Xinkuaibao reported that recently, the Jieyang Intermediate People's Court in Guangdong Province concluded a gambling case, upholding the first-instance verdict that sentenced Xu Moujian to 1 year imprisonment for organizing illegal gambling and fined him 50,000 yuan.

The court found that on June 10, 2021, defendant Xu Mouxiong (already sentenced) created a WeChat group as a shareholders' pool for "Euro" football betting and invited Xu Moujian and others to join. This allowed shareholders to quickly post odds, reconcile accounts, and settle winnings and losses. The gambling syndicate had a total of 12 shares, with Xu Moujian holding approximately 1 share. Xu Mouxiong also opened online gambling agent accounts and sub-accounts, which he and other shareholders distributed to bettors.

On June 21 of the same year, the shareholders' group was dissolved after receiving over 1 million yuan in "Euro" football bets. The online gambling agent account lost 60,500 yuan, while handwritten betting slips won 59,214 yuan, resulting in total profits of 28,964 yuan after settlement. Each shareholder received dividends according to their shares, and Xu Moujian received a WeChat transfer of 1,448 yuan that day.

On February 7, 2023, after learning that defendant Xu Mouxiong had been detained by public security authorities for gambling, Xu Moujian voluntarily surrendered to the police.

Following trial in the first instance, Xu Moujian was found guilty of organizing illegal gambling, sentenced to 1 year imprisonment, and fined 50,000 yuan.

Xu Moujian appealed the first-instance verdict to the Jieyang Intermediate People's Court.

After the appellate hearing, the court determined that based on confessions from multiple defendants in the case, as well as WeChat chat records, transfer records, and other evidence, there was sufficient proof that Xu Moujian and the co-defendants organized gambling using the "Euro" competition for profit. Their actions constitute the crime of organizing illegal gambling. Although Xu Moujian voluntarily surrendered after the incident, he did not honestly admit to the principal facts of the crime and therefore cannot be considered a true voluntary surrender. However, taking into account his voluntary surrender, a lighter sentence could be imposed at the court's discretion. The first-instance judgment clearly identified the facts, correctly applied the law, imposed an appropriate sentence, and followed proper legal procedures. The second-instance court therefore rendered a final verdict in accordance with the law, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment.

Diterjemahkan oleh AI.

Situs web AF kini hadir! Lihat berita lengkap, komentar, detail pertandingan, dan statistik di komputer Anda. Kunjungi: www.allfootballapp.com