organ. On March 6, 2023, the defendant unit issued a letter of commitment to the tax authorities to apply for an extension of tax payment in batches, which was approved, and paid part of the evaded tax on the 8 th of that month.
(II) Processing results
The People’s Procuratorate of Renshou County, Sichuan Province prosecuted a food company in Sichuan and Zheng Moumou for alleged tax evasion. Renshou County People’s Court of Sichuan Province held that the defendant company Sichuan Food Co., Ltd. made a false tax declaration or failed to declare by deception or concealment, and evaded paying a huge amount of tax, accounting for more than 30% of the tax payable, and failed to pay it after the tax authorities issued a notice of recovery according to law, which constituted a crime of tax evasion. The defendant Zheng Moumou, as the person in charge directly responsible for the defendant unit, also constitutes the crime of tax evasion. Renshou County People’s Court of Sichuan Province sentenced the defendant, a food company in Sichuan, to a fine for tax evasion; The defendant Zheng Moumou was sentenced to one year in prison, suspended for two years, and fined RMB30,000; The unpaid taxes shall be ordered to be recovered. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, there was no protest or appeal, and the judgment has taken legal effect.
(3) Typical significance
Taxation is the main source of national finance, which is taken from the people and used by the people. Paying taxes according to law is the basic obligation of citizens and the legal obligation of enterprises. Tax evasion damages national finance, disrupts economic order and erodes social integrity, which is not only illegal, but also constitutes a crime with a large amount. For tax evasion, on the one hand, we should punish according to law, warn taxpayers to enhance their awareness of paying taxes through "punishment", pay taxes according to law, and promote "governance" through "punishment"; On the other hand, we should also take into account the characteristics of tax revenue and the status quo of tax payment, and give taxpayers an opportunity to make up for it, instead of "killing them with one stick." According to the fourth paragraph of Article 201 of the Criminal Law, the tax authorities should deal with the criminal responsibility of tax evaders first, which not only gives taxpayers a chance to remedy, but also helps to recover tax losses in time. The defendant unit in this case is a welfare enterprise, which solves the employment of more than a dozen disabled employees and bears certain social responsibilities; Affected by the epidemic, the tax was not paid as scheduled after the incident; Before the court makes a judgment, it makes a plan to pay back the tax and gets the approval of the tax authorities. In order to effectively implement both "punishment" and "governance", the court, in conjunction with the tax authorities, conducted a business risk review of the defendant unit, and after the enterprise carried out compliance rectification, lenient punishment was given to the defendant unit and the defendant, effectively avoiding the adverse consequences of destroying an enterprise due to a case.
travel to watch industry
A catering company in Beijing, Chen Mou, Gongmou
Evade the case of recovering tax arrears
-the taxpayer does not pay attention to honesty and transfer property to bear criminal responsibility.
(1) Basic facts of the case
Defendants Chen Mou and Gong Mou jointly established a catering company in Beijing in 2006, with Chen Mou as the legal representative and Gong Mou as the supervisor. Later, the first branch and the second branch were established in 2007 and 2012 respectively, with Chen Mou as the person in charge. From 2012 to 2013, a catering company, the first branch and the second branch used 53 fake invoices from four companies, including Wal-Mart, which were deducted from the taxable income of corporate income tax in 2012 and 2013, and filed corporate income tax returns with the State Taxation Bureau of Shunyi District, Beijing. In July 2014, the Inspection Bureau of Shunyi District State Taxation Bureau conducted a tax inspection on a catering company, and then made an administrative decision. It was determined that the company used invoices that did not meet the requirements, and the taxable income in 2012 and 2013 was increased by a total of 3.69 million yuan. The enterprise income tax in 2012 and 2013 should be paid back by a total of 920,000 yuan, and the late payment fee should be paid. Defendants Chen Mou and Gong Mou established Hongmou Catering Company at the business address of the first branch, Shimou Catering Company at the business address of the second branch, opened a new account for the business use of the second company, and cancelled the first and second branches. At the same time, a catering company no longer applied for invoices, and the company account was no longer used after freezing. Through the above way,Escape from the Shunyi District State Taxation Bureau to recover taxes. By the time of the incident, there were still more than 820,000 yuan in taxes that could not be recovered. After the incident, a catering company paid back the unpaid enterprise income tax and late payment fee totaling more than 1.3 million yuan.
