On February 7, 2025, Xiao Shuai (who had two previous criminal convictions for stealing) and Xiao Bin and Xiao Zhong (two of them dealt with separate crimes) plotted to steal, and the three men drove their vehicles along the highway, looking for their targets. When the three men passed a Buddhist monastery, they thought that there was cash in the monastery's virtue box. Therefore, it was clearly divided: Xiao Shuai was responsible for "watching the wind" outside the temple, Xiao Bin and Xiao Zhong dived inside the temple and used tools such as wire, tape, and double-sided glue that had been prepared beforehand to steal 1500 yuan from the gong box. After the three men were successful, they quickly fled the scene and spent the stolen money along the way. Four days later, Xiao Wei was arrested by the public security authorities. During the trial of the case, Xiao Shuai's family returned all the illegal proceeds on his behalf.

The court heard that Xiao Shuai, the defendant, stole the property of others for the purpose of illegal possession, in a large amount, and his actions amounted to the offence of theft. Taking into account the circumstances such as Xiao Wei's truthful confession after coming to the case and the return of the illegal proceeds, the penalty may be reduced as appropriate. Based on the facts of Xiao Shuai's crime, the nature of the crime, the circumstances and the degree of harm to society, a legal verdict was reached: the accused Xiao Shuai was found guilty of theft and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and a fine of 3,000 yuan. The illegal proceeds of 1500 yuan have been refunded and returned to the victims in accordance with the law.

The virtue box is not a "cash machine," and the "cash of worship" inside the virtue box belongs to the legal property of places of religious activity and is protected by law. In the present case, the defendant Xiao Shuai ganged with others across provinces to plot to commit theft against places of religious activity. His actions violated the property ownership of the victim's unit and should be punished according to law.

The crime of theft is a typical crime of embezzlement, and its social harmfulness is generally reflected in the amount of the crime. China's Criminal Code stipulates that theft of "substantial amounts" constitutes a crime. In general, theft of small amounts is not considered a crime because of the small amount and the small social harm, and in practice only a police management penalty is given. At the same time, in order to avoid the drawbacks of "amount-based theory," the judicial interpretation "reduced" the criterion of "substantial amount" in eight cases, including those where there was a prior history of theft. Specifically, the standard for "significant amount" in the elements of the crime of theft in Henan province is 2,000 yuan. Although the amount of theft was 1,500 yuan in this case, according to the Supreme People's Court, Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Supreme People's Procuratorate's Explanation on a number of issues relating to the application of the law in handling criminal cases of theft stipulates that a higher standard for the amount of criminal punishment for theft may be determined by 50 percent of the provincial standard, and 1,000 yuan constitutes an offence. Co-offenders Xiao Bin and Xiao Zhong were administratively punished for failing to meet the amount requirements for the offence of theft because they did not meet the criteria set out in article 2 of the previous judicial interpretation that could be reduced by half.