- 20 Requesting State”), requiring that “the suspect be held in custody.” As established in this request, the acts presumably committed by Wong Ho Wing constituted the “offense of smuggling ordinary merchandise,48 the offense of money-laundering, and the offense of bribery,” which are defined in articles 153, 154, 191, 389 and 390 of the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China.49 According to the request, “the taxes evaded amounted to [more than 717 million yuans].” Furthermore, Wong Ho Wing had allegedly transferred the sum of 4,048 million United States dollars out of China. Among other documents, the applicable articles of the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China on the statute of limitations, the relevant penalties, and the arrest warrant were attached to the request.50 These articles did not include article 151 of the Chinese Criminal Code which establishes the possibility of the death penalty for the offense of smuggling (infra para. 146).51 63. On December 10, 2008, a public hearing was held during which Wong Ho Wing and his representative mentioned that the applicable provision was article 151, which established the death penalty.52 Following the procedure established in the Procedural Code (supra para. 59), on January 6, 2009, the case file was referred to the Supreme Court of Justice.53 On January 19, 2009, the Second Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice held the extradition hearing.54 That same day, a report of the Smuggling Investigation Department of the Wuhan Customs’ Office was received from the representative of the People’s Republic of China explaining the acts that Wong Ho Wing was accused of, and the applicable law,55 with no mention of the possibility of imposing the death penalty for one of the offenses for which his extradition was requested. In addition, the representative presented his written arguments and provided the translation of the relevant parts of articles 151 and 153 of the Chinese Criminal Code, which reveal that, when the amount defrauded is “more than [500,000] yuans, as in this case,” smuggling merchandise and objects is punished in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 4 48 The offense established in article 153 of the Chinese Criminal Code is entitled “smuggling ordinary merchandise.” However, this offense is similar to the offense entitle “evasion of customs duty” under Peruvian law. Cf. Advisory decision of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of January 27, 2010 (evidence file, folios 168 and 169). Consequently, the offense established in article 153 of the Chinese Criminal Code, for which Wong Ho Wing was required, is referred to with both terms in different documents from the extradition process. Whichever the name used, this is the offense established in article 153 of the Chinese Criminal Code, and the penalty for “very serious” cases is established in article 151 of the Chinese Criminal Code (infra para. 146). For the purposes of this Judgment, the Court will use the term that appears in the respective document; nevertheless, it should be understood that both terms, “evasion of customs duty” or “smuggling ordinary merchandise” refer to the same offense established in article 153 of the Chinese Criminal Code. 49 Cf. Extradition request from General Directorate No. 24 of the Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China of November 3, 2008 (evidence file, folio 29), and Decision of November 14, 2008, of the Second Criminal Court of El Callao (evidence file, folios 1737 and 1738). The request was sent accompanied by a note from the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China dated November 13, 2008 (evidence file, folio 35). 50 Cf. Extradition request from General Directorate No. 24 of the Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China of November 3, 2008 (evidence file, folio 29), and table (general) with the amount of duty evaded by smuggling (evidence file, folio 8404). 51 Cf. Pertinent parts of the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China provided with the extradition request (evidence file, folio 8406). 52 Cf. Record of the hearing of December 10, 2008 (evidence file, folios 8477 and 8478). 53 Cf. Record of the Seventh Special Criminal Court of El Callao of January 6, 2009 (evidence file, folio 1942). 54 Cf. Record of extradition hearing of January 19, 2009 (evidence file, folio 1993). 55 This report indicates that Wong Ho Wing “was responsible for importing soybean oil and re-selling it in China” and explains his alleged participation in the acts, together with other individuals. The document does not indicate the offense of which Wong Ho Wing was accused. However, it does indicate the articles of the Criminal Code applicable to the other individuals who took part in the events. Cf. Communication of the representative of the People’s Republic of China of January 19, 2009 (evidence file, folios 7801 to 7813).