(II) Processing results
The People’s Procuratorate of Shunyi District of Beijing prosecuted a catering company, Chen Mou and Gongmou for allegedly evading the crime of recovering tax arrears. The Shunyi District People’s Court of Beijing held that the accounting books of the defendant unit were chaotic and the records were not standardized, and the evidence on file could not identify the actual and reasonable expenses related to income, so the tax should be paid back according to the amount identified in the tax treatment decision. The defendant unit fails to pay the tax payable by transferring or concealing property, which makes it impossible for the tax authorities to recover the unpaid tax, and the amount exceeds the standard of 10 thousand yuan stipulated in the criminal law, which has constituted the crime of evading the recovery of tax arrears. The Shunyi District People’s Court of Beijing sentenced a catering company of the defendant unit to a fine of RMB 850,000 yuan for evading the payment of tax arrears. Defendants Chen Mou and Gong Mou were sentenced to three years in prison, suspended for three years, and fined 850,000 yuan. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, the defendant Gong Mou appealed. After hearing the case, Beijing No.3 Intermediate People’s Court ruled that the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.
(3) Typical significance
Although the tax arrears do not constitute a crime, it is not only a violation of the duty to pay taxes, but also a violation of the principle of good faith if the taxpayer has the ability to pay taxes and refuses to pay taxes. If the amount of tax that cannot be recovered reaches more than 10,000 yuan, it constitutes the crime of evading the recovery of tax arrears according to law. In this case, the defendant unit and the defendant evaded paying the unpaid tax by canceling the taxpayer, setting up a new company and opening a new account, and the amount reached more than 100,000 yuan. According to the law, they should be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years, and be fined not less than one time but not more than five times the unpaid tax. The people’s court sentenced the defendant unit and the defendant to punishment according to law, which not only effectively safeguarded the national tax order, but also safeguarded the market environment of honest management.
Case 3
Shi Moumou and others defrauded the export tax rebate case.
-"Low value and high reporting" will be severely punished for defrauding export tax rebates.
(1) Basic facts of the case
In December 2017, the defendant Shi Moumou registered and established Tongling Bomou Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Bomou Company) and Tongling Jinmou Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jinmou Company). Among them, Bomou Company enjoys preferential tax policies as a software enterprise. Through the above two companies controlled by Shi Moumou, he wrote the blank chips purchased by 0.7 yuan at a unit price into the current sampling control software, and then inflated the price to 200 yuan. From January to August, 2019, in the name of selling current sampling control chips, Bomou Company falsely sold to Jinmou Company and falsely issued special VAT invoices. After that, Shi Moumou and Huang Mobo, the co-defendant, agreed that An Company in chibi city, Hubei Province, controlled by the latter, would export the current sampling control module of Jin Company on behalf of him, in the form of signing a false purchase contract, so that Jin Company would sell the current sampling control module to An Company at a unit price around 230 yuan, and then An Company and Hai Company established by Huang Mobo would sign a false purchase contract for the current sampling control module and export it to Hong Kong. After Shi arranged for others to pick up the goods in Hong Kong, he treated the current sampling control module as garbage. After the goods were exported, Shi Moumou, Huang Mobo and others raised US dollars, returned the funds, and settled the foreign exchange in Anmou Company. Jinmou Company mailed the special VAT invoice to Anmou Company, and Anmou Company applied to the tax authorities for export tax rebate with the above-mentioned falsely issued special VAT invoice and export customs declaration materials. From December 2018 to 2019,Anmou Company defrauded more than 5.7 million yuan of export tax refund through 149 special VAT invoices falsely issued by Jinmou Company. After deducting the export agent and other expenses, the balance was returned to Jinmou Company in the form of payment. After identification, the market value of current sampling control chip produced by Bo company is 1.32 yuan, and the market value of current sampling control module produced by Jin company is 7.31 yuan.
