Editor's note: One of the characteristics of false crimes is its concealment. Some false crimes may not have been discovered by tax and public security organs for several years. However, due to the characteristics of deduction and retention of the invoice itself, once the case occurs, the perpetrator still needs to face criminal risks. However, if the case is not discovered and filed by the public security and judicial authorities, there is a situation where the prosecution period is not prosecuted because the prosecution period is exceeded. This article studies the behavior date, accomplice issues, and prosecution period for false crimes, so that readers can better judge the prosecution period for false crimes.
1. Case introduction: 5 false cases that have been decided not to be prosecuted due to the prosecution period
Article 87 of the Criminal Law stipulates the prosecution period for criminal liability, which is five years, ten years, fifteen years and twenty years respectively. However, in the crimes related to issuing false value-added tax invoices, there are questions about whether the calculation of the prosecution period will be affected by the time of filing invoices, such as: when the tax issuance issuance, when the tax is deducted, when the tax authorities file a case for inspection, and when the public security organ file a case for inspection, there are questions.
At the same time, in the case of false issuance, there are multiple parties involved in false issuance, vote recipient, contact party, etc. Some of them have been investigated yearly, and some have not been filed yet. There are also questions about whether the corresponding prosecution period will affect it. Therefore, this article collected five copies of the " Non-Prosecution Decision " that were decided not to prosecute due to the prosecution period from "12309 China Procuratorial Network ", and studied the related issues one by one.
(I) The tax authorities delayed the transfer of the police for two years, resulting in the prosecution period being passed
The person who was not prosecuted Li Moumou is the actual controller of Fujian ** Aviation and Tourism Products Co., Ltd. The important time nodes of this case are as follows:
1, false invoice issuance. From November 2014 to January 29, 2015, Li Moumou deducted taxes and increased costs in order to obtain the value-added tax and increase costs, and found Chen Moumou at an 8% handling fee and asked Chen Moumou to issue a false invoice for him. Chen asked Xuzhou ** Textile Co., Ltd. to issue 8 VAT invoices named cotton cloth to Fujian ** Aviation and Tourism Products Co., Ltd.; 518 VAT special invoices named cotton cloth were issued for falsely. The total amount of the special invoice for value-added tax involved in the case was 2449,349.58 yuan, and the value-added tax involved in the case was 416,389.42 yuan.
2, tax deduction. From March 2016 to April 2017, Li Moumou deducted the 26 invoices with normal value-added tax invoices to the tax authorities.
3. Tax administrative processing. On May 8, 2018, the Inspection Bureau of Pucheng County Taxation Bureau made a "Tax Treatment Decision" and a "Tax Penalty Decision" against Fujian ** Aviation and Tourism Supplies Co., Ltd., recovering value-added tax of 416,389.42 yuan and corporate income tax of 420,978.96 yuan, and imposing a fine of 416,289.42 yuan for the tax evasion of the enterprise.
4. The tax authorities transfer it in two years, and the prosecution period has passed when the public security organ filed the case. On September 4, 2020, the Second Inspection Bureau of Nanping Municipal Taxation Bureau transferred the case to the public security organs. After accepting the case, the Pucheng County Public Security Bureau filed a case for investigation on September 9, 2020 on suspicion of tax evasion. After the incident of , Li Moumou voluntarily surrendered.
After review, the procuratorate believed that the false criminal fact had passed the prosecution period, so it made a decision not to prosecute .
(II) A co-camp who missed the false invoice, had passed the prosecution period when he was arrested
The basic facts of this case are:
1. Yuan Moumou asked Wang Moumou to issue false invoices and deduct them. In November 2012, Yuan asked Wang to issue a special value-added tax invoice for the company he operated, and promised to give Wang the invoice fee. On January 28, 2013, Wang asked his company to issue four special value-added tax invoices to Yuan's company. On March 13, 2013, another false VAT invoice was issued for Yuan Moumou. The total amount of the above five special value-added tax invoices is RMB 448,504.26, the total tax amount is RMB 76,245.74, the total price tax is RMB 524,750.00, and the illegal profit of the defendant Wang Moumou has been more than 60,000 yuan.After inquiry by the Boli County Taxation Bureau, the above invoices Boli County ** Company has certified the total tax deduction amount of RMB 61,600.89, causing the national tax loss of RMB 61,600.89.
