【新唐人2012年2月8日讯】浙江东阳“本色集团”董事长吴英因集资诈骗二审被判死刑后，引发海内外舆论广泛关注，网民们对社会公平、死刑改革、民间资本出路、金融垄断、价值观标准等一系列问题，展开一场罕见的讨论。一个普通经济案件迅速演变为一起政治、法治事件。
2012年1月18号，浙江省高级人民法院二审以“集资诈骗罪”裁定吴英死刑后，短短半个月间，已经演变成一起政治事件：一个名叫“吴英案舆论汇总”的微博，每天高密度更新相关评论。而北大、清华、浙江大学等高校学者，和一些知名律师致信最高法院为她求情。另外，网站开设的“吴英该不该死”的投票显示，绝大部分投票者认为吴英罪不至死。
经济学家张维迎在“中国企业家论坛”上表示，“如果吴英的集资应该被判死刑，我不知道还有多少人不应该被判死刑。”
被称为“中国律师界的良心”的知名律师张思之指出，如果吴英被执行死刑将会影响中国经济的发展。
经济学家茅于轼、企业家王石、任志强等也认为吴英“罪不致死”。
英国《金融时报》认为，吴英在庭审过程中交代了一些官员参与高利贷活动的事实，以致于十多位官员集体向上级写信陈请，希望严惩吴英，这些人才是杀死吴英的“凶手”。
作家叶檀也公开表示，此案中出现了一系列违反法律、违反规则、违反程序的事情，体现了地方豪强黑社会化的巨大可能性。
据了解，吴英民间借贷资金来源于11位亲友，并没有人告她。而吴英所购买的房产已被强制低价拍卖。如此大规模的民间声援史上第一次，凸显案件的不普通。
经济学者巩胜利：“她在用她的的智慧、用他的能力把资本集中到一个点上提升，以一种典型的智力结果。而中国现在的集权，前提是批准你就是合法、不批准你就是非法，谁合乎执政党谁就是合法，不合乎执政党，他就不合法。”
做过民营企业家的大陆作家铁流认为，吴英用金钱行贿去获得支持与帮助是迫不得已的。想在中国做大企业，赚大钱发大财，又不能不走这条路，但风险也是很大的。
大陆作家铁流：“吴英能借上七个亿，她可能给了贪官好多亿了，最后不知道在哪个地方卡壳了，资金链产生了断裂。所以当官的就采取了两个办法，一个叫杀人灭口，就是非得把吴英枪毙了。杭州地方官为甚么要联名写信，要求杀掉吴英，不是此地无银三百两吗？第二个就是把吴英的财产抢夺。这样判的吴英死刑，所以吴英无罪的，杀吴英是不公平的。”
不过，此案的热度烧得中共媒体也坐不住了。
《新华社》6号连续发布了两篇稿件，讨论《普通案件为何成法治事件？吴英案标本意义分析》与《“吴英案”引热议 凸显中国金融体制改革急迫性》。一些所谓的专家学者也分析了“吴英案”背后法治、金融和经济领域的问题。
新唐人记者秦雪、宋风、肖颜采访报导。
Death Sentence of Wu Ying Triggered Political Incidents
Chairman of the True Qualities of Holding Group in Dongyang City,
Zhejiang Province, Wu Ying was sentenced to death
during her second trial, for collecting funds and fraud,
triggering widespread attention in China and abroad.
Netizens started a rare discussion over social justice,
financial monopoly, death penalty reform,
of a way-out of private capital, values and standards, etc.
An ordinary economic case has quickly evolved into
a political and legal event.
January 18-Zhejiang Supreme People's Court sentenced
Wu Ying to death for "Collective Fraud" in the second trial.
In just half a month, it has evolved into a political event:
Micro-blog—“Public Opinions Summary of Wu Ying's Case”
is updated frequently with related comments.
Scholars of Beijing University, Quinghua University,
and Zhejiang University among others, as well as some
well-known lawyers have sent letters to the Supreme Court
asking to spare Wu Ying's life.
Also the internet poll: "Wu Ying Does Not Deserve to Die"
shows that most voters do not think Wu Ying deserves death.
China Entrepreneurs Forum: Economist Zhang Weiying says,
“If Wu Ying is sentenced to death for fund-raising, I do not
know how many people should not be sentenced to death."