(II) Processing results
The People’s Procuratorate in the suburb of Tongling City, Anhui Province prosecuted Shi Moumou and others for allegedly defrauding export tax rebates. The people’s court in the suburb of Tongling City, Anhui Province held that the defendant Shi Moumou and others defrauded the export tax rebate of more than 5.7 million yuan by means of falsely reporting exports, and the amount was extremely huge, which constituted the crime of defrauding export tax rebates. The suburban people’s court of Tongling City, Anhui Province sentenced the defendant Shi Moumou to 11 years in prison for defrauding export tax rebates and fined him RMB 5 million. The defendants in the same case were sentenced to five to six years in prison and fined. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, the defendant Shi Moumou and others appealed. After trial, the Intermediate People’s Court of Tongling City, Anhui Province decided to maintain the conviction and sentencing of the defendants.
(3) Typical significance
The crime of defrauding export tax refund is one of the serious crimes that endanger tax collection and management. As an international practice, in order to encourage the export of domestic goods and enhance international competitiveness, the state allows domestic goods to enter the international market at a price excluding tax, that is, after the goods are exported, the tax paid in the domestic production and circulation links will be refunded to avoid international double taxation. Using this tax policy of the state, criminals falsely report exports or other deceptive means to disguise businesses that have not been exported or should not be refunded as tax-refundable businesses to defraud export tax rebates. This kind of behavior is essentially a fraud crime of illegal possession of state property, which has serious harm and should be severely punished according to law. Although the actor has exported, he fraudulently inflated the price of low-priced products, falsely issued special invoices for value-added tax, and defrauded the state for export tax rebates with inflated export tax rebates. The amount is particularly huge, causing huge property losses to the state, which should be severely cracked down according to law.
Case 4
A technology company in Zhenjiang, Hong Moumou and Zhou Mou defrauded the export tax rebate and a trading company in Shenzhen falsely issued a special VAT invoice.
-Punishing crimes related to falsely issuing special VAT invoices and defrauding export tax rebates according to law.
(1) Basic facts of the case
From 2014 to August 2017, in order to defraud the export tax rebate, the defendants Hong Moumou and Zhou Mou contacted a trading company in Shenzhen, the defendant unit, and when a trading company in Shenzhen purchased goods from an upstream mobile phone supplier such as a communication technology company in Guangdong, they signed a false mobile phone purchase contract with the upstream supplier in the name of four companies, including a technology company in Zhenjiang controlled by Zhou, providing false capital flow and adopting the method of separating tickets from goods. The special VAT invoice that the upstream supplier should have issued to a trading company in Shenzhen was issued to a company controlled by Zhou, thus obtaining a false special VAT invoice, and a trading company in Shenzhen charged a high billing fee. At the same time, in order to obtain the customs declaration documents for export tax rebate, a number of Hong Kong companies controlled by Hong Moumou signed false mobile phone export foreign trade contracts with companies controlled by Zhou, and rented "prop" mobile phones from others to pretend to be the mobile phones in foreign trade contracts for false customs declaration by borrowing goods and matching bills. Finally, the company controlled by Zhou made a false declaration to Zhenjiang State Taxation Bureau with the above-mentioned documentary procedures, and defrauded the national export tax rebate of more than 720 million yuan.
(II) Processing results
The People’s Procuratorate of Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province prosecuted Hong Moumou, Zhou Mou and others, a technology company in Zhenjiang and other units for allegedly defrauding export tax rebates, and a trading company in Shenzhen for allegedly falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax. The Intermediate People’s Court of Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province sentenced a technology company in Zhenjiang, the defendant, to a fine of RMB 100 million for defrauding export tax rebates. The defendant Hong Moumou was sentenced to 14 years in prison and fined 726 million yuan; The defendant Zhou was sentenced to nine years in prison and fined RMB 5 million; Sentenced a defendant company in Shenzhen to a fine of RMB 500,000 for falsely issuing special VAT invoices; The defendants in the same case were sentenced to three to ten years in prison and fined. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, Zhou and other defendants appealed to a trading company in Shenzhen. After hearing the case, the Higher People’s Court of Jiangsu Province ruled that the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.
