The Analysis On Environmental Pollution Case

The suspects Xing, Yuan and Gong had been charged of the environmental pollution crime. But finally the Procurator made a non prosecution decision because of doubtful evidence. However, the Public Security organs applied for reconsideration. They insisted that the evidence is reliable and complete. In the case-handing process and discussion, people found a series of controversies and questions about the evidence requirements and the constitution of environmental pollution crime as follow: Firstly, is there exist behavioral offense in environmental pollution crime? Secondly, can subjective intention constitutes the environmental pollution crime? Thirdly, is there a joint offence? Fourthly, is this case’s evidence reliable and sufficient to transfer to the people’s court? Through analyzing the evidence requirements and the constitution of environmental pollution crime, we can make clear that behavioral offense and subjective intention can constitutes the environmental pollution crime. So in this case, although the behavior of the three suspects’were intentional, and didn’t result great damage, they still can be constitute the environmental pollution crime, but not throwing dangerous substance crime. The three suspects had joint intent to dump toxic waste, and all of them are subjects of the crime who should be accountable. So they suspected joint crimes. But the prosecutor determined non-prosecution, given the very unclear evidence of the weight of toxic waste at the inquest. As the environmental pollution crime is behavioral offense in this case, there is no need to prove the harm consequence and the causality. So the statement of reasons for non-prosecution is biased although the decision is correct. It maybe mislead the investigation of such cases in the future.