The Case of Mao Falsely Accusing Jiang of Cattle Theft

In 245 BCE, during the reign of King Zheng of Qin (later Qin Shi Huang), a villager named Mao accused his compatriot Jiang of stealing a cow. Jiang was arrested, and under brutal torture he falsely confessed to the crime he never committed. As a result, Jiang was convicted and sentenced. The case was later reviewed by higher judicial officials. Upon thorough re-examination, they discovered that Mao had fabricated the entire accusation out of personal animosity, and Jiang was entirely innocent. The court fully exonerated Jiang and applied the Qin law principle of “false accusation reversed” (wugao fanzuo). Mao was sentenced to the very punishment prescribed for cattle theft—tattooing and hard labor—which Jiang would have suffered if guilty. This case, recorded in the *Zouyanshu* (Book of Submitted Doubtful Cases), stands as a prominent early example of procedural review against miscarriage of justice.

Jiang was completely exonerated and released. Mao was found guilty of malicious false accusation. Under the Qin retaliatory punishment doctrine, he was sentenced to be tattooed and forced into hard labor (yì wéi chéng dàn), exactly the penalty for cattle theft. Officials responsible for the wrongful torture were also subjected to investigation.

The central dispute revolved around the truth of the theft allegation and the reliability of a confession extracted under torture. The case brought into question whether Jiang’s coerced admission could substantiate Mao’s claim, highlighting the tension between investigative coercion and the need to protect the innocent from malicious prosecution.

The case became a canonical illustration of the Qin dynasty’s harsh stance against perjury and its procedural commitment to correcting injustices. By embedding the principle of retaliatory punishment for false accusers, it exerted a deterrent effect on malicious litigation. Its preservation in legal compendia influenced later imperial Chinese jurisprudence, emphasizing the dangers of judicial torture and the necessity of verifying accusations.