Recently, the first trial of the case of opening a casino, which was undertaken by Beijing King&Capital Law Firm's Xu Wei team of lawyers, was pronounced. After several rounds of court hearings, the prosecuting authority changed the indictment to change the charge from the crime of opening a casino to the crime of gambling, and the maximum sentence was lowered from less than ten years to less than three years. The first trial finally ruled that the defendant committed the crime of gambling and was sentenced to two years in prison.

First, why is a small chicken fry involved in gambling?

Chickens, that is, just hatched chickens, from the seed eggs to become chickens generally have to be incubated for 21 days, within these 21 days, the price of chickens due to fluctuations in market conditions will be up and down.

When the lawyer accepted the commission to intervene in the case, the client Z had already been arrested for the crime of opening a casino. The case organ alleges that the suspect in order to obtain illegal benefits, through the formation of wechat group, the use of the uncertainty of the price trend of the chickens to organize other people for betting, due to be settled, and from the profits, involving gambling capital of more than ten million yuan, the process does not involve any entity transaction, the suspect should constitute the crime of opening a casino.

Second, the lawyer that does not constitute the crime of opening a casino

Lawyer intervention, because it is the first time to contact the chicken hatching industry, so spend a lot of time on the industry to understand and go to the place of the crime to visit. According to the investigation of the visit to the conclusion of the investigation and the case authorities, contrary to the conclusion of the parties to the implementation of legal transactions, does not constitute the crime of opening a casino. In order to be able to achieve the purpose of not guilty defense, the defense retrieved relevant evidence, and apply for relevant witnesses in court.

Third, the trial, the lawyer defense to help identify the truth of the case

On the day of the first trial, by answering the lawyer's questions, the defendant introduced the weibo group is only used to release the price of the day to set the chickens, there is no gambling information, the group are industry personnel, did not solicit unspecified people into the group, through a summary of buyers and sellers transactions and then for the hatchery to bring the processing of the hatchery business to make a meager processing fee is the main purpose.

Proof of evidence, the lawyer submitted to the court more than a hundred pages of evidence material, proving that through the WeChat group of information release does contribute to the transaction, is not the case authorities that does not involve any physical transaction, the prosecutor also recognized.

Subsequently, the defense witness appeared in court, through the court prosecution, defense and trial of the three-party questioning, the witness is more objective statement of the WeChat group of the chicken fry trading mode, the chicken fry trading linked to the market, the market is good when the buyer and seller are making money, which is very different from gambling with a win-lose model, and said that this mode of trading is still commonly used, which is the inevitable result of the development of the market transaction.

Fourth, the Procuratorate took the initiative to change the charge of prosecution

As the chicken gambling case is the first of its kind in China, it has received widespread attention. Since it is a commonly used trading mode, once characterized wrongly, it will certainly have a negative impact on the industry, and after two court hearings, the truth surfaced. After careful discussion and consideration, the Procuratorate agreed with the lawyer's opinion that the charge was wrong, but changed the charge to gambling. The client insisted that it did not constitute a crime, and the lawyer insisted on a plea of not guilty. After the change of the trial, the lawyer pointed out the background of peer retaliation in the case, the copy and paste problem of witness testimony, a large number of obvious low-level errors in the calculation of the amount, so that the case conviction evidence is not sufficient.

V. Imperfect verdict results, but avoided a serious blow to the region's chicken industry

The court of first instance finally ruled that the defendant was guilty of gambling and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. It is said that a number of defendants who were detained almost at the same time with the client were also because of this case were given the opportunity to get a lighter treatment, and some of them even got a suspended sentence or a real report, and the investigating authorities seem to have stopped to continue to arrest new suspects.

In this case, the lawyers through their professional knowledge, fully study the case, to maximize the defendant's legitimate rights and interests, not only reduce the defendant's sentence, while reducing or avoiding the criminal risk of practitioners in the same industry, to prevent the region's chicken industry by a serious blow.