Zhang Sizhi, known as the "conscience of Chinese lawyers"
pointed out that implementation of Wu Ying's death penalty
will affect China's economic development.
Economist Mao Yushi, entrepreneur Wang Shi, and Ren
Zhiqiang also think Wu Ying's “crimes do not deserve death.”
According to the British Financial Times, Wu Ying confessed
during the trial that officials were involved in loan sharking,
causing more than 10 officials to collectively wrote to
the higher level, asking for severe punishment of Wu Ying.
These people are the real killers of Wu Ying.
Writer Ye Tan said publicly that there are violations of law,
rules and procedures in this case, reflecting a high possibility
that local officials are criminals.
Accordingly Wu Ying's funds have been coming from
11 friends and relatives—none of them sued her.
Wu Ying's real estate properties were forced to be auctioned.
This is the first case receiving such large-scale support from
people, showing the case as being something unique.
Economist Gong Shengli: “She used wisdom and ability to
collect capitals and earn profit. It is the result of wisdom.
In China today, whether it is legal or not depends on approval.
Those in line with the ruling party are valid, others are not.
China's writer Tie Liu, who was once a private entrepreneur,
thinks Wu Ying had no other choice but to try to get support.
To do big business in China, earn big money and get rich,
one has to take this route. But the risk is huge.
Tie Liu (Writer):“Wu Ying was able to lend up to ¥700 million.
She might have given hundreds of millions to corrupt officials.
It might get stuck at a certain point, breaking the capital chain.
So officials took two ways, one—to eliminate the witness.
Why did local Hangzhou officials write letters together asking
for the death of Wu Ying? Are they trying to hide their crimes?
The second way is to take away Wu Ying's property.
Such a death sentence is not fair. Wu Ying is innocent.”
However, even the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) media
could not remain silent.
January 6—Xinhua News Agency published two articles:
“Why Did a General Case Become a Legal Event?—
Significance and Analysis of Wu Ying's Case”,
and “Wu Ying's Case Causes Heated Discussions—
Showing the Urgency of China's Financial System Reform.
Some so-called experts and scholars analyzed the rule of law
and the financial and economic issues behind Wu Ying's case.
NTD reports Qing Xue, Song Feng and Xiao Yan
2012年1月18号，浙江省高级人民法院二审以“集资诈骗罪”裁定吴英死刑后，短短半个月间，已经演变成一起政治事件：一个名叫“吴英案舆论汇总”的微博，每天高密度更新相关评论。而北大、清华、浙江大学等高校学者，和一些知名律师致信最高法院为她求情。另外，网站开设的“吴英该不该死”的投票显示，绝大部分投票者认为吴英罪不至死。
经济学家张维迎在“中国企业家论坛”上表示，“如果吴英的集资应该被判死刑，我不知道还有多少人不应该被判死刑。”
被称为“中国律师界的良心”的知名律师张思之指出，如果吴英被执行死刑将会影响中国经济的发展。
经济学家茅于轼、企业家王石、任志强等也认为吴英“罪不致死”。
英国《金融时报》认为，吴英在庭审过程中交代了一些官员参与高利贷活动的事实，以致于十多位官员集体向上级写信陈请，希望严惩吴英，这些人才是杀死吴英的“凶手”。
作家叶檀也公开表示，此案中出现了一系列违反法律、违反规则、违反程序的事情，体现了地方豪强黑社会化的巨大可能性。
据了解，吴英民间借贷资金来源于11位亲友，并没有人告她。而吴英所购买的房产已被强制低价拍卖。如此大规模的民间声援史上第一次，凸显案件的不普通。
经济学者巩胜利：“她在用她的的智慧、用他的能力把资本集中到一个点上提升，以一种典型的智力结果。而中国现在的集权，前提是批准你就是合法、不批准你就是非法，谁合乎执政党谁就是合法，不合乎执政党，他就不合法。”
做过民营企业家的大陆作家铁流认为，吴英用金钱行贿去获得支持与帮助是迫不得已的。想在中国做大企业，赚大钱发大财，又不能不走这条路，但风险也是很大的。
大陆作家铁流：“吴英能借上七个亿，她可能给了贪官好多亿了，最后不知道在哪个地方卡壳了，资金链产生了断裂。所以当官的就采取了两个办法，一个叫杀人灭口，就是非得把吴英枪毙了。杭州地方官为甚么要联名写信，要求杀掉吴英，不是此地无银三百两吗？第二个就是把吴英的财产抢夺。这样判的吴英死刑，所以吴英无罪的，杀吴英是不公平的。”
不过，此案的热度烧得中共媒体也坐不住了。
《新华社》6号连续发布了两篇稿件，讨论《普通案件为何成法治事件？吴英案标本意义分析》与《“吴英案”引热议 凸显中国金融体制改革急迫性》。一些所谓的专家学者也分析了“吴英案”背后法治、金融和经济领域的问题。
新唐人记者秦雪、宋风、肖颜采访报导。
Death Sentence of Wu Ying Triggered Political Incidents
Chairman of the True Qualities of Holding Group in Dongyang City,
Zhejiang Province, Wu Ying was sentenced to death
during her second trial, for collecting funds and fraud,
triggering widespread attention in China and abroad.