(3) Typical significance
In recent years, the crime of defrauding export tax rebate has developed in industrialization, resulting in huge tax losses for the country and extremely bad influence on the country’s export tax rebate policy and export trade activities. This kind of crime often involves many criminal chains, such as false opening, distribution of goods, customs declaration, underground money house, tax refund, etc., with fine internal division of labor, relative independence and collusion, showing the characteristics of industrialization, specialization and concealment. There are three gangs involved in this case, namely, "purchasing tax tickets, making fake exports, and declaring tax refund". The time and links for the defendants and the defendant units to participate are different, so they should be dealt with qualitatively according to the specific criminal acts they participated in. In the production and business activities of enterprises with real transactions, in order to earn the billing fee, it should be considered as a crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices for upstream enterprises to others. Whoever falsely issues special VAT invoices for others knowing that they have the subjective intention of defrauding export tax rebates shall be convicted and punished as an accomplice in the crime of defrauding export tax rebates. At the same time, for the multi-link and multi-chain criminal acts such as tax fraud, it is not possible to judge whether it has caused the loss of national tax revenue according to a single link, but the whole chain should be comprehensively analyzed.
Case 5
Jin Moumou and others falsely issued special VAT invoices.
-Shell companies falsely issuing special VAT invoices should be severely cracked down.
(1) Basic facts of the case
From 2018 to before the incident, the defendant Jin Moumou hired defendants Chen Moumou, Li Moumou, Wang Moumou and others to register or purchase nearly 40 shell companies such as Shanghai Suimou Trading Co., Ltd. in the name of others. In the absence of any actual goods transaction, Jin Moumou paid 1.3%-2.2% of the invoice value to others, and accepted false special invoices for value-added tax issued by many companies in Shandong, Zhejiang and other places by means of separation of tickets and goods and circuitous payment of funds, with a total price tax of more than 380 million yuan and a tax amount of more than 46 million yuan. Later, through the fictitious purchase and sale of goods, Jin Moumou falsely issued special invoices for value-added tax to enterprises in Shanxi, Hebei, Shanghai and other places, with a total price tax of more than 220 million yuan, resulting in a tax deduction of more than 27 million yuan.
(II) Processing results
The People’s Procuratorate of Tiantai County, Zhejiang Province prosecuted Jin Moumou and others for allegedly falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax. The Tiantai County People’s Court of Zhejiang Province held that the defendant Jin Moumou falsely made out special invoices for value-added tax for others and let others falsely make out special invoices for himself without real transactions, with a huge amount; Other co-defendants knew that Kim was still involved in falsely issuing special VAT invoices, which constituted the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices. The Tiantai County People’s Court of Zhejiang Province sentenced the defendant Jin Moumou to 14 years’ imprisonment and fined RMB 450,000. The defendants in the same case were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of three years to thirteen years and six months respectively, and fined. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, the co-defendant appealed. After trial, the Intermediate People’s Court of Taizhou City, Zhejiang Province ruled that the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.
(3) Typical significance
The key to distinguishing special VAT invoice from other ordinary invoices is that it can deduct tax by ticket, which is also the core function of special VAT invoice. Criminals use this function of special invoices for value-added tax to make false deductions, defrauding state taxes, causing losses to state property and serious harm. Therefore, the criminal law provides severe legal punishment for the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices. According to the provisions of the Criminal Law, combined with the serious harm of the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices, whether it is for others, for yourself, for others to be themselves, or to introduce others, as long as it is falsely issued by using the tax deduction function of special VAT invoices, it belongs to the act of falsely issuing special VAT invoices. It is the key to crack down on the crime of falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax by setting up shell companies.
Case 6
An industrial company in Shanghai and Zhang Moumou falsely claimed VAT.
Special invoice case
-Punish enterprises for issuing special VAT invoices to each other without real transactions according to law.
(1) Basic facts of the case
In August 2017, Zhang Moumou, the head of an industrial company in Shanghai, the defendant unit, falsely issued two special VAT invoices for the industrial company through a clothing company in Shanghai operated by Tang Moumou, with a total price tax of more than 220,000 yuan, of which more than 30,000 yuan has been declared and deducted. The following month, Zhang Moumou issued a special VAT invoice for the same tax for the clothing company in the name of a knitting and garment factory actually controlled by him, without any actual business dealings, to offset the tax.
In September, 2017, Zhang Moumou and Lu Mou, a salesman of an industrial company, made a fluff product company in Hebei falsely issue four special VAT invoices for the industrial company by paying the billing fee, with a total price tax of more than 380,000 yuan, of which more than 50,000 yuan has been declared and deducted.
