News

Recently, Lawyer An Hongpeng, Senior Partner of JAVY Law Firm, successfully handled a case of bribery and influence bribery on behalf of a famous university in Beijing. After nearly a year of hard work, he achieved a good defense effect and once again achieved a "borderline judgment" under the combined punishment of several crimes - the two crimes were executed with a ten-year prison sentence.

This article aims to summarize the characteristics of this case in order to provide useful inspiration for colleagues.

1、 Main characteristics of the case

Both crimes are within the maximum sentencing range of the statutory sentence. According to the provisions of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, for the amount of the crime committed by the defendant on behalf of someone, the crime of accepting bribes should be sentenced to more than ten years, and the crime of accepting bribes by using influence should be sentenced to more than seven years.

2. Successfully identified and received significant lenient punishment for surrendering. From the initial difficulty in identifying voluntary surrender to the final successful identification of voluntary surrender, and ultimately obtaining sentencing recommendations of eight years in prison for accepting bribes and four years in prison for using influence to accept bribes, the degree of leniency is relatively large.

3. The party involved received the lowest sentence among the three accomplices. This case is a series of cases involving three individuals, including Dai, who were filed at the same time. Dai's bribery crime is joint bribery. Although the other two defendants also had mitigating circumstances such as meritorious service, they still received higher punishments than Dai. The combined execution of the two crimes of Dai Moumou for ten years is equivalent to removing one crime (taking bribes through influence), making him the lightest offender among the three co defendants in this case.

There are many factors that contribute to the successful handling of a case. It is very important to provide professional defense opinions and cleverly use defense strategies to gain the understanding and support of the prosecution and judicial organs, in order to maximize the protection of the interests of the parties involved.

2、 Two highlights of defense

（1） Adopting unique defense strategies to strive for the prosecutor's full understanding

1. Carefully review the paper and search for loopholes. In this case, the supervisory commission investigated and dealt with the amount of bribes taken by Dai and the use of influence to accept bribes, both of which were within the statutory maximum sentencing range. After reviewing the case files and meeting with the defense lawyer, it was found that the factual determination in the supervisory commission's prosecution opinion was inaccurate, and some of the stolen money was not obtained by Dai through bribery using influence, but through joint bribery.

2. Take a different approach and reduce the sentence. In terms of charges, the crime of accepting bribes is more serious than the crime of taking bribes by using influence. But the defense lawyer took a unique approach and, based on the actual situation of this case, from the perspective of evidence, "extracted" a portion of the amount from the crime of using influence to accept bribes into the crime of (joint) bribery. This will reduce the sentence for the crime of using influence to accept bribes by one level; Although the amount of bribery has changed, the impact is not significant and remains within the original sentencing range. In this way, the overall combined execution sentence will be reduced.

3. After multiple communications, we finally gained recognition. After determining the defense strategy, the defense lawyer repeatedly requested to meet with the prosecutor for sufficient communication. After carefully listening to the lawyer's opinions, the presiding prosecutor understood the defense counsel's idea of "essentially reducing the sentence". Without making substantial adjustments to the criminal facts transferred by the supervisory commission, he fully understood the purpose of this defense strategy and used the important circumstance of lenient punishment for voluntary surrender to provide a "borderline" sentencing recommendation - ten years' imprisonment - when signing the confession and punishment agreement.

（2） Argue with the judge based on reason and safeguard the maximum interests of the parties involved

After the trial, the presiding judge has been requesting that the family members of Mr./Ms. Dai return all the stolen money from the joint bribery crime on behalf of Mr./Ms. However, the defendant and their family members insist that some of the money has already been obtained by other accomplices and should not be returned by Mr./Ms. Dai. In order to maximize the protection of the rights of the parties, the defense lawyer actively communicated with the presiding judge multiple times and formally submitted written opinions, advocating for the clear recovery of the defendant's actual personal income amount in the judgment.

1. Quoting principles of criminal law. The principle of "proportionality between crime and punishment" is one of the three major principles of criminal law and plays an important role in criminal justice practice. The defense lawyer grasps this basic principle and clarifies the viewpoint that "making the defendant bear the responsibility of refunding more than their own illegal criminal gains violates the principle of proportionality between crime and punishment", theoretically demonstrating the rationality of the defendant only bearing the responsibility of refunding their own illegal criminal gains.

2. Clarify the principle of legal interests. The defense lawyer cited the viewpoint of a professional article in the Procuratorate Daily and proposed that "the incentive leniency for returning stolen goods and compensation is a leniency circumstance for individuals, in which joint offenders should return stolen goods and losses directly caused by their personal gains. This approach is more in line with the essence of returning stolen goods and compensation circumstances - restoring the damage caused by criminal behavior to legal interests within the scope of individual compensation ability." This defense opinion once again explains the rationality of the defendant only bearing the responsibility for returning their own illegal criminal gains.

3. Reveal potential problems and hazards. The defense lawyer pointed out that some of the jointly accepted bribes by Dai were actually possessed by other joint criminals. Pursuing the full illegal proceeds of the joint crime from Dai would result in the following issues: if the other two accomplices are not recovered for all illegal proceeds, it would lead to the problem of "different judgments in the same case"; If all illegal and criminal proceeds are recovered from all three individuals, there will be a problem of duplicate recovery, resulting in duplicate calculation of the refund amount. The rationality of the defendant only bearing the responsibility of refunding their own illegal and criminal proceeds was demonstrated from the opposite perspective.

In the end, the court adopted the defense lawyer's viewpoint and clearly stated in the judgment that the amount recovered from Dai was his actual illegal and criminal gains. Through this effective defense, the losses of the parties involved have been minimized to the greatest extent possible, and their legitimate rights and interests have been safeguarded.

3、 What are some case handling experiences

In the face of the current situation, cases of job-related crimes present the characteristics of small defense space and high defense difficulty. Criminal defense lawyers need to achieve effective defense, among which a very important point is to carefully review the materials transferred by the supervisory commission, be brave and good at using the problems or defects in evidence acquisition and fact determination, and put forward defense opinions to the public prosecution and trial organs, in order to "create pressure" and strive for defense space. Practice has proven that the above approach is practical and feasible.

The effective defense of this case not only safeguards the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, but also contributes to the fair judgment of the judicial authorities and the prosecution of the parties' confession, highlighting the professional competence and dedication of defense lawyers in the defense of duty crimes.

Every effective defense triggers our thinking: on the balance of the law, every case deserves to be taken seriously; On the path of justice, every lawyer is writing their own chapter with their wisdom and courage.