The Supreme Law issued 8 typical cases of environmental pollution crimes.

Today, the Supreme Law held a press conference to issue the "Explanation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Certain Questions of the Law Applying to the Handling of Criminal Cases of Environmental Pollution", and simultaneously issued eight typical cases of environmental pollution crimes.
The following are typical cases:
Case 1: Liu Zuqing pollution of the environment case
emissions of heavy metal-containing pollutants seriously exceeded the standard, constitute pollution of the environment crime
(i) the basic case
Since October 2013, the defendant Liu Zuqing and others, in accordance with state regulations for industrial and commercial business license and environmental impact assessment approval procedures, without the construction of supporting water pollution prevention and control and other environmental protection facilities, employed workers engaged in shoe processing. During this period, the resulting wastewater is not treated and discharged through a pipe connecting the enclosures to the village drains. After monitoring, the concentration of heavy metals in the total discharge wastewater of the above-mentioned processing plants was nickel 23200 mg/L, total chromium 8.64 mg/L, copper 36mg/L, zinc 132 mg/L, respectively, exceeding the discharge standards set out in the Sewage Integrated Discharge Standard (GB8978-1996) 23,199 times, 4.76 times, 35 times, and 25.4 times.
(2) Verdict
The first instance judgment of the Jinjiang Municipal People's Court of Fujian Province and the second instance ruling of the Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court held that the defendant Liu Zuqing, together with others, had violated state regulations by discharging waste water containing nickel, chromium, copper and zinc, exceeding the discharge standards set by the State by 23,199 times, 4.76 times, 35 times and 25.4 times, and that his actions constituted serious environmental pollution. Accordingly, the defendant Liu Zuqing was sentenced to two years and eight months' imprisonment and fined 50,000 yuan for polluting the environment.
Case II: Tian Jianguo, LiEnGuo pollution of the environment case
illegal lead pollution of the environment, sentenced to four and a half years' imprisonment
(1) basic case
defendant Tian Jianguo leased lead refinery, did not obtain a hazardous waste management license, did not take any pollution prevention and control measures, the use of fire metallurgical process to reduce lead production of used lead-acid batteries. From August 2012 to October 2013, defendant Tian Jianguo purchased a total of more than 13,500 tons of used lead-acid batteries worth RMB108330105 from Zhang and others (which have been dealt with separately) for reducing lead production and seriously polluting the environment. Defendant Li Enguo construction lead refinery leased to Tian Jianguo, and for Tian Jianguo operation to help. Tian Jianguo confessed his criminal acts truthfully after his case.
(2) Verdict
The first instance judgment of the Yunlong District People's Court of Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province, and the second instance ruling of the Xuzhou Intermediate People's Court held that: Tian Jianguo illegally acquired used lead-acid batteries, used the metallurgical process of fire and metallurgy to refine lead, in the process of illegal disposal, produced a large number of waste water, exhaust gases are not treated directly discharged, spilled dust collected with homemade cloth bags, the production of finished lead ingots in the open, causing serious pollution of the environment. The State of The Rene constitutes a joint crime of pollution of the environment. Taking into account such factors as the duration of the pollution behavior, the scale of operation, the scope of pollution and the amount of pollutants discharged, the conduct of the second defendant shall be regarded as "particularly serious consequences". Accordingly, the defendants, Tian Jianguo and Li Enguo, were sentenced to four years and six months' imprisonment and fined 100,000 yuan each for polluting the environment.
Case III: Zhejiang Huidelong Dyeing Co., Ltd. and other environmental pollution cases
18,000 tons of distilled residue dumped in Haitang, sentenced to a fine of 20 million yuan
(i) the basic case
the defendant unit Zhejiang Huidelong Dyeing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Hui" Hui Delong Company" is an annual output of 40,000 tons of insurance powder and 3,800 tons of sodium sulphate chemical enterprises, Shaoxing Tengda Printing and Dyeing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Tengda Company") mainly engaged in printing, dyeing and other projects, the two companies actually control the defendant Yan Haixing. Distilled residues (containing methanol, sodium methate, sodium sulphate, etc.) produced during the synthesis and filtration of insurance powders are hazardous wastes. In July and August 2012, in order to alleviate the sewage pressure of Huidron's treatment of distilled residue, Yan Haixing discussed with the defendants Pan Defeng (General Manager of Huidelong Company) and Pan Hualin (Director of Civil Engineering of Tengda Company) to transport Huidron's distillate residue to Tengda Company without hazardous waste disposal qualification. Distilled residue after mixing with the waste water produced by Tengda company itself, through the dark pipe directly into the pipe network, a cumulative discharge of more than 5000 tons. Since October 2012, in order to alleviate the sewage pressure of Huidron company to deal with distilled residue, Pan Defeng at a price of 50-80 yuan / ton commissioned non-hazardous waste disposal qualification of the defendant Yan Jian foreign transportation and disposal of Huidlon company's distilled residue, Yan Haixing knew and acquiesced in the above-mentioned disposal behavior. Yan Jianguo gang with the defendant Yan Jian, Yan Jun, respectively, hired the defendant Xufu lock, Tang Changzheng, Li Zhenhua, Luo Weijie and others using tank truck to transport the above-mentioned distilled residue to Hangzhou Bay Shangyu Industrial Park outside Haitang and other places directly dumped, a total of more than 18,000 tons dumped. The defendant Pan Defeng (head of the warehouse of HuiDelong Company) knew that Huidron company illegally shipped and disposed of distilled residue, still accepted the assignment of Pan Defeng, the organization personnel responsible for the transport of distilled residue tank truck over pounds, fill out the supply list and other work.
(2) Verdict
The first instance judgment of the Shangyu District People's Court of Shaoxing City, Zhejiang Province, and the second instance ruling of the Shaoxing Intermediate People's Court held that: the defendant unit Huideron Company, together with the defendants Yan Jianguo, Yan Jian, Yu Jun, etc., violated state regulations, discharged, dumped and disposed of toxic substances, seriously polluted the environment, constituted a crime of polluting the environment, and the consequences were particularly serious. After considering the circumstances of surrendering, lying down, lying truthfully, returning illegal income and paying sewage treatment fees, the defendant unit Zhejiang Huidelong Dyeing Co., Ltd. was sentenced to a fine of 20 million yuan for the crime of polluting the environment; and a fine of ONE million yuan; sentenced the defendants Pan Defeng and Yan Jianguo to four years' imprisonment and a fine of 300,000 yuan each; sentenced the defendant Pan Hualin to three years' imprisonment and a fine of 60,000 yuan; and sentenced the defendant to one year's imprisonment. six months' imprisonment and a fine of 50,000 yuan; sentenced the defendant, Yu Jun, to one year and three months' imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 yuan; sentenced the defendants, Pan Defeng and XuFuLock, to ten months' imprisonment, suspended for one year, and fined 10,000 yuan; The defendants, Tang Changzheng and Li Zhenhua, were each sentenced to six months' imprisonment, suspended for one year, and fined RMB10,000; Li Zhenhua and Luo Weijie engaged in sewage-related activities during the probation period.