During the period from September to December, 2017, when Zhang Moumou was operating an industrial company and a knitting factory, he asked the knitting factory to falsely issue 12 special invoices for value-added tax for the industrial company, with a total price tax of more than 1.01 million yuan, of which more than 140,000 yuan has been declared and deducted.
After the incident, the industrial company has paid all the taxes involved to the tax authorities.
(II) Processing results
The People’s Procuratorate of Songjiang District of Shanghai initiated a public prosecution against industrial company, Zhang Moumou and Lu for allegedly falsely issuing special VAT invoices. Shanghai Songjiang District People’s Court sentenced the defendant’s industrial company to a fine of RMB 30,000 for falsely issuing special VAT invoices. The defendant Zhang Moumou was sentenced to one year in prison and suspended for one year; The defendant Lu was detained for six months and suspended for six months. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, there was no protest or appeal, and the judgment has taken legal effect.
(3) Typical significance
Where the actors issue or circulate special VAT invoices to each other, and the output tax and input tax cannot offset each other, resulting in the loss of state tax, criminal responsibility shall be investigated for the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices. For the purpose of inflating performance and other purposes, those who engage in counter-opening or ring-opening activities, which have not caused national tax losses, shall not be punished as crimes of falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax, and those who constitute other crimes shall be investigated for criminal responsibility with corresponding crimes. In handling cases, we should pay attention to the essential points of "falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax and causing national tax losses", comprehensively examine and identify crimes from the aspects of whether the actors have the intention to defraud taxes subjectively, whether they have paid taxes objectively and caused tax losses, and strictly distinguish between violations and illegal crimes.
Case 7
A waterproof material company in Shandong and Xu Moumou falsely made VAT.
Special invoice case
-entity enterprises shall be treated leniently according to law for enterprise compliance rectification.
(1) Basic facts of the case
From June 2019 to September 2021, Gou Moumou (handled separately) registered a number of shell companies in the name of others, and falsely issued special VAT invoices to many enterprises in Jiangsu, Henan, Zhejiang, Fujian, Shandong and other places without real goods transactions, with a tax amount of 7.39 million yuan. Among them, in September 2019, a waterproof material company in Shandong (hereinafter referred to as waterproof company) falsely issued 22 special invoices for value-added tax for it through a shell company controlled by Gou Moumou in order to deduct taxes, and the tax amount was more than 270,000 yuan. From August to October, 2019, Xu also falsely issued 59 special invoices for value-added tax to two companies, including a waterproof building materials company in Xiamen, where he was an executive, through a shell company controlled by Gou Moumou, with a tax amount of more than 750,000 yuan. All the above invoices are used for deduction, and the input tax has been transferred out after the incident.
In April 2022, the case was transferred to the People’s Procuratorate of Shouguang City, Shandong Province for review and prosecution by the Public Security Bureau of Shouguang City, Shandong Province. After the case was transferred for review and prosecution, Xu said that he pleaded guilty and took the initiative to apply for the start of corporate compliance procedures for waterproof companies and voluntarily carried out compliance rectification. After on-the-spot investigation, the procuratorial organ learned that the waterproof company has been operating normally since it was incorporated in 2015, and its products have good development prospects and potential, with an annual output value of 30 million to 50 million, which has made a certain contribution to the local economic development. Compliance rectification is conducive to the long-term business development of the enterprise. In November 2022, the procuratorial organ decided to apply the enterprise compliance and third-party supervision and evaluation mechanism to the waterproof company.
(II) Processing results
The procuratorial organ invited Shouguang City Management Committee of the third-party supervision and evaluation mechanism for enterprise compliance to set up a third-party supervision and evaluation organization composed of local tax authorities’ staff and lawyers to guide and urge waterproof companies to formulate compliance rectification plans, clarify the key contents of enterprise-specific compliance rectification, and establish and improve relevant compliance management systems. Waterproof company employs a professional compliance team to carry out compliance rectification according to the compliance plan for legal affairs, taxation and other fields, and to carry out rule of law education for management personnel. After the rectification of enterprise compliance, Xu Moumou and enterprise managers put down their ideological burdens and actively organized production and business activities. At the same time, the procuratorial organs strengthen the guidance for the standardized operation of enterprises involved, and urge enterprises to enter a benign development track. In April, 2023, it was assessed by a third-party organization that the waterproof company had completed effective compliance rectification.