2. The police filed a case and missed Wang Moumou. In 2013, the public security organs filed an investigation into the case of Yuan Moumou and Li Moumou filing special value-added tax invoices for fraudulent export tax rebates and tax deduction invoices, and did not investigate Wang Moumou.
3, Wang Moumou was arrested on June 25, 2020.
The procuratorate believes that Wang Moumou committed the crime in 2013, and the amount of the crime was found to be RMB 76,245.74 for false taxes and RMB 61,600.89 for tax deduction. According to the provisions of the Criminal Law, the sentencing level that should be applied is less than three years, fixed-term imprisonment or detention. It has been seven years since Wang Moumou committed the crime in 2013 to being arrested on June 25, 2020, and it has exceeded the five-year deadline stipulated by law. Wang Moumou will no longer be prosecuted. So he decided not to sue Wang.
The procuratorate also pointed out that the losses caused by Wang Moumou to the state tax have been submitted to the Boli County Taxation Bureau of the State Administration of Taxation.
(III) The Ministry of Public Security issued false clues in the cloud, and the prosecution period was passed when the case was filed
Ge Moumou is the person in charge of a company in Baoding City .
1. At the end of 2012, a Baoding Co., Ltd. purchased 1.5 million yuan of steel from the Internet. After receiving the goods, the seller was unable to provide a special value-added tax invoice. With the consent of Ge, the accountant Liu Moumou found the invoice issuing three special value-added tax invoices, with a total price tax of 1.5 million yuan, of which the tax amount was 217,948.73 yuan.
2. In March 2013, the above false invoices completed the declaration of deducting input tax.
3. On December 13, 2019, the Public Security Bureau of Mancheng District, Baoding City received a clue from the cloud of the Ministry of Public Security, involving a false VAT special invoice issued by a company. The Public Security Bureau of Mancheng District, Baoding City established a criminal case investigation on December 13, 2019. A company paid a total of 499,767.15 yuan in taxes and late payment fees on the same day.
A company issued a false VAT special invoice of more than 210,000 yuan, and the statutory sentence of is a fixed-term imprisonment of less than three years or criminal detention. According to Article 87 of the Criminal Law, "The crime will not be prosecuted after the following period: if the statutory maximum sentence is less than five years of fixed-term imprisonment, after five years", the case has passed the prosecution period. It was decided not to sue Ge.
(IV) Five years after tax treatment, the public security organs filed a case, and the prosecution period has passed
Liu Moumou is the legal representative of of Shanxi ** Mechanical and Electrical Manufacturing Co., Ltd. .
1. Accept false invoices. On November 21, 2011, Liu Moumou accepted 9 special value-added tax invoices issued by Hebei Handan Feixiang County ** Trading Co., Ltd. without real transactions, involving a face value of 888,587.01 yuan and a tax of 151,059.78 yuan, all of which were used to deduct taxes.
2. Tax administrative processing. On June 25, 2014, the Yangquan Suburban Taxation Bureau imposed an administrative penalty on Shanxi ** Mechanical and Electrical Manufacturing Co., Ltd., and the company has paid 151,059.78 yuan of tax owed.
3. Public security organs file a case. On December 13, 2019, the investigative agency filed the case as a criminal case for investigation.
The procuratorate believes that according to the judicial interpretation of Supreme People's Court, if the amount of false tax is less than 500,000 yuan, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or detention, and no further prosecution will be made after five years. The case occurred on November 21, 2011. The investigation agency filed a case on December 13, 2019, and the five-year prosecution period has passed. So he made a decision not to prosecute Liu.
(V) The case was filed five years after issuing false invoices. The prosecution period has passed
Gu Moumou is the person in charge of Tumote Youqi ** Co., Ltd., who operates coal wholesale. The basic facts of this case are:
1. Issuing false invoices for Liu Moumou. In December 2011, Liu, who operated coal, asked Gu to help buy it because the coal sales lacked a special value-added tax invoice.On December 27, 2011, Gu Moumou asked Cai Moumou to issue 9 special value-added tax invoices from Baotou ** Co., Ltd. to Tumote Youqi ** Co., Ltd., with an amount of 854,700.86 yuan, a tax amount of 145,299.14 yuan, and a total price tax of 1 million yuan.
has been confirmed by the IRS that the above VAT special invoices are all certified and deducted and are falsely issued.
