People's Procuratorate of Gaoyou City, Jiangsu Province vs. Dystar (Nanjing) Colorant Co., Ltd. and Wang Zhanrong et al. País/Territorio China Tipo de la corte Nacional - corte superior Fecha Oct 8, 2016 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal Intermediate People’s Court of Yangzhou City Sede de la corte Jiangsu Province Juez Yin XiaotaoLi ChunrongHao Jiajia Número de referencia Su 10 Xing Zhong No. 185 (Criminal Verdict) Idioma Inglés Materia Cuestiones jurídicas, Desechos y sustancias peligrosas Palabra clave Legislación básica Contaminación marina Residuos peligrosos Acuerdo subnacional Solución de controversias Ley marco Resumen A textiles colorant company, Dystar, arranged to dispose of its acid waste with a contractor at well below the market rate, despite knowledge that the contractor did not have the qualifications to dispose of the waste. The contractor in turn engaged a third party to discretely discharge the hazardous waste into a river using a boat with a fake license plate. The court of first instance found the relevant defendants guilty of the crime of environmental pollution, a joint offense. Three defendants appealed on grounds of damage valuation, individual and company liability, application of a judicial interpretation, and the appropriateness of the fine. The appeal was rejected and the original judgement confirmed. Environmental Legal Questions:Was the damage valuation relied on by the court permissible: In this case, it was impossible to accurately calculate the actual environmental damage caused. Therefore, the court correctly relied on a ‘virtual remediation cost method’ recommended by national environmental protection authorities.Can the conduct of individual officers be attributed to the company as a defendant in a joint environmental offense: Two features of a crime committed by a unit (in this case Dystar) are that the crime be committed in the name of the unit, and that the illegal gains from the crime be held by the unit. In this case Wang Jun, the charged executive, was acting on behalf of, and in the interest of, the company, Dystar. Later, Dystar attempted to hide evidence of the crime, further indicating that the acts of its officers constituted the will of the company.Does the hazardous waste in question belong to “other exceptionally serious circumstances” within the meaning of the relevant Judicial Interpretation: The Supreme People’s Court’s Judicial Interpretation on criminal cases of environmental pollution contains sentencing guidelines for individuals who cause serious environmental pollution with especially serious consequences. While “hazardous waste” is not explicitly included in the Judicial Interpretation, it is within the court’s discretion to determine what falls within this category.Was the fine appropriate: Bearing in mind the defendant’s ability to pay, the fine should be within the range between actual gains from the criminal activity and the losses caused to public and private property. Such a range is conducive to the aims of environmental restoration and deterrence. The fine in this case was appropriate.Can an executive officer be held directly liable: Directly liable staff are responsible for decision-making, approval, inciting, conniving, and commanding of relevant conduct in the crime committed. Wang Jun, a Dystar executive, engaged the contractor to dispose of the waste, checked the documents, agreed on the rate, was responsible for reviewing disposal expenses, and personally benefitted from the deal. It can thus be inferred that he was involved in the whole process of disposal and played such a role as to meat the features of direct liability for executive staff. Texto completo People's Procuratorate of Gaoyou City, Jiangsu Province vs. Dystar (Nanjing) Colorant Co., Ltd. and Wang Zhanrong et al..pdf content