The dog that was bought for $12,000 was lost at night, and surveillance found that it had been taken away by a woman who had been found 30 kilometres away by the person in love and who had claimed to be the “owner” to have taken the dog.
The day before, Ms. Chen, who had called the China Business News Hotline, was calling the police to find the dog. On 18 July, the police of Tutao County issued a circular not to open a case, considering it outside the jurisdiction of the public security organs.
Drop the dog on the corner.
I lost my dog and my family ran into a dog girl.
Ms. Chen, in one of the small districts of her home town of Tao, recalled that “On 9 July, at 9:30 p.m., she took her dog to the corner of our town's princess lake, when the street light was not on, the dog was always following us, and initially the dog was holding a rope, and it peed. When I turned my face, it was there, and I said less than two words to my husband and looked back, and it was gone.”
Ms. Chen stated that it was only a few seconds before the incident “when I thought I was following the men who were passing by, the result of which was not found. When I came back, there were no street lights for the dog, and my husband said he saw a woman crouching on the ground and hugging her, thinking of her dog, who was less than five metres away and took her away.”
Ms. and Mrs. Chen were in a hurry to look for a dog, and later found the woman suspicious, “when it was dark, they looked at her without even looking at her face. Because if she steals a dog, she'll get out of the lake as soon as possible, and she won't keep going straight to the lake, because then we'll find the dog and we'll definitely meet her, and she'll find the nearest exit in the first place, the closest is the one with the Zaper stand. We're moving to surveillance at a store across the street. She's taking the sidewalk. She's flipping the fence.
I've got a dog.
They picked up the Westchester for a million dollars.
Ms. Chen provided proof that she bought a dog, “It's a Westchester, it's a female puppy, and it's been in my family for over four years, and it's not cheap for $12,000 in 2021”.
Conscious of the fact that the dog was taken away, Ms. Chen called the police at the police station in Zhengtao county police station that night and said, “The civilian police helped us transfer surveillance to the road near the scene of the incident, but there was no surveillance of the place where we threw the dog”.
Ms. Chen posted a dog search on the Internet, “All the days she was raised were emotional, and she just saw a nice person in the community who sent a message asking who the dog was. When we contacted this nice person, she learned that she had been picked up in Weidong, 30 kilometres away, not in Tao County.”
Ms. Chen provided a payment certificate for the purchase of the dog, emphasizing that the dog had been dropped on July 9th at Princess Lake, and a surveillance video of the woman carrying the dog. “The nice man asked us a few questions, the dog lost a few teeth, and people were afraid that I was not the real owner, and I answered.”
The dog pickers.
Another girl who claims to have lost her dog tried to fake her collar. Yes.
“The dog was almost taken away by a ‘owner’ who claimed to have lost his dog. She was transferred to her.
According to Ms. Chen's Twitter communication records, the good man said: “A woman called me at 11:03 p.m. on July 10th, saying that her dog had been lost and that it was her.”
The good man sent her a copy of the communication with Ms. Chen, “She said it was you who took it away, so I knew she was stealing the dog”.
"You call the police, 10,000 multi-buying dogs can open a case." She called surveillance and found me. She almost did something bad."
On 21 July, the journalist contacted this kind man, who said, “I picked him up at the entrance of the village in the town of Weidong, where I had a car log and I sent it in the crowd (for information about the dog owner).”
She confirmed to the press that after the information was released, a woman who claimed to be a dog was contacted, “but I do not know her”.
The nice man said, "I picked up the dog. Ms. Chen called the police. They also arrived on the morning of 11 July and sent two boxes of drinks to express gratitude and to confirm that the dog was hers, so they picked it up at my house. Ms. Chen has reported to the police station. If you have any problems, contact the police station.”
On 21, 22 and 23 July, the journalist made several calls to the woman who claimed to have lost her dog, but was still in contact.
