Analysis Of Airport Gold Case

In2008, an incident about gold that receieved a world-wide attention happenedat Shenzhen airport. As a common cleaner named Liangli at the airport, she picked upgold worth of$3million in her work. Based on her duty, her dealing with the smallbox may make her fall into crime even if it is within her own cleaning scope. In thiscase, is her behavior a crime or just illegal? Is it a theft or an embezzlement? A fierceargument among the judicial organ, theorical field and the common people arose,which people kept an eye on for a long time.The reason is that the case itself has itsown complexity and it is also the limitation of china’s relevant laws and regulations.To solve the problem, the paper gives a clarification on the background, aim,contents,methods, theories and practice of the research when analyzing the case andthen shows the necessity to conduct an research. In order to analyze it objectively, thepaper gives a detailed introduction about how the case happened, how public securityorgans and judicial organs delt with it and the results in the end. Besides, it alsosummerizes some key controersial points, including the processing opinions of thepublic security organs and judicial organs and the legal experts and workers’ differentviews and their way of thinking. According to the elements of whether Liangli has thepurpose of possessing illegally in a theft or whether her behavior has the feature ofthe secret theft or whether it belongs to the embezzlement of refusing to return or give,the author can draw a conclusion that the behavior of Liangli doesn’t belong to theftby a legal anylysis of legal theories and theories of all kinds of disputes, becauseobjectively, she doesn’t have the purpose of possessing illegally and subjectively, shedoesn’t conduct a secret theft. Moreover, it is not an embezzlement, as she neverrefuses to return or hand in the gold. Finally, based on the analysis, the author canlearn that Liangli’s behavior is just an ignorance of the matter. In fact, it is only ageneral illegal behavior and can be referred as unjust enrichment in civil law. SoLiangli has to bear civil liability. Although Liangli did something wrong, her behaviordoesn’t rise to the degree of using criminal law punishment.