This Economist article paints a very different picture from the article below:<p><a href="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/18/content_9201582.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/18/content_920158...</a><p>Businesswoman gets death sentence for defrauding investors out of tens of millions of dollars vs. Businesswoman gets death sentence for fundraising
I don't know.<p>80% returns?<p>Really?<p>She was able to get 80% returns?<p>GUARANTEED?<p>This lady kind of sounds like a potential Madoff who got caught early.<p>Yes, she may be totally innocent. That is one of many possibilities. Having mentioned that... man...<p>80%?<p>guaranteed?<p>Trading Futures?<p>Maybe the punishment is a bit harsh, but it really does seem she was not totally on the up and up.<p>And secondly, what kind of a person gives their money to someone promising 80% returns risk-free? Who did she raise this money from?<p>I mean let's say you're listening to a financial services guy give a pitch over Evian and roasted sweet potatoes with cumin. Right. He says, "I'll get you 80% yearly on your money! Guaranteed! Risk-free!"<p>Well at that point you and I probably look at each other, and just leave. Who would believe that?
What strikes me as odd is that she pleaded guilty and helped broaden the investigations and still got a death penalty. This pretty much removes any incentive for a guilty plea and for helping an investigation.<p>I think it's fairly reasonable to consider whether she is facing capital punishment for financial fraud or for having helped broaden the investigation in the wrong direction.
This is horrifying and I don't even know where to start examining the problem. Firstly, how do we trust any news source on a case like this when the press is controlled by the accuser? Second, even if the sentence is 'legally correct,' when does the threat of a human rights violation become too important to ignore - should countries be pressured to abolish death sentences (at least) for non-violent crimes? Even if the death penalty is the 'official' punishment to fit the crime, certainly it's a big problem if the actual delivery of that sentence is relegated to a minority of cases in which the government is motivated to prosecute. Of course selective prosecution is a problem with any legal system, but when the sentence is death it is all the more important to monitor cases through a transparent system. It doesn't seem that this kind of transparency is in place.
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/23/business/main6798205.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/23/business/main67982...</a> see: "...the judicial system is overly secretive in deciding on death penalty cases."
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2014070,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2014070,00.htm...</a> see: "...opaqueness of its legal system."
<i>Ultimately, she was convicted of “illegal fund-raising” for, the court concluded, raising 773m yuan from illicit sources.</i><p>What does this MEAN, I wonder? Money laundering? Or?
Please correct me if I am wrong. Basically she is dying because she defrauded a bunch of rich dudes and created employment opportunities. The rich dudes are pissed and so she is now facing a death sentence? This is pretty screwed.<p>Sending her to jail is one thing but death sentence. That is just idiotic.