Ms. Chen told the reporter that “the good man contacted the `owner' and said that she picked up the dog and said to pick it up the next day. On the morning of 11 July, we drove more than 30 kilometres and finally picked up the dog.”
“There's a call from the owner, so I'll call her. She says she picked up the dog and she didn't admit she took it. If we don't get to the door, she'll take care of herself."
“If, according to the dog `owner ' , someone took the dog to Wyton, she lost the dog in Wyton, because she wasn't her dog, and she checked for the dog.”
It's a psychological shadow.
The police will know when they find out.
Ms. Chen indicated that they had taken the dog to all the pet shops in the county and that almost all knew her dog. “The woman who was seen on surveillance carrying the dog was in her early 20s. She was walking around the lake and must have lived nearby. She stole the dog for fear of being found in the county, so she moved to the town of Wyton.”
For more than 10 days, Mrs. and Mrs. Chen had been unable to believe that someone could steal a dog so blatantly, "We don't know what this dog girl is doing in the surveillance, and we would know if it was a civilian police investigation. She took the dog in front of us in the light, and she looked at me and called out the dog's name, and she walked right over it.”
“The psychological consequences of this matter are particularly severe, and neither I nor my family, Princess Lake, are afraid to go, and it feels like they've been stolen without attention.”
According to Ms. Chen, the police did not believe that the dog was being held in a few seconds, nor did they have a dog certificate. “And the civilian police said that the woman was not stolen from our house, that the theft was not enough, that the dog was being stolen from the public area, that there was no surveillance, that there was no proof that the dog had been stolen, that we went to the criminal investigation squad, that the police officers of the criminal investigation brigade could not prove that he had stolen a dog, that they could not establish a case, and that we asked for proof that the case had not been opened.”
No case.
Not under the jurisdiction of public security organs, administrative review or prosecution
On 21 July, the police officer of the police station at the police station at Tao County failed on several occasions, informing the journalist that the case required contact with the police officer in charge of the case, “I will tell the police officer in charge of the case to call you back.” As at the time of writing, however, no reply had been received from the police officer in charge.
On 18 July, an administrative case was not opened at the town police station of Tutao County Public Security Bureau, stating that the reported theft of a pet dog was outside the jurisdiction of the public security organs, which, in accordance with the law, did not open a case.
If a case is not opened, an application for administrative review may be filed with the people ' s government of Tutao County within 60 days of the date of receipt of this communication. Administrative proceedings may be instituted before the People ' s Court, in accordance with the law, in the event of an administrative review decision.
Counselor's statement
Whether the woman holding the dog in the surveillance is the same person as the impostor.
It's the responsibility and ability of the Bailiwick Police to investigate and verify.
According to a well-known lawyer, the director of the law firm Henanzawah, Ms. Chen ' s Sishi dog was taken away by others, who may be suspected of usurping the dog if she knowingly took it away and refused to return it, and who, for the purpose of illegal possession, took it away while Ms. Chen had no secret.
With regard to the decision by the police not to open a case, the payment indicated that it needed to be judged in the context of the specific case. “It is indeed important to know whether the woman in the surveillance that Ms. Chen referred to as carrying a dog is the same person as the woman who pretends to be the master 30 kilometres away. The recognition of the two as the same person would be crucial in determining the nature of their conduct. It is the responsibility and ability of the police to investigate and verify”.
According to the payment, tens of thousands of dollars of love dogs were taken away, and people pretended to be the owners who attempted to impersonate them, and property losses were evident and violations of the property rights of others met the filing criteria. As to whether Ms. Chen held dogs together and issued dog certificates, there was more to the issue of dog-keeping norms that could not be directly invoked as grounds for excluding the jurisdiction of the public security organs, and it was still crucial that the conduct of the person carrying the dogs was consistent with the elements of the offence or crime.
The police shall pay due attention to every clue in the case, perform their investigative duties in accordance with the law and verify the identity of the person concerned and the nature of his or her conduct in order to safeguard the lawful interests of the reporting person.