The first sentence of Shenzhen to borrow the illegal cash register case of the POS machine

Recently, the people's Court of Futian District, Shenzhen, has been sentenced by the people's Court of Futian District in Shenzhen to use the case of illegal operation of the machine. In the case of illegal operation, 3 people, such as the defendant, Huang Mou, are sentenced to 3 years from 6 months to 1 years' imprisonment and a fine of RMB 100 thousand to 10 thousand yuan. This case is the first case in Shenzhen since the amendment of the criminal law (seven), the Supreme People's Supreme People's Procuratorate on the application of the interpretation of the specific application of law on the criminal cases of impairing the management of credit cards. The case also announced: with the implementation of the latest judicial interpretation of "two high", the era of illegal use of POS machines is no longer illegal.
Since January 2008, the suspect Huang has registered the Ming Da Li electronic business and the moyad electronic business department. The criminal suspect Wu Jia registered the torch Huang electronic business. Two people took advantage of the POS machine of the above 3 businesses and illegally engaged in the payment and settlement of the funds by means of credit card arbitrage and replacement, and collected 0.8% to 1%. The service fee is profit-making. Huang is responsible for transferring accounts and settling accounts, and Wu Jia is responsible for developing customers, receiving customers, swiping cards, etc. The criminal suspect Wu Yi (the wife of one of the Huang, Wu Jia's sister) used credit card cash to provide funds for the illegal cash payment and settlement business of Huang. In March 2009, he also rented a house in Futian District Qunxing square for the illegal business of Huang Mou and armour. The 7 identity card is Huang Mou and Wu Jia registration company applying for POS.
As a result, from February 28, 2009 to June 29, 2009, Huang, Wu, Wu Yi and Wu Yi illegally engaged in the business of payment and settlement of funds of RMB 30 million yuan, through illegal income of illegal income of RMB 10 yuan.
According to the personnel of the case, the phenomenon of illegal arbitrage using POS is more common, but the judicial interpretation of "two high" has not yet been introduced when the case is accepted. From the information on the Internet, it has not found the relevant cases of criminal responsibility for the crime of illegal operation, which brings great challenge to the inspection authorities to deal with the case.
In December 16, 2009, the "two high" interpretations of the specific application of law on the handling of criminal cases of impairing credit card management began to be implemented. It was clear that the POS machine was used to pay cash directly to credit card holders by means of fictitious transactions. The amount was more than 1 million yuan and the amount was over 5 million yuan. The circumstances are especially serious and shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 5 years.
However, in court trial, the defendant's defender proposed that the judicial interpretation of the "two highs" in the trial stage did not have a retroactive effect on the case, and the case should not be applied according to the principle of punishment from the old and the light. In this regard, the public prosecutor points out that the judicial interpretation is an interpretation of the legal effect made by the judicial organ for the specific application of the law in the work, and is implemented from the date of publication or regulation, and the effect is applicable to the period of the implementation of the law. In December 7, 2001, the "two high" provisions on the application of the time effect of criminal judicial interpretation of the provisions of the second provisions: for the conduct of the judicial interpretation before the implementation of the behavior, there is no relevant judicial interpretation of the act, the judicial interpretation has not been handled or are dealing with cases, according to the provisions of the judicial interpretation. Therefore, the opinion of the defender is unfounded. Finally, the collegiate Court adopted the opinion of the procuratorial organ, integrated the role of the 3 defendants in the joint crime, the act of self surrender, and confessed the repentance of the crime, and made a judgment according to law.