News

Recently, in the case of Mr Ding suspected of property-related offences, handled by Wang Zichang, Senior Partner for Rights and Interests at JAVY Law Firm, alongside solicitor Wang Qiming and paralegal Bai Xianpeng, the legal team's meticulous analysis and multiple rounds of professional defence successfully secured a change in the charge from fraud to embezzlement. ultimately securing a reduction in the defendant's sentence from over three years to one year and four months. This outcome not only upheld the correct application of the law but also demonstrated the pivotal role criminal defence lawyers play in determining both conviction and sentencing.

I. Case Origins: Sentencing Dilemma Under Fraud Charges

In September 2024, Ding was criminally detained by public security authorities on suspicion of fraud. Upon the case entering the review and prosecution stage, his family engaged the legal team to mount a defence. Upon reviewing case files and meeting with the defendant, the lawyers discovered that Ding was accused of conspiring with others to falsely report the area of intensive fish ponds to fraudulently obtain flood retention compensation following the Yongding River basin floods. If convicted of fraud, under the Criminal Law and relevant judicial interpretations, combined with the amount involved, Ding faced a potential sentence exceeding three years' imprisonment.

II. Defensive Breakthrough: Dual Characterisation of Identity and Funds

During case file review, legal assistant Bai Xianpeng astutely identified two overlooked critical facts as potential breakthroughs: Firstly, the nature of the involved funds—not ordinary public assets, but flood retention area utilisation compensation jointly allocated by central and municipal governments following the 2023 Yongding River flood. These constituted special-purpose flood control compensation funds. Second, the unique status of Li, the former village official who held dual roles as both Party secretary and village chief, as the instigator and key executor in the joint criminal activity. His involvement in the compensation application process—assisting the government with verification, reporting disaster conditions, and signing and stamping documents—went beyond mere village self-governance affairs.

The legal team promptly launched an in-depth argumentation centred on the ‘characterisation of the criminal charge,’ submitting multiple legal opinions to the procuratorial authorities. The core defence arguments focused on two points:

(1) The Subject Status of Co-defendant Li: Classified as a ‘Deemed State Functionary’

Pursuant to Article 93 of the Criminal Law and relevant judicial interpretations, personnel of rural grassroots organisations who assist the people's government in administrative management tasks such as ‘disaster relief, emergency response, flood control, preferential treatment for veterans, poverty alleviation, resettlement, and the management of relief funds and materials’ are deemed ‘other persons performing public duties in accordance with the law.’ They thus possess the requisite subject status of ‘state functionaries’ for the crime of embezzlement.

In this case, Li, as the former Party branch secretary and village committee director, undertook duties far exceeding the scope of village self-governance during the flood retention compensation process. These included conveying compensation policies on behalf of the town government, verifying the authenticity of disaster damage, signing off on compensation documentation and affixing the village committee's official seal, and cooperating with third-party assessment firms. These actions essentially constituted assisting the government in performing administrative management duties, thereby satisfying the subject qualification requirements for the crime of embezzlement.

(2) Nature of the Offence: Misappropriation of Disaster Relief Funds Through Abuse of Official Position Constitutes Embezzlement, Not Fraud

The fundamental distinction between fraud and embezzlement lies in whether the offence involves ‘abuse of the official position of a state functionary’ and whether it ‘infringes upon public property while simultaneously violating the integrity of official duties.’ In this case, the successful defrauding of compensation funds by Ding and others hinged on Li's exploitation of his official position to assist the government in verification and reporting. Li concealed crucial facts, helped Ding and others refine false documentation, and facilitated its approval.

As flood control and disaster relief special funds, the involved monies constitute statutory ‘public property’. The joint actions of Li and Ding et al. not only infringed upon the ownership of public property but also undermined the integrity of grassroots officials' official duties. This aligns with the constituent elements of the crime of embezzlement and the core legal interests it protects, rather than merely constituting the crime of fraud, which infringes upon property rights.

III. Defence Outcomes: Key Breakthroughs During the Review and Prosecution Stage

Following multiple rounds of communication by the legal team and the submission of detailed legal analyses and evidence summaries, the prosecuting authorities ultimately adopted the defence arguments. Consequently, the charge was amended from fraud to embezzlement. Additionally, counsel further highlighted multiple mitigating circumstances in Mr Ding's case. Taking all these factors into account, the prosecution ultimately proposed a sentencing recommendation of one year and four months' imprisonment, suspended. This outcome substantially reduced Mr Ding's sentence and mitigated the impact on his family, achieving the defence objectives at the review and prosecution stage.

IV. Trial Phase: Balancing Circumstances and Social Harm, Upholding the Defence of a Lesser Offence

Upon reaching the trial stage, the court accorded particular attention to the ‘special nature’ of the involved funds—flood retention compensation being ‘life-saving money’ earmarked for post-disaster reconstruction of affected communities. Any fraudulent appropriation would directly harm the vital interests of disaster victims, carrying exceptional social harm.

During the trial, the defence counsel maintained the framework of the embezzlement charge while reiterating Ding's mitigating circumstances. Simultaneously, they rationally addressed the court's consideration of the funds' nature, acknowledging the seriousness of disaster relief funds and requesting the court to balance ‘circumstances and harm’ in sentencing, applying a proportionate punishment.

Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction for embezzlement and recognised multiple mitigating factors for Ding. However, given the special social significance of disaster relief funds, probation was not granted, and Ding was sentenced to one year and four months' imprisonment. Although probation was denied, the sentence remained significantly lower than the minimum three-year term that would have applied for fraud charges, fully demonstrating the value of effective defence.

V. Case Analysis: Dual Value of Effective Defence and Rule of Law Admonition

(I) For Criminal Defence Lawyers: Meticulous Case Review Forms the Cornerstone of Effective Defence

The defence outcome in this case stemmed from the legal team's meticulous examination of ‘details’ – had the ‘disaster relief nature’ of the funds and the ‘official capacity’ of the co-defendant been overlooked, focusing solely on fraud defence could have resulted in a harsher sentence. This underscores that criminal defence lawyers must transcend the singular mindset of ‘amount equates to sentence’. By approaching cases from multiple angles—including the characterisation of offences, the identity of the principal party, and the specific features of the conduct—they can identify the most advantageous defence strategy for their clients.

(2) For grassroots officials and the public: Reverence for the law and adherence to ethical boundaries are fundamental

The ‘signing authority’ and ‘review powers’ held by grassroots officials represent an extension of public authority, not tools for personal gain. As public servants most closely connected to the populace, they must never compromise the integrity of their duties through familial connections or a gambler's mentality. The general public must likewise refrain from crossing legal boundaries through complacency or a ‘give it a try’ mentality. Whether holding public authority or acting as ordinary citizens, all should revere the law and safeguard the public interest.

Conclusion

Defending a case involving disaster compensation funds exemplifies both the precise application of legal principles and the tangible value of effective defence. Jia Lawyers' objective extends beyond safeguarding clients' lawful rights and interests; it encompasses advancing professional standards to ensure proportionality between crime and punishment, enabling every case to withstand scrutiny by both legal principles and societal expectations. Moving forward, Jia Lawyers will deepen its expertise in criminal defence, leveraging robust legal knowledge and extensive practical experience to deliver superior legal services to more clients, thereby contributing to the development of a law-based society.