2. Issue a false invoice to Da Moumou. In the same operation, in December 2011, Da Moumou, who was in the coal business, asked Gu Moumou to issue a false note because he needed a special input value-added tax invoice. On December 23, 2011, Baotou ** Co., Ltd. issued 10 special value-added tax invoices to a company with a false amount of 991,453 yuan, a tax amount of 168,547 yuan, and a total price tax of 1.16 million yuan.
is certified by the IRS, and all 10 special VAT invoices were certified and deducted in December 2011 and are falsely issued.
3. Public security organs file a case: Baotou Municipal Public Security Bureau filed an investigation on March 13, 2017.
The procuratorate believes that Gu Moumou's above-mentioned criminal acts should be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or detention. The Criminal Law stipulates that if the statutory maximum sentence is less than five years in prison, no prosecution will be pursued according to law after five years. Then a decision not to prosecute was made.
(VI) Summary: There are many problems with the prosecution period of false invoices
Summarize the above five cases, it is not difficult to see that there are many problems involving the prosecution period in the crime of false invoices. These problems are mainly concentrated on: the starting point of the prosecution period, the suspension point of the prosecution period, and the coordination and cooperation between tax authorities and public security organs. This article will first study these issues one by one, and then sort out the prosecution period for how to judge a false act.
2. Judgment of prosecution period for the crime of issuing a special value-added tax invoice and related issues
(I) How to determine the "date of crime" of issuing a special value-added tax invoice
Article 89 of the Criminal Law stipulates that the prosecution period is calculated from the date of the crime; if the criminal act has a continuous or continuous state, it shall be calculated from the date of the end of the crime.
Generally speaking, the crime of "fixed issuance of special value-added tax invoices" and "fixed issuance of other invoices used to defraud export tax rebates and tax deductions" stipulated in Article 205 of the Criminal Law, as long as the perpetrator has one of the acts of "fixed issuance for others, falsely issued for themselves, let others falsely issued for themselves, and introduce others falsely issued for others" stipulated in Article 205, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Law, that is, committing a criminal act. Accordingly, the "crime date" of the crime of issuing a special value-added tax invoice is the date when the false invoice is issued from the corresponding tax electronic information system, including paper invoices or electronic invoices, and the prosecution period starts from that day.
As the typical case of the Supreme People's Court, "Zhang Mouqiang's False Issuance of Value-added Tax Special Invoice", it clearly states that it does not have the purpose of evading taxes, and its behavior does not cause tax losses to the country and is not socially harmful, so it should not be considered as false. The crime of issuing a false VAT special invoice needs to be considered, and the factors that defraud national taxes and the results of national tax loss are caused. So, can we consider that the crime of false opening belongs to the "continuing state" stipulated in Article 89 of the Criminal Law, and the prosecution period starts from the date of tax deduction?
This article believes that the result of the loss of state taxes as a factor that constitutes a false crime and does not affect the prosecution period for false crimes from the date of "fixed" behavior. First of all, the criminal acts stipulated in Article 89 of the Criminal Law have continuous and continuity, which means that the infringement or danger to legal interests arising from illegal criminal acts is continuous and continuity, such as illegal detention, embezzlement, etc. However, after the invoice is issued, the illegal act is over and there is no continuity or continuity. Secondly, the act of deducting tax deduction itself is not illegal. If it causes danger or harm to national taxes, it is a false invoice rather than a declaration of deduction.
In practice, some of the above-mentioned "Decision on No Prosecution" do not state the time for deduction of taxes, but simply explain that the deduction caused the loss of state taxes. For example, in the "Liu Moumou's false prosecution case", the procuratorate only stated that he deducted taxes.It shows that the deduction behavior caused the loss of national taxes and affected the conviction of falsely issuing special value-added tax invoices, but it had no impact on the prosecution period.
(II) How to determine the maximum statutory penalty for falsely issuing a special VAT invoice for special VAT invoices
The crime of falsely issuing a special VAT invoice is a felony that can be sentenced to life imprisonment. However, it does not mean that the maximum statutory sentence for all crimes of false VAT special invoices is life imprisonment. According to Article 205 of the Criminal Law and the Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Conviction and Sentencing Standards for Issuing False Value-added Tax Special Invoices" (Fa [2018] No. 226), the crime of issuing false value-added tax invoices has different aggravated circumstances depending on the amount of the false tax amount, and the highest statutory penalty is also different. The specific circumstances will be explained in detail in the third part of this article.
