The Analysis Of The Extortion Cases Caused By Ge Limei And Other Three People's Rights Protection

Due to the continuous enhancement of civil people‘s legal consciousness and safeguarding rights consciousness in recent years,citizens choose to pick up the weapon of law to safeguard their rights instead of swallowing their pride.However,it is tough differentiating between exercising lawful rights and extortion because of their different cognition of safeguarding rights consciousness,and there are various ways of dealing with such behavior in judicial practices.The dispute focus on whether the actor is guilty of extortion for protecting their rights in ways of obtaining property by threatening.To date,unified conviction system has not come into being yet.Also,courts may at variance with same cases.The authority and credibility of domestic judicial system has been affected severely because of the commonness of Co-different sentences.The case of Ge Limei,Chen Shuguang and Xie Haiqiang is the very representative type of rights protection caused extortion cases in China.In judicial practice,the court had different identifications about whether these three people were guilty.Chen Shuguang was sentenced for extortion in first instance and second instance,but was sentenced to be innocent in retrial,while Ge and Xie' s case were exactly defined as extortion.This article presents the details of three cases and various suggestions from different courts.Combined with constitutive condition of extortion,the following part analyze these cases both subjectively and objectively.Several opinions and advices are given in this article.Ge Limei does not constitute extortion.Reasons are as follows.First,Petitioning is the legal right of citizens,and Ge's petitions do not cause threats which was the essential elements required by crime of extortion.Second,being official organ as a legal person,government cannot be the object of extortion.Third,the hardship grants that Ge obtained from the government cannot be regarded as proceeds of extortion.Chen Shuguang does not constitute extortion either,and here are the reasons.Initially,Chen's claim has factual and legal basis and has noting to do with the purpose of illegal possession 'subjectively.Additionally,complaining to the ministry of information industry is legitimate rights of consumers,so Ge's complaint cannot be declared as threatening in extortion.Unlike two cases above,Xie Hai qiang's acts constitute extortion for his purpose of illegal possession which is exact extortion in the name of petition.Xie threatened the developer and made the developer provide property in ‘psychological fear',which meets the objective condition of extortion.In the end,the conclusion is summarized whether these cases should be regarded as crime of extortion through the analysis of three typical cases: claim does not constitute extortion when its source of rights is legal,otherwise it does.