Netizens started a rare discussion over social justice,
financial monopoly, death penalty reform,
of a way-out of private capital, values and standards, etc.
An ordinary economic case has quickly evolved into
a political and legal event.
January 18-Zhejiang Supreme People's Court sentenced
Wu Ying to death for "Collective Fraud" in the second trial.
In just half a month, it has evolved into a political event:
Micro-blog—“Public Opinions Summary of Wu Ying's Case”
is updated frequently with related comments.
Scholars of Beijing University, Quinghua University,
and Zhejiang University among others, as well as some
well-known lawyers have sent letters to the Supreme Court
asking to spare Wu Ying's life.
Also the internet poll: "Wu Ying Does Not Deserve to Die"
shows that most voters do not think Wu Ying deserves death.
China Entrepreneurs Forum: Economist Zhang Weiying says,
“If Wu Ying is sentenced to death for fund-raising, I do not
know how many people should not be sentenced to death."
Zhang Sizhi, known as the "conscience of Chinese lawyers"
pointed out that implementation of Wu Ying's death penalty
will affect China's economic development.
Economist Mao Yushi, entrepreneur Wang Shi, and Ren
Zhiqiang also think Wu Ying's “crimes do not deserve death.”
According to the British Financial Times, Wu Ying confessed
during the trial that officials were involved in loan sharking,
causing more than 10 officials to collectively wrote to
the higher level, asking for severe punishment of Wu Ying.
These people are the real killers of Wu Ying.
Writer Ye Tan said publicly that there are violations of law,
rules and procedures in this case, reflecting a high possibility
that local officials are criminals.
Accordingly Wu Ying's funds have been coming from
11 friends and relatives—none of them sued her.
Wu Ying's real estate properties were forced to be auctioned.
This is the first case receiving such large-scale support from
people, showing the case as being something unique.
Economist Gong Shengli: “She used wisdom and ability to
collect capitals and earn profit. It is the result of wisdom.
In China today, whether it is legal or not depends on approval.
Those in line with the ruling party are valid, others are not.
China's writer Tie Liu, who was once a private entrepreneur,
thinks Wu Ying had no other choice but to try to get support.
To do big business in China, earn big money and get rich,
one has to take this route. But the risk is huge.
Tie Liu (Writer):“Wu Ying was able to lend up to ¥700 million.
She might have given hundreds of millions to corrupt officials.
It might get stuck at a certain point, breaking the capital chain.
So officials took two ways, one—to eliminate the witness.
Why did local Hangzhou officials write letters together asking
for the death of Wu Ying? Are they trying to hide their crimes?
The second way is to take away Wu Ying's property.
Such a death sentence is not fair. Wu Ying is innocent.”
However, even the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) media
could not remain silent.
January 6—Xinhua News Agency published two articles:
“Why Did a General Case Become a Legal Event?—
Significance and Analysis of Wu Ying's Case”,
and “Wu Ying's Case Causes Heated Discussions—
Showing the Urgency of China's Financial System Reform.
Some so-called experts and scholars analyzed the rule of law
and the financial and economic issues behind Wu Ying's case.
NTD reports Qing Xue, Song Feng and Xiao Yan