(III) How to deal with the accomplices who are omitted in joint crimes?
In the second case of the first part of this article, "Wang Moumou falsely issued a false prosecution case", there was an unhandled accomplice, which caused Wang Moumou to be not filed, and finally passed the prosecution period. In false issuance crimes, there are usually multiple upstream and downstream enterprises and parties with different identities, such as the invoice issuer, the recipient, the introducer, etc. Some violent false opening gangs issue false invoices to multiple downstream or even dozens of companies, with a wide range of involvement. In this case, it is easy to appear in the same false issuance case. Some people are arrested if the invoice is arrested, but the recipient has not been included in the scope of investigation; some are arrested with sufficient evidence due to clue collection reasons, while others have not been arrested yet. In this case, the criminal prosecution period of each perpetrator is calculated independently and does not interfere.
In the "Cai Jinxing, Chen Guohui and others (robbery) non-approval prosecution case" (Prosecution No. 23) published by the Supreme People's Procuratorate, it reflects the view that the prosecution period of different perpetrators in joint crimes is independently calculated. The case was a case of 6 people plotting to join the market together. On April 18, 1991, the public security organs filed a case against three of them. The three suspects were arrested on September 21, 2011 and December 8, 2011. During the period, there were three accomplices, one of whom was dead, and the other two were arrested on March 9, 2012. In the end, since the 20-year prosecution period had passed, the local procuratorate reported to the Supreme People's Procuratorate for approval, but it was not approved and no longer prosecute it.
Therefore, in false opening cases, especially in gang cases with a wide range and many involvement, the prosecution period of each perpetrator is calculated separately.
(IV) Is the tax authorities suspending the prosecution period?
Article 88 of the Criminal Law clearly stipulates that if a person evades investigation or trial after the People's Procuratorate, public security organs, or state security organs file a case for investigation or accepts a case in the People's Court, he shall not be subject to the prosecution period. Among them, tax authorities are not included.
Because crimes such as false VAT special invoices are administrative offenders , the tax authorities usually discover clues first, file a case for inspection or audit, and then transfer it to the public security organs. However, in practice, the inspection and audit of tax authorities usually take a long time and may span two or three years. In this case, if the tax authority delays transfer of the case to the public security organ, or if the tax authority fails to transfer it, it will delay the public security organs from obtaining clues, which will lead to the prosecution period and will not be held criminally responsible.
In the first and fourth cases of this article, the tax authorities first filed an inspection within the deadline, and then transferred it after the tax authorities have a handling conclusion, which resulted in an overdue prosecution period. In the first case, "Li Moumou's false filing and no prosecution case", Li Moumou asked others to issue false invoices for himself from November 2014 to January 29, 2015. The tax authority made the "Tax Treatment Decision" and "Tax Penalty Decision" on May 8, 2018, but it was not until September 4, 2020 that the tax authority transferred it to the public security organs. In the fourth case, "Liu Moumou's false prosecution case", the tax authorities issued tax treatment and punishment in 2014, but it was not until 2019 that the public security organs obtained relevant clues and filed an investigation.
Therefore, if the tax authorities fail to transfer the relevant cases in a timely manner, it may lead to the case being held criminally liable for the case after the prosecution period.
(V) Taxation Administrative processing
The criminal prosecution period has passed, and the perpetrator will no longer be punished by punishment, but it does not mean that the perpetrator has not handled the tax administratively. According to Article 52 of the Tax Collection and Administration Law, tax authorities will pay taxes and late payment fees for tax evasion, tax resistance, and tax fraud. There is no restriction on tax levy. Therefore, the perpetrator still has to pay the tax and pay the late payment fees.
III. Criminal prosecution period for false VAT special invoices
(I) "Legal maximum penalty" in different situations of false VAT special invoices
1. The statutory maximum penalty for false VAT special invoices
1. The statutory maximum penalty for false VAT special invoices stipulated by the Criminal Law
The criminal prosecution period is closely related to the statutory maximum penalty for crimes. Article 87 of the Criminal Law stipulates: "If a crime is not prosecuted after the following periods: (1) If the statutory maximum sentence is less than five years in prison, it will be five years; (2) If the statutory maximum sentence is more than five years in prison, it will be ten years; (3) If the statutory maximum sentence is more than ten years in prison, it will be fifteen years; (4) If the statutory maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death penalty, it will be twenty years. If the statutory maximum sentence is believed to be prosecuted after twenty years, it will be reported to the Supreme People's Procuratorate for approval."