In October 2023, the People’s Procuratorate of Shouguang City, Shandong Province decided not to prosecute the waterproof company with reference to the conclusion of the compliance inspection; Prosecute Xu for allegedly falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax, and put forward lenient sentencing suggestions. The People’s Court of Shouguang City, Shandong Province sentenced the defendant Xu Moumou to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, and fined RMB 20,000. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, there was no protest or appeal, and the judgment has taken legal effect. After a return visit, it is known that the waterproof company is operating normally, the output value remains stable and the employees on the job are stable.
(3) Typical significance
In the compliance reform of enterprises involved, procuratorial organs should give full play to their role, accurately grasp the applicable conditions for compliance rectification, and rely on the third-party supervision and evaluation mechanism management Committee to ensure that cases are properly handled and compliance is effectively carried out. It is necessary to comprehensively consider the alleged charges of the case, the type, scale, business scope and main business of the enterprise involved, set up a third-party organization in a targeted manner, and focus on the problems existing in the internal governance structure, rules and regulations, personnel management, etc., which are closely related to the suspected crimes of enterprises, and urge enterprises to formulate special compliance rectification plans and build an effective compliance management system. In handling cases, according to the criminal facts, circumstances and performance in compliance rectification of the enterprises and personnel involved, decisions can be made respectively according to law, and the units that effectively comply with the rectification are relatively not prosecuted; If the person who is directly responsible does not meet the conditions for non-prosecution, a public prosecution shall be initiated according to law, and suggestions for lenient sentencing shall be put forward.
Case 8
Yang falsely invoiced the case.
-Falsely issuing ordinary invoices may also constitute a crime.
(1) Basic facts of the case
From 2014 to 2022, the defendant Yang registered and established 11 companies in the name of close relatives or others. In the absence of actual business, through the introduction of middlemen Liu (handled separately), Fu Moumou (handled separately) and others, 11 companies were used to falsely open ordinary VAT invoices by means of false accounting and capital return, from which they received benefits of 0.5%-1.5% of the face value, with a total profit of more than 3.4 million yuan. After inspection by the tax authorities, Yang falsely issued 14,370 ordinary VAT invoices through the above 11 companies, with a cumulative face value of more than 1.2 billion yuan.
(II) Processing results
The People’s Procuratorate of Tianjin Binhai New Area prosecuted Yang for allegedly falsely invoicing. The People’s Court of Tianjin Binhai New Area held that the defendant Yang violated the national tax collection and management regulations and falsely issued ordinary invoices for others without actual business activities, which constituted the crime of falsely issuing invoices, and the circumstances were particularly serious. Tianjin Binhai New Area People’s Court sentenced Yang to six years’ imprisonment and fined 200,000 yuan for the crime of falsely issuing invoices. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, there was no protest or appeal, and the judgment has taken legal effect.
(3) Typical significance
Although the ordinary invoice has no tax deduction function compared with the special VAT invoice, it is the original evidence of accounting, and it is also an important basis for law enforcement inspection by audit institutions and tax authorities. There are relevant regulations on the printing, collection and issuance of invoices. In order to obtain illegal benefits, criminals engage in illegal and criminal acts of falsely issuing invoices, and provide convenience for tax evasion, tax fraud, financial fraud, corruption and bribery, squandering public funds, money laundering and other illegal crimes, which seriously disrupt the market economic order, encourage the spread of corruption, and corrupt the social atmosphere, with serious social harm. In 2011, the Criminal Law Amendment (VIII) added the crime of false invoicing, which did not require a specific purpose or the harmful result of tax loss, and complied with the needs of social governance. By setting up a number of shell companies, the perpetrator fraudulently made out invoices from the tax authorities. The number and amount of false invoices were extremely huge, and the circumstances were particularly serious. Although there was a confession and voluntary confession, the court sentenced him to six years in prison, which reflected the attitude of punishing the crime of false invoices according to law.
Original title: "signing a" yin and yang contract "is a means of tax evasion! "two highs" are clear.
Read the original text
