王局拍案｜刘强东性侵案为什么会和解？20221004

Summary

The video discusses the controversial settlement of Liu Qiangdong's sexual assault case just before a scheduled trial in the U.S. The speaker expresses disappointment over the lack of a trial, as it would have provided a chance to explore the truth through the U.S. judicial system, known for its transparency and rigorous questioning. The speaker contrasts this with the opaque nature of China's legal system. He also touches on related issues, including media manipulation and political connections, suggesting that the case's resolution reflects the power dynamics between business, politics, and justice.

Takeaways

• 😀 Liu Qiangdong's sexual assault case was settled just before the court trial in the US, which left some people disappointed as they were hoping for more transparency in the court process.
• 😀 The speaker had been following the case for over four years and even traveled to Minneapolis to gather information, meeting with key individuals involved in the case.
• 😀 The US judicial system's public disclosure of evidence is praised, as it allows people to study the procedure and promotes transparency, unlike China's more closed system.
• 😀 The US court requires both parties to attend the trial and face sharp questioning from the opposing lawyers, which is seen as a positive aspect to uncover the truth, especially in ambiguous cases like this one.
• 😀 The case was notable for being a high-profile example of the US justice system's protection of the weaker side, as the victim in this case was given the opportunity to fight for justice against a powerful figure.
• 😀 The case was not only a personal matter for Liu Qiangdong but also involved his company, JD.com, which could have faced significant damage to its reputation if the case went to trial.
• 😀 The settlement was likely influenced by Liu Qiangdong’s desire to avoid public damage to both himself and JD.com, particularly in light of political and economic sensitivities surrounding the case in China.
• 😀 The trial's timing was another important factor, as it coincided with the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, making it politically sensitive for Liu Qiangdong's case to be in the public eye.
• 😀 The speaker speculates that if the case had taken place in China, the victim might have been accused of extortion and arrested, with the case potentially covered up by the media.
• 😀 The transcript also reveals a fraud project involving Liu Qiangdong’s DBA project at the University of Minnesota, which was illegal both in China and the US, raising further controversy around his actions.

Q & A

What was the outcome of Liu Qiangdong's sexual assault case?

The case was settled just two days before the court trial in the U.S., avoiding a formal court battle.

Why was the speaker disappointed about the settlement of Liu Qiangdong's case?

The speaker was disappointed because they had followed the case for years and were eager to witness the trial process, which would have shed light on the judicial procedure in the U.S. and the truth behind the allegations.

What motivated the speaker to follow the case closely over the years?

The speaker was motivated by a desire to understand how U.S. courts handle such cases, particularly sexual assault cases involving influential individuals, and to provide Chinese viewers with insights into the legal procedures of other countries.

How does the judicial system in the U.S. differ from China's in terms of transparency?

In the U.S., evidence is made public during trials, and both parties are required to attend court, whereas in China, court hearings are often closed to the public, and evidence is not disclosed to the public during the trial process.

What is the significance of having both parties attend court and be questioned by opposing lawyers?

This practice in the U.S. is seen as crucial for uncovering the truth, as it ensures both parties are held accountable and forced to testify under oath, facing sharp questions that reveal inconsistencies or flaws in their testimonies.

What were the potential risks for Liu Qiangdong if the case went to trial?

The risks included exposing his business, Jingdong, to negative publicity, especially since the case involved details that could harm the company's reputation and connect Liu Qiangdong to influential political figures.

What role did Liu Jingyao's legal team play in the case?

Liu Jingyao's legal team submitted strong evidence, including claims that Liu Qiangdong used his power to cover up the incident, and testimonies that could implicate Liu Qiangdong and his company in a scandal.

What were some of the key pieces of evidence that could have harmed Liu Qiangdong during the trial?

Key evidence included Liu Qiangdong's involvement in paying for the dinner through Jingdong, promising a job position to Liu Jingyao on behalf of Jingdong, and the involvement of his assistant, who was acting on behalf of Jingdong, not Liu Qiangdong personally.

What connection did Liu Qiangdong have with political figures that might have affected the case?

Liu Qiangdong had close ties with prominent political figures, including Jia Qinglin's son-in-law, which was seen as a potential conflict of interest. The involvement of political figures could have influenced public perception and the trial's outcome.

What could have happened if the case were tried in China instead of the U.S.?

In China, the victim, Liu Jingyao, might have been arrested for extortion, and the case would likely have been covered up, with no public trial. In contrast, the U.S. judicial system allowed for transparency and protection for the weaker side in such cases.