Understand the so-called statutory maximum sentence, two issues need to be explained first:
First, the statutory maximum sentence belongs to the statutory maximum sentence, that is, the highest level of sentencing range stipulated in the criminal law, which is different from the final punishment of a specific criminal act (i.e., declared ) The statutory punishment does not consider the circumstances of lenient and lenient pleading guilty and accepting punishment , confessing, surrendering, making meritorious service, etc.
Second, the statutory maximum sentence is different according to the sentencing circumstances stipulated in the Criminal Law, and there are also differences within the same crime. For example, according to Article 205 of the Criminal Law, according to the amount of false taxes, the maximum statutory sentence for the crime of false value-added tax invoices is divided into three levels, namely:
(1) The most common crime of false value-added tax invoices is the maximum statutory sentence of fixed-term imprisonment of less than three years.
(2) If the false value-added tax invoice is issued, the tax amount is large or there are other serious circumstances, the statutory maximum sentence is not less than ten years of fixed-term imprisonment.
(3) If the false VAT special invoice is issued, the tax amount is huge or there are other particularly serious circumstances, the maximum statutory sentence is life imprisonment.
2. The determination of the amount of tax amount for false VAT special invoices
is the first of all the criminalization standard. According to Article 56 of the "Regulations of the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security on the Prosecution of Criminal Cases under the Jurisdiction of Public Security Organs (II)" implemented in April 2022, "If the false tax special invoice is issued or other invoices used to defraud export tax rebates or deduct taxes, the amount of false tax is more than 100,000 yuan or the amount of national tax loss is more than 50,000 yuan, the case shall be filed for prosecution."
Therefore, according to the latest "Regulations of the Standards for Filing and Prosecution of Criminal Cases (II)", the minimum standard for false tax issuance of special invoices is: the amount of false tax is more than 100,000 yuan, or the amount of national tax loss is more than 50,000 yuan.
is followed by the standards of "large amount" and "huge amount". According to the "Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Related to the Conviction and Sentencing Standards for False Value-Added Tax Special Invoices" (Fa [2018] No. 226), if the amount of false tax is more than 500,000 yuan, it is deemed as "large amount" stipulated in Article 205 of the Criminal Law; if the amount of false tax is more than 2.5 million yuan, it is deemed as "large amount" stipulated in Article 205 of the Criminal Law.
Therefore, in combination with Article 205 of the Criminal Law, the Provisions of the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security on the Standards for Prosecution of Criminal Cases under the jurisdiction of the Public Security Organs (II)", and the Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Related to the Conviction and Sentencing Standards for False Issues of False Value-added Tax Special Invoices" (Fa [2018] No. 226), this article will discuss the prosecution period for the crime of falsely issuing VAT special invoices one by one.
(II) The amount of false tax is less than 500,000 (excluding): if the filing period is five years
false tax is more than 100,000 yuan, or if the actual loss of national taxes is 50,000 yuan, a case can be filed. However, if the amount of false tax is less than 500,000 yuan (excluding 500,000 yuan), the statutory maximum sentence is less than three years imprisonment, so the prosecution period is five years. If it has been more than five years, no further prosecution will be pursued.
It is worth noting that with the update of the "Regulations of the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security on the Prosecution Standards for the filing and prosecution of criminal cases under the jurisdiction of public security organs in April 2022, the criminalization standards for the crime of false value-added tax invoices have become two, and the choice is applicable, namely: (1) If the amount of false tax is more than 100,000 yuan, here refers to the amount of the face tax of the false invoice, pay attention to the difference from the total amount of the price tax; or (2) If the national tax loss is more than 50,000 yuan, here refers to the actual tax amount of the perpetrator who uses the false invoice to deduct taxes and defraud export tax rebates. Compared with the past enrollment standards, the actual standards have been improved.
(III) The amount of false tax is relatively large: if the prosecution period is fifteen years
false tax is more than 500,000 yuan and less than 2.5 million yuan (excluding 2.5 million yuan), it can be determined that the false tax is "large", and should be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of more than three years and less than ten years. According to the current provisions of the Criminal Law, a fifteen-year prosecution period shall be applied.
