2025年9月19日，泰安市中級人民法院對山東四名被告人——曾某某、王某某、呂某某和袁某某——涉入的入室搶嬰案進行一審公開宣判。法院以拐賣兒童罪判處主犯曾某某死刑，緩期兩年執行；呂某某和王某某被判無期徒刑，袁某某則被判15年有期徒刑。這一判決引發社會廣泛關注，也讓受害人家屬得以感受到法律的公正。庭審現場，當得知曾某某被判死刑時，受害人姜甲儒的母親喬守芬激動地高呼：“等到了，我等了十八年！法律是公平公正的！”而主犯曾某某當庭卻表示“不服”，拒不認罪。

案件源於2006年12月3日淩晨1點多，泰安肥城市王莊鎮的四名男子先切斷全村電力後翻入院內。他們先將薑甲儒的爺爺拖到廚房毆打，奶奶試圖呼喊求助，卻被一名歹徒用鋼筋控制住。控制住兩位老人後，四人將僅八個月大的薑甲儒搶走。這起事件發生後，喬守芬和丈夫迅速從外地趕回家，並開始在全國範圍內尋找孩子，在許多城市街頭張貼尋人啟事。多年來，老人一直為沒能看護好孫子而自責，爺爺因長期精神壓力和飲食不規律幾年後重病去世，奶奶因思念孫子日夜哭泣，甚至傷及眼睛。

2024年1月19日，薑甲儒終於被找到，四名犯罪嫌疑人也隨之落網，其中一名嫌疑人竟是鄰居袁某，兩家相距僅約500米。令人痛心的是，孩子被賣至濟寧，而兩地相距僅75公里，喬守芬曾多次到附近尋找孩子卻未能找到。案件隨後於2025年4月2日在泰安市中級人民法院開庭審理，正值大一的薑甲儒從學校趕回家，與18年前拐賣自己的犯罪嫌疑人面對面對質。

案件此前也涉及其他相關人員。根據報導，2025年7月7日，山東泰安肥城市人民檢察院作出決定，對收買被拐賣兒童的劉某強夫婦不予起訴，理由是已超過追訴時效，但認定其行為構成收買被拐賣兒童罪。受害人代理律師和喬守芬均表示不服，計畫向檢察院提出申訴。喬守芬強調，其他參與交易和搶嬰行為的人也應受到法律制裁，包括劉某強的岳父以及曾某孩。她表示：“不能就這樣放過他們，不然，我們滿世界找孩子，就像是小丑一樣。”

整個事件歷時十八年，最終通過法律程式讓涉案主要人員受到應有懲罰，也提醒社會關注兒童安全和拐賣問題的嚴重性，同時彰顯法律對重大犯罪行為的威懾作用。

On September 19, 2025, the Tai’an Intermediate People’s Court in Shandong Province delivered a public first-instance verdict in the case of four men—Zeng, Wang, Lü, and Yuan—who were involved in a home-invasion infant abduction. The court sentenced the ringleader, Zeng, to death with a two-year reprieve, while Lü and Wang received life imprisonment, and Yuan was sentenced to 15 years in prison. The ruling drew widespread attention and brought a sense of justice to the victim’s family. At the court, eyewitnesses reported that upon hearing Zeng’s death sentence, the mother of the victim, Qiao Shoufen, exclaimed emotionally, “It has arrived, I have waited eighteen years! The law is fair and just!” Zeng, however, loudly protested in court, refusing to admit guilt.

The case originated in the early hours of December 3, 2006, when four men in Wangzhuang Town, Feicheng City, cut off the village electricity before climbing over a wall into the home. They first dragged the infant’s grandfather into the kitchen and beat him, while the grandmother attempted to call for help but was restrained with a steel rod. After controlling the two elders, the men abducted eight-month-old Jiang Jiaru. Following the incident, Qiao Shoufen and her husband rushed back from another city and began a nationwide search for their grandson, posting missing-person notices in multiple cities. Over the years, the grandparents endured immense suffering: the grandfather eventually fell seriously ill and passed away after years of stress and poor health, while the grandmother, heartbroken over her missing grandson, wept day and night, damaging her eyesight.

On January 19, 2024, Jiang Jiaru was finally located, and the four suspects were arrested. Shockingly, one of the abductors, Yuan, was their neighbor, living only about 500 meters away. Even more heartbreaking, the child had been sold to Jining, a city merely 75 kilometers away, despite repeated searches by Qiao Shoufen in the nearby area. The case went to trial on April 2, 2025, at the Tai’an Intermediate People’s Court, where Jiang Jiaru, then a first-year college student, returned from school to confront the people who had kidnapped him eighteen years earlier.

The case also involved other individuals. On July 7, 2025, the Tai’an Feicheng People’s Procuratorate issued a decision not to prosecute Liu and his wife for buying abducted children, citing that the statute of limitations had passed, although it confirmed that their actions constituted a crime of purchasing abducted children. The victim’s legal representatives and Qiao Shoufen expressed their disagreement and planned to appeal the decision. Qiao emphasized that all participants in the abduction and sale should face legal consequences, including Liu’s father-in-law and Zeng’s accomplices. She stated, “We cannot just let them go. Otherwise, we would have been searching for our child all over the world, looking like fools.”

This case, spanning eighteen years, ultimately ensured that the main perpetrators were held accountable through the legal system. It underscores the gravity of child abduction, highlights the importance of safeguarding children, and demonstrates the law’s deterrent effect on serious criminal acts.