The defendant/exoneree
Zeng Fannian (曾凡年), was about 42 years old when arrested, and 48 when eventually acquitted.
Facts
Zeng Fannian (“Zeng”) was an accounting manager for a company based in Guangdong Province before his arrest. On February 11, 2011, someone registered a cell phone number in the name of Zeng in Enping City of Guangdong Province, by using a faxed copy of a photocopy of Zeng’s first-generation ID card. At that time Zeng had been instead using a second-generation ID card for three years. By using this cell phone number, this person blackmailed Tang, representative of the company for which Zeng had previously worked in Hengyang City of Hunan Province, for 3 million RMB, threatening that he would otherwise publicize some accounting issues of Tang’s company. On February 18, 2011, Zeng’s personal bank account received 300,000 RMB wired from Shenzhen City of Guangdong Province. Zeng received a text alert and reported to the Shenzhen police and left with them a copy of his bank account. On March 30, 2011, unbeknownst to Zeng, two transactions, respectively 60,000 RMB and 20,000 RMB, were wired from Hengyang City of Hunan Province into his personal account. Zeng’s cell phone (different from the number registered in Enping City) did not send him a text alert about these two transactions. On March 31, 2011, Tang reported to a local police station in Hengyang City of Hunan Province about being extorted by Zeng. On April 8, 2011, Zeng was apprehended in Dongguan City of Guangdong Province by police officers from Hunan Province.
Procedural history
In July 2012, the Yanfeng District People’s Court of Hengyang City convicted Zeng of extortion and sentenced him to 4 years of imprisonment. Zeng appealed, but the Hengyang Intermediate People’s Court rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment.
Date of the conviction
July, 2012
Date the wrongful conviction was reversed
May 15, 2017 (Zeng was released on April 8, 2015 after serving his time.)
Days incarcerated
1,460
Why was the case reopened/reversed
Zeng and his wife continued petitioning to various government agencies after his conviction and after he served his prison time in full. During a routine review, the Hunan Provincial Procuratorate noticed several problems in this case. Upon interviewing Zeng in prison and further investigation into this case, the Hunan Provincial Procuratorate issued a prosecutorial suggestion to the Hunan Provincial High Court to reopen the case for retrial. On June 19, 2015, the high court retried and remanded the case to Yanfeng District Court for a new trial, and the district court retried and acquitted Zeng on July 15, 2015.
Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction
False confession
Among many of the statements Zeng made during the criminal investigation, he confessed in only one statement, which was recorded in the police office. This recording is a violation of the criminal procedural law. According to the law, police interrogation should take place in the detention center where the suspect is held. This violation often indicates the suspect may have been tortured or coerced to confess.
Flawed police investigation
Police failed to check the mobile positioning data to verify where the phone was located when the extortion messages were sent to Tang. In preparing to reopen the case, prosecutorial investigation found Zeng’s alibi. When the extortion messages were sent from Shenzhen City of Guangdong Province, Zeng was on a business trip in Yongzhou City of Hunan Province.
Zeng reported to the police about his reception of 300,000 RMB, an indication of no intention to extortion. But the police failed to consider this fact when investigating the other two transactions.
Problematic forensic evidence
No forensic testing on the handwriting where the cell phone number was registered in Enping City of Guangdong Province. Subsequent prosecutorial investigation found that the signature wet signed in Enping was not Zeng’s handwriting.