Chinese man jailed for ATM windfall, with prison term cut to 5 years

GUANGZHOU, March 31 (Xinhua) -- A south China court on Monday rescinded the life sentence given to a migrant worker who took 175,000 yuan (24,400 U.S. dollars) from a faulty ATM, instead jailing him for five years.

The Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou in the southern Guangdong Province convicted Xu Ting of theft and fined him 20,000 yuan, in addition to his jail term. It also demanded that Xu return his windfall to the bank.

Xu said that he would not appeal further, but his father said that he would appeal as he was "unsatisfied" with the verdict.

Xu, a native of Linfen City in northern Shanxi Province, was working as a security guard in April 2006. When getting cash from an ATM, he realized it had only deducted 1 yuan from his account for each 1,000 yuan that he had tried to withdraw. He mentioned this to a friend surnamed Guo.

Xu subsequently withdrew 175,000 yuan over 171 transactions while Guo took 18,000 yuan.

Guo was jailed for a year after turning himself in. Xu eluded capture for a year before being apprehended and sentenced last year.

The verdict in the 24-year-old Xu's first trial sparked an outcry among the media and legal experts alike, with many saying that he didn't deserve such severe punishment.

The Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou was told by the Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court last month to rehear the case. It said the November ruling lacked evidence and some facts needed clarification.

A retrial was conducted on Feb. 22 at the Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou when prosecutors insisted on charging Xu with stealing from a bank. His lawyers, however, protested that their client was not guilty.

The court deferred its decision.

In order to be present at Monday's rehearing, Xu Cailiang, Xu's father, flew into Guangzhou late on Sunday.

"What concerns me most is the term of the imprisonment, but I am confident they won't sentence my son to life this time," said the senior Xu before Monday's trial. "The retrial itself suggested the previous ruling was not fair."