First of all, according to Article 99 of the Criminal Law, the number of "above", "below", and "within" as referred to in the Criminal Law, contains the number of . Therefore, Article 205 of the Criminal Law stipulates that "the sentence of fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years and not more than ten years" includes ten years of fixed-term imprisonment, and the maximum statutory sentence is ten years of fixed-term imprisonment.
Secondly, the prosecution period stipulated in Article 87 of the Criminal Law clearly stipulates that "(II) If the statutory maximum sentence is more than five years, if the statutory maximum sentence is less than ten years, if the statutory maximum sentence is more than ten years, if the statutory maximum sentence is more than ten years, if the statutory maximum sentence is more than ten years, if the statutory maximum sentence is more than fifteen years." Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 87 and 99, in cases where the false VAT special invoice is issued and the amount is large, although it is only covered by the threshold of ten years of imprisonment, a fifteen-year prosecution period should be applied.
However, this article believes that there are still problems in the coordination of the current statutory criminal and prosecution period system of the Criminal Law, which is mainly reflected in the inconsistency between the "less than five years", "less than ten years" and the sentences stipulated in Article 87 and the "less than five years" and "less than ten years" sentences in the sub-provisions of the Criminal Law. For example:
(1) A large number of misdemeanors whose maximum statutory maximum sentence is less than five years imprisonment, and the ten-year prosecution period is applied, making the prosecution period mismatched with its social harm.
(2) The prosecution period for different circumstances does not match. For example, the three statutory maximum sentences for the crime of illegal detention are "less than three years", "less than ten years", and "fifteen years" and "fifteen years", and the prosecution period is "five years", "fifteen years", and "fifteen years", and the prosecution period is the same as the second and third levels. The prosecution period for the crime of issuing a special value-added tax invoice is "five years", "fifteen years" and "twenty years", which directly crosses the prosecution period of "ten years".
This article believes that in view of the purpose of the general provisions of the Criminal Law on the prosecution period, modifications should be made so that the prosecution period matches the degree of social harm of the crime, and it is more reasonable to classify the crimes with the maximum statutory sentence of "less than five years" and "less than ten years" into the prosecution period of five years or ten years.
(IV) The amount of false tax is more than 2.5 million yuan: if the prosecution period is 20 years
false tax is more than 2.5 million yuan, the maximum statutory sentence is life imprisonment, so the prosecution period is twenty years.
If the prosecution period is twenty years, the prosecution period has passed but the procuratorate believes that the prosecution must be prosecuted, it shall report to the Supreme People's Procuratorate for approval. It is worth noting that only when the prosecution period is twenty years, it can be submitted for approval. In other cases, there is no provision for submitting for approval after the deadline exceeds the deadline.
(V) Not subject to the prosecution period, interruption of the prosecution period
1, not subject to the prosecution period
1, not subject to the prosecution period
Article 88 of the Criminal Law stipulates two types of circumstances that are not subject to the prosecution period, namely:
(1) Escape from investigation or trial after the investigation and judicial organs file a case for investigation and trial. In this case, it should be limited to the public security, national security, , procuratorate, and courts. Ordinary tax authorities do not fall into this category.
(2) If the investigation and judicial organs are at fault, the case should be filed but the case is not filed. That is, if the victim filed a lawsuit within the prosecution period, but the public security, procuratorate, and court should file a case but not file it. It is worth noting that if the victim does not file a lawsuit, but reports from others, it does not fall into this kind of situation.
2. Interruption of prosecution period
Article 89, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law stipulates the interruption of the prosecution period, that is, if the crime is committed within the prosecution period, the prosecution period for the previous crime shall be calculated from the date of the subsequent crime.
In false opening crimes, some companies may accept false issuances by others or issue false invoices to others for many times and for a long time. This is different from the statute of limitations for tax administrative penalty for . The prosecution period is interrupted due to a new crime and will start again.
4. Summary
The crime of issuing a false value-added tax invoice may not have been discovered by taxation and public security organs for a long time due to its concealment and other reasons. If the amount of the false tax is not large, less than 500,000 yuan, it may no longer be subject to criminal prosecution due to the five-year prosecution period. However, if the amount of taxes issued for false value-added tax invoices exceeds 500,000 yuan, the prosecution period will become fifteen years or even twenty years. Generally speaking, in the current situation where big data and various departments jointly handle cases, it is difficult to escape the sanctions of the criminal law.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-