Price appraisal for property involved in criminal cases refers to the process by which price appraisal institutions established by government pricing authorities, upon receiving a commission from the case-handling authorities (or agencies) at the same level, conduct price appraisals on property involved in criminal proceedings whose prices are unclear, difficult to determine, or subject to dispute, and then issue a conclusive report. This type of appraisal covers a wide range of issues, is highly time-sensitive, and carries significant responsibility. Often, the appraisal conclusion directly influences both the conviction and the sentencing. To ensure that the final appraisal conclusion effectively combats crime and safeguards the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved, appraisal personnel must remain objective, impartial, and reasonable throughout the appraisal process. In my view, a careful and meticulous examination of the relevance of evidence related to the commissioned matter is a prerequisite for conducting high-quality price appraisals—just as the saying goes, "A difference of a hair's breadth can lead to a deviation of a thousand miles." If even the slightest error occurs at this foundational stage, the entire appraisal conclusion could be completely invalidated, and the credibility of the appraisal itself as well as the fairness of the appraisal process might come into question. Based on practical experience, this article explores some preliminary insights into common issues encountered when verifying evidence related to commissioned matters during the price appraisal process.

1 The Necessity of Verifying the Relevance of Evidence for Entrusted Matters

There’s a view that “since price appraisal is the process of appraising the price of the matters specified by the client, there’s no need for appraisers to conduct a thorough verification of the supporting evidence provided.” However, this view is actually mistaken. Those who hold this view often overlook the series of subsequent issues that arise from the accuracy—or inaccuracy—of both the commissioned matters and the supporting evidence, or fail to recognize the potential impact such issues might have on the outcome of the case.

As one of the crucial pieces of technical evidence in criminal proceedings, the conclusion of price appraisal in criminal cases not only requires that its content be objective and truthful but also demands that the procedures be lawful and absolutely accurate. Only by ensuring such rigor can we guarantee the realization of judicial fairness. Therefore, the necessity of verifying the evidence related to the commissioned matter becomes self-evident. If we simply “take things at face value” and rely solely on the blanket “the commissioning party is responsible for the authenticity of the materials provided” as an all-purpose “shield,” without conducting a systematic and comprehensive verification of the evidence pertaining to the commissioned matter, it is clear that we will fail to accurately and objectively reflect the true market value of the subject matter—and the appraisal conclusion itself will not withstand close scrutiny.

2 Common Issues and Countermeasures in Evidentiary Review of Entrusted Matters in Practice

Question 1: When commissioning price appraisals, the provision of supporting documentation tends to be highly arbitrary. For example, with regard to basic parameters of the subject matter, after acceptance of the commission, when verifying the unique and critical data provided by the commissioning entity—data that serve to distinguish this particular subject matter from others—obvious logical flaws emerge.

Question 2: When commissioning price appraisals, the submitted evidence materials lack sufficient neutrality. For example, regarding the model and quantity of the subject matter, after acceptance, when verifying the evidence materials—such as the suspect’s statements and the victim’s testimony—provided by the commissioning entity, contradictions or inconsistencies arise, suggesting a possible tendency to rush into filing a case.

Question 3: When commissioning price appraisal, there is a lack of rigor in providing supporting documentation—for example, valid certificates for the subject matter. After acceptance, when verifying the valid certificates submitted by the commissioning entity, situations arise where the relevant certificates do not correspond to the actual condition or presumed condition of the subject matter.

Given the common issues encountered during the actual verification process described above, it is essential for the appraisers to promptly raise objections to the commissioning entity, requesting verification, adjustments, and supplementation of relevant materials, and obtaining written confirmation thereof. At the same time, for matters that cannot be mutually corroborated and fail to adequately establish a coherent chain of valid evidence, timely communication is crucial to provide clear explanations, articulate the reasons why verification is not possible, and furnish written responses. In other words, while strictly adhering to the scope of our professional duties and established workflows, we must actively engage with the commissioning entities, clearly communicate the prescribed working procedures, and dispel any misunderstandings among case-handling personnel regarding the price appraisal agency’s alleged “inaction” or “delayed action.” Several theft cases recently handled have frequently involved the aforementioned issues. For instance, in one case involving the appraisal of cigarettes, the benchmark date for the appraisal was February 24, 2014. Since the item subject to appraisal had been lost, the commissioning entity provided documentation such as “Cigarette Delivery Records.” Upon receipt and careful examination, we discovered that all dates recorded in the “Cigarette Delivery Records” fell between January and March 2015. It was evident that these documents lacked direct relevance to the item being appraised, and thus could not serve as valid supporting evidence for the appraisal. Accordingly, in compliance with applicable regulations, we promptly informed the commissioning entity in writing, requesting them to verify and adjust the records and supplement any missing information. The commissioning entity cooperated effectively with our efforts, laying a solid evidentiary foundation for scientifically accurate appraisal conclusions and effectively mitigating risks associated with the appraisal procedure.

3 The practical significance of verifying the relevance of evidence related to entrusted matters.

The British philosopher Bacon once said, “A single unjust trial is more harmful than ten crimes. For while crime merely disregards the law—much like polluting a stream—unjust judgment undermines the very foundation of the law itself—akin to contaminating the source of water.” From another perspective, isn't the same true of the outcome of property valuation in criminal cases? During the course of conducting property valuations, errors and contradictions frequently arise due to blind spots in the evidentiary connections related to the commissioned matters, thereby inadvertently increasing the risks inherent in the valuation process. Therefore, only by rigorously scrutinizing the evidentiary connections associated with each commissioned matter can we ensure the scientific validity and accuracy of every valuation assignment. Only then can the work of property valuation—indispensable for determining guilt and sentencing in criminal cases—truly embody its core principle of objective and impartial high-quality service.

(Author’s Affiliation: Price Certification Center, Guangling District, Yangzhou City)