【新唐人2012年1月21日訊】1月18號浙江高級人民法院宣佈，維持對「億萬富姐」吳英的死刑判決。案件一宣判，立即引起司法不公的爭議，大批民眾反應吳英「罪不至死」，呼籲最高院慎重復核死刑。很多民眾認為判處吳英死刑，是地方官員想殺人滅口。
吳英的辯護律師張雁峰認為，吳英只是民間借貸，沒有構成集資詐騙犯罪的3大主要認定條件。
首先，吳英沒有採用詐騙的手段集資，而是借錢做生意；其次，她沒有非法占有集資款的目地，沒有轉移、隱匿、銷毀賬簿或逃跑的行為﹔此外，她也沒有向社會公眾非法集資，集資對像只有特定的十多人。
大陸詩人和文化評論家葉匡政認為，吳英的案子沒有受害人，不構成詐騙案，她只是向11個金融掮客借錢，而這些人本來就是以借貸資金為生的。判吳英死刑，是地方官想殺人滅口。
有網民質疑，相比近年來查處的貪官動輒貪污數十億元卻少有被判死刑，官與民的違法成本為何如此懸殊？
北京憲政學者陳永苗表示，49年共產黨執政後，為了壟斷金融領域，製造了一整套的法律、法規限制民間的金融活動，現在民眾的反應也是對這種壟斷的宣戰。
陳永苗：「她沒辦法從銀行融資，因為中國有一個基本規定，對民營企業有一個非常苛刻的歧視的問題，判死刑也是49年以來，中國存在的對民間金融活動的一種歧視，就是如果是官方的話，他就不判死刑，民間出現這種活動他就要判死刑。所以我覺得很多人呼籲免吳英死刑，也是對官方這種壟斷制度的反抗。」
吳英在看守所內曾舉報檢舉了17名地方官員和銀行負責人。
另有媒體報導，吳英被關期間，曾有浙江省東陽市十多名官員聯名請求浙江高院，維持一審對於吳英的死刑判決。
陳永苗：「它這個罪犯，不僅僅是吳英的金融詐騙，也應該存在這背後巨大的腐敗，很多很多的資金實際上變成官員所有了，官員也參與了這個詐騙的過程裡面，這個都沒有呈現出來，所以官員非常急迫的把吳英判處死刑。」
中共喉舌《人民日報》在海外的子報《環球時報》報導聲稱：媒體如果自詡民意代表，對最高院覆核吳英案發出所謂「呼籲」，則有干擾司法之嫌。
葉匡政：「吳英這個案一判決以後，在微博上可以看到，民眾99%都是一邊倒的，就是站在吳英這一邊，環球時報就是，凡是民眾贊成的，或者民眾認為正確的，它通常是唱反調的。 影響力很大的案件，媒體通過採訪了解民意，應該說整個這種民意場，包括媒體的這種反應，應該尊重。」
據《財新網》報導，浙江高院內部對於吳英案件，不僅存在著量刑輕重的較大爭議，即便是罪名本身、案件性質，吳英到底是構成集資詐騙罪、非法吸收存款罪，還是僅僅是一種民間借貸引發的民事案件，都存在很大的爭議。
北京律師李莊在他的微博中寫道：昨晚我在四網站發了對吳英要刀下留人帖子，引發上千網民討論，奇怪，只有6名異議，99.4%要求留命，耐人尋味的是，未見一個非法集資受害人出來。所以，一個判決的好壞，要考慮社會公眾的接受度。
新唐人記者劉惠、李若琳採訪報導。
——————-
Young Tycoon』s Death Penalty Triggers Public Debate
On Jan.18, Zhejiang People』s High Court announced
death penalty to billionaire Wu Ying.
The verdict immediately aroused public controversy,
arguing that her sentence reflects the judicature is unfair.
Most people think Wu Ying is guilty but it doesn』t deserve
a death penalty, urging the Supreme Court to review her case.
Many of the public believe local officials want
her death sentence, so she can be silenced.
Wu Ying』s defence lawyer Zhang Yanfeng,
said that Wu』s case is about private loans.
She didn』t commit the crime of fraudulent public fundraising,
classified as one of the three key conditions of the law.
Firstly, Wu Ying didn』t use fraudulent means to raise funds,
but borrowed the money to invest in businesses.
Secondly, she didn』t have illegal possession of funds,
nor transferring, hiding or destroying records and fleeing away.
In addition, she hasn』t used illegally public funds,
but has only borrowed money from over 10 people.
Poet and commentator Ye Kuangzheng said that there are
no victims in Wu』s case. She hasn』t committed fraud crime.
She borrowed money from 11 investors,
who make a living from lending money.
Sentencing Wu Ying to death is most likely a result
of local officials』 efforts to eliminate her as a witness.
Netizens compare this case to the last few years, when corrupt
officials with few billion yuans frauds rarely got death penalty.
Why is there such a big difference between the penalties
for the officials and the civilians?
Beijing constitutional scholar, Chen Yongmiao said,
the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rules China since 1949.
In order to monopolize the financial sector, CCP made
a set of laws, restricting private financial activities.
Today』s public response is a declaration
for the battle toward this kind of monopoly.
Chen Yongmiao: “She has no way to get loans from the banks,
in China the basic policy discriminates private businesses.
Her death penalty reflects this discrimination,
which exists since 1949.
For state owned business cases they won』t get death penalty,
but if it is a private business』 case, they will for sure.
I think so many people calling for lenient sentence for Wu,
shows the public is against the government monopoly system.”
When Wu Ying was in the detention centre, she reported
about crimes of 17 local officials and heads of banks.
According to reports, when Wu Ying was in detention,
over dozen officials from Dongyang city, Zhejiang province,
requested together from Zhejiang High Court
the verdict of death sentence on her first trial.
Chen Yongmiao: “It is not only Wu Ying herself,
who is involved in this fraud crime.
There is a huge corruption behind the case, many funds are
actually possessed by officials, they are part of this fraud too.
However, they haven』t been exposed yet. That』s why
they put pressure on the court to sentence Wu to death.”
The overseas version of the Global Times newspaper, which
is under the umbrella of CCP』s mouthpiece People』s Daily, reported on the case.
They wrote that if a media claims to be a public』 representative
then “calling for” Supreme High Court review of Wu Ying』s case is interfering in the judicial process.
Ye Kuangzheng: “After Wu Ying』s first trial, we can see from
the microblogs that 99% of the public is on Wu』s side.
But the Global Times opposes the public, if the public
supports something, they are against it, and vice verse.
For a high profile case, when media interviews the public,
people』s will and media』s reaction should be respected.”
According to Caixin.com』s reports, Zhejiang High Court
internally had many arguments on Wu Ying』s case.
Is she getting over punished? What sentence to give her?
Did Wu commit a fraud crime or a public funds abuse?
Or the case should be classified as a private lending?
Beijing lawyer Li Zhuang wrote on a microblog: “Last night
I posted comments on four websites, asking for change of Wu Ying』s death penalty.
Over a thousand netizens joint the debate, and 99.4% of them
are against death penalty, only six people had different opinion.
Strangely, none of the victims of the lenders spoke out.
Thus, to judge if a sentence is right or wrong,
the public』s say should be considered.”
NTD reporters Liu Hui and Li Ruolin