On May 14, the Supreme People's Procuratorate released the 52nd batch of guiding cases. In the case of Zhu, suspected of theft, where non-approval of arrest was subject to reconsideration and review, the SPP explained why Zhu, who committed three thefts of sixteen potted succulents, was not approved for arrest on the charge of theft.

　　Succulent plants worth a total of 98 yuan were stolen, leading to criminal detention

The facts show that from July 4 to 6, 2021, Zhu took home sixteen potted succulents planted by Xie on three separate occasions while out walking. At 14:00 on July 7, Xie discovered the succulents had been stolen and reported it to the police. At 19:40 that day, when Zhu was preparing to steal succulents again, a security guard spotted him and asked him to register his identity information; he provided false information and left.

On July 15, police identified Zhu through video surveillance and went to look for him near his residence. After a neighbor informed Zhu of the situation, Zhu came downstairs and truthfully confessed to the police that he had stolen the succulents, and returned the stolen items to Xie. According to appraisal, the succulents stolen by Zhu were worth a total of 98 yuan.

On July 15, 2021, the Wuhua Branch of the Kunming Municipal Public Security Bureau opened an investigation into Zhu on suspicion of theft, and the next day placed him under criminal detention. On July 26, the Wuhua Branch submitted a request to the Wuhua District People's Procuratorate of Kunming for approval of arrest on the charge of theft.

　　Procuratorate did not deem it a crime; public security organ applied for reconsideration

The Wuhua District People's Procuratorate of Kunming held after review that Zhu's three thefts at different times should be deemed multiple thefts. However, the stolen items were of minimal value, only 98 yuan; after the incident he voluntarily returned the stolen property,挽回ing the victim's economic loss; the circumstances were显著ly minor and the harm was not great, and under Article 13 of the Criminal Law it was not deemed a crime. On August 2, 2021, the Wuhua District People's Procuratorate made a decision not to approve arrest, served a statement of reasons for non-approval of arrest on the public security organ, and explained the reasons and basis to the public security organ in person.

On August 5, 2021, the Wuhua Branch of the Kunming Municipal Public Security Bureau held that Zhu had committed multiple thefts, meeting the Criminal Law provisions on the crime of theft, and that the decision not to approve arrest on the ground that the circumstances were显著ly minor and the harm was not great was erroneous and apt to blur the line between illegality and crime, making it difficult to enforce in practice, and applied to the procuratorate for reconsideration.

The Wuhua District People's Procuratorate of Kunming assigned another prosecutor to handle the matter. The prosecutor reviewed the case file, interrogated Zhu, and conducted a comprehensive review focusing on the facts of the case, the evidence, the original reasons for non-approval of arrest, and the reasons for reconsideration. After review, it held that Zhu's three thefts met the definition of multiple thefts under the Specific Provisions of the Criminal Law, but the General Provisions of the Criminal Law require that, in determining whether an act is a crime or not, consideration be given to whether it has serious social harm and whether it should be subject to criminal punishment. Taking comprehensive account of Zhu's objective conduct, subjective purpose, the value of the property, and the recovery of stolen goods and挽回ion of losses, the circumstances were显著ly minor and the harm was not great, and it was not deemed a crime.

On August 10, 2021, the Wuhua District People's Procuratorate of Kunming, after study by its procuratorial committee, upheld the original decision not to approve arrest, and explained the reasons and basis for the reconsideration decision to the public security organ in person.

　　Procuratorate upheld decision; public security organ requested review

On August 11, 2021, the Wuhua Branch of the Kunming Municipal Public Security Bureau requested review by the Kunming Municipal People's Procuratorate. The public security organ held that judicial interpretations clearly provide that "three or more thefts within two years" shall be deemed "multiple thefts." Zhu's repeated small-value thefts could be evaluated as minor circumstances, but did not fall within "显著ly minor circumstances with no great harm." Downgrading the criminal conduct of "multiple thefts" to an administrative violation would breach the boundary between criminal law and administrative law and would make it difficult for public security organs to accurately distinguish administrative violations from criminal conduct when handling multiple-theft cases.

At the review stage, the prosecutors of the Kunming Municipal People's Procuratorate comprehensively reviewed the file, verified the evidence, and listened to the opinions of the public security organ, the lower-level people's procuratorate, and Zhu. After review, they held that the Criminal Law's provision on "multiple thefts" is intended to punish habitual offenders and habitual thieves; Zhu's conduct was an occasional attempt to gain small advantages; the stolen succulents were worth only 98 yuan; and Zhu voluntarily returned the stolen succulents after the incident, causing no economic loss to the victim. Zhu's conduct fell within显著ly minor circumstances with no great harm and was not deemed a crime; his conduct could be subject to public security punishment.

The Kunming Municipal People's Procuratorate decided to uphold the reconsideration decision not to approve arrest, and on August 25, 2021, served the documents on the public security organ and explained the law and reasoning in person.

On September 6, 2021, the Wuhua Branch of the Kunming Municipal Public Security Bureau withdrew the criminal case and imposed an administrative detention of fifteen days on Zhu; because Zhu had previously been under criminal detention, the period of criminal detention was credited against the period of administrative detention.

　SPP: Multiple thefts of small value are not deemed a crime

The SPP pointed out that in reviewing and determining a crime, the essential characteristic of whether there is serious social harm should be accurately grasped in accordance with the law. In understanding and applying the "multiple thefts" provision, substantive interpretation should be adhered to, and it should not be simply assumed that any "multiple thefts" must be punished as a crime. On the one hand, it should be followed that "multiple thefts" are comparably harmful to conduct subject to criminal punishment such as "theft of a relatively large amount, burglary, theft with a weapon, and pickpocketing"; on the other hand, the Specific Provisions and the General Provisions should be understood together, and further review should be conducted under Article 13 of the Criminal Law as to the degree of social harm of the conduct and whether it should be subject to criminal punishment.

For "multiple thefts," a comprehensive judgment should be made as to whether the crime of theft is established, in light of the perpetrator's motive, purpose, time, place, means, object, amount, and other circumstances. The SPP further explained that, for example, where there are multiple thefts by destructive means, where theft is a livelihood, where a person has previously received criminal punishment or administrative punishment for theft and commits multiple thefts again, or where multiple thefts target the property of disabled persons, elderly persons living alone, and the like, the person should be prosecuted for the crime of theft in accordance with the law. Where, although there are multiple thefts, the perpetrator is seeking small advantages or committing opportunistic petty theft, and the property stolen is small in quantity and value, this should be deemed显著ly minor circumstances with no great harm, and not a crime.