论文部分内容阅读
马克东,广东博浩律师事务所主任律师,他曾因代理过“周广龙”广州第一黑帮案、孙志刚事件案、苏丹红一号食品质量案、齐药二厂假药事件赔偿案、奥美定注射隆胸赔偿案、广州玫瑰园业主集体维权诉讼案、湖南名记者侵权案等一批对社会造成重大影响的案件而名噪一时。2001年,马克东因“捞”广州故意伤害他人案中的宋鹏飞、赵文刚收取代理费100万元。6年后,宋鹏飞、赵文刚被司法机关认定为“沈阳贩毒集团”的头号和二号人物。根据往来账目,马克东收取的100万代理费被警方认定为涉嫌诈骗。2006年10月20日,马克东被辽宁警方从广州“带走”。2007年9月10日,“律师诈骗毒枭”案在辽宁省营口市站前区法院公开开庭审理。律师收取代理费为“坏人”辩护是否涉嫌诈骗?罪与非罪之争引起律师界、媒体及社会舆论的关注。刑事律师如履薄冰、律师潜规则难上台面、打官司就是打关系等看似异常的现象却正常地存在着,马克东案在某种程度上反映了中国律师的生存环境及现状,是目前有关法律“不利条款”的禁锢,还是存在制度性的原因?
Mark East, Guangdong Barong law firm director of lawyer, he had been acting for “Zhou Guanglong ” Guangzhou First Gangster case, Sun Zhigang incident case, Sudan Red No. 1 food quality case, Qi medicine factory false drug case compensation case, Ogilvy & Mather injection injection breast augmentation compensation case, the Guangzhou Rose Garden owners collective rights defense lawsuit, a reporter in Hunan infringement case and a number of cases of socially significant impact and famous. In 2001, Mark East due to “fishing” Guangzhou deliberately hurt others Song Pengfei, Zhao Wengang agency fees charged 1 million yuan. Six years later, Song Pengfei and Zhao Wengang were judged by the judiciary as the number one and number two characters of “Shenyang Drug Trafficking Group”. According to current accounts, Mark East received 1 million agency fees were identified as suspected fraud by the police. On October 20, 2006, Mark East was lured by Liaoning Police from Guangzhou. September 10, 2007, “lawyers fraud drug lord ” case in Yingkou City, Liaoning Province station front court trial. Lawyers charge agency fees for “bad guys ” defense is suspected of fraud? The dispute between sin and non-crime aroused the attention of lawyers, the media and public opinion. Criminal lawyers on the thin ice, unscrupulous lawyers hidden on the table, litigation is the relationship between the seemingly anomalous phenomenon exists, Mark East case to some extent reflects the living conditions of Chinese lawyers and the status quo, is the current law “Unfavorable terms ” imprisonment, or the existence of institutional reasons?