Court to hear Bo Xilai appeal

Bo Xilai (C), former secretary of the Chongqing Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and a former member of the CPC Central Committee Political Bureau, is sentenced to life imprisonment for bribery, embezzlement and abuse of power, at the Jinan Intermediate People's Court in Jinan City, capital of east China's Shandong Province, Sept. 22, 2013. He was deprived of political rights for life. The court announced the verdict. (Xinhua File Photo)

A Chinese provincial court announced on Wednesday that it will hear the appeal of Bo Xilai, sentenced to life imprisonment for bribery, embezzlement and abuse of power last month.

Bo did not accept his sentence at the first trial at the Jinan Intermediate People's Court in east China's Shandong Province and submitted an appeal to the Shandong Higher People's Court, said a statement from the higher court.

The higher court decided to hear his case after examination, the statement said.

Bo, 64, is former secretary of the Chongqing Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and a former member of the CPC Central Committee Political Bureau.

He was charged with bribery, embezzlement and abuse of power at a trial held from Aug. 22 to 26 and the court announced its verdict on Sept. 22.

Bo was found guilty of taking bribes totaling 20.44 million yuan (about 3.3 million U.S. dollars), either personally or through his family members, between 1999 and 2012.

The court also convicted Bo of stealing 5 million yuan of government funds and of having abused his power when handling the murder of British citizen Neil Heywood by his wife, Bogu Kailai, and an assistant, as well as the defection of Wang Lijun, then Chongqing's police chief and vice mayor.

Bo was deprived of political rights for life, and his personal assets were also confiscated.

The illicit money and goods that Bo accepted as bribes or embezzled have been recovered or compensated, according to the court judgement.

Bo and his lawyer had denied all three charges but the court held that there was sufficient and authentic evidence to support prosecutors' charges.