这起虚开专票案改判后刑期减半，释放何信号

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has adopted a more cautious approach in defining the crime of issuing false VAT invoices, which can effectively prevent heavy penalties for minor offenses by enterprises and is beneficial for nurturing national tax sources [1][4]. Group 1: Case Overview - The Supreme People's Court recently published eight typical cases of punishing crimes that harm tax collection, with the first case involving the reclassification of issuing false VAT invoices as tax evasion, attracting significant industry attention [1]. - In recent years, crimes related to tax collection in China have primarily involved issuing false VAT invoices, with the maximum statutory penalty for this crime being life imprisonment, while tax evasion carries a maximum sentence of seven years [1][4]. - In a specific case, from February to December 2018, two defendants obtained 880 false VAT invoices totaling 160 million yuan, leading to a tax amount of over 23 million yuan [1]. Group 2: Judicial Decisions - During the first trial, the defendants were found guilty of issuing false VAT invoices and were sentenced to significant prison terms, with one receiving 13 years and the other 4.5 years [2]. - Upon appeal, the court differentiated between the crimes of issuing false VAT invoices and tax evasion based on the defendants' intent, ultimately reclassifying the charges and reducing the sentences significantly [3]. - The reclassification resulted in a reduction of the prison term for one defendant from 13.5 years to 6 years, and for the other from 4.5 years to 2 years [3]. Group 3: Legal Implications - The Supreme People's Court emphasized the need to distinguish between tax evasion and fraud, advocating for a unified approach that aligns subjective intent with objective harm, which is crucial for preventing excessive penalties on legitimate enterprises [4][5]. - The recent legal interpretations aim to clarify the application of laws regarding tax-related crimes, indicating a trend towards reducing criminal liability for genuine business operations while still addressing fraudulent activities [5][6]. - The interpretation also aims to exclude behaviors that do not result in tax losses from the scope of punishment for issuing false VAT invoices, aligning legal practices with the realities of business operations [6].