Zeng Fannian Extortion Case (曾凡年敲诈勒索案)

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 

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. 

Information sources