Recently, Yan Huainan, senior partner of Beijing King&Capital Law Firm, in the case of Yang's bribery offense, with his professional legal knowledge and unremitting efforts, he succeeded in obtaining a re-trial and re-sentencing for his client, which significantly reduced the penalty and enabled him to be released from prison and return to his family a year ago.

I. Background of the case

Yang, a former legal representative of a Beijing-based asset management company, was investigated by a local municipal supervisory committee on suspicion of having taken more than 50 million yuan in bribes together with Yin, a former executive of a bank. The Public Prosecution Office accused Yang of taking advantage of Yin's position as a national staff member to receive bribes in the name of “financial consulting fees”, which constituted the crime of accepting bribes, and the amount was “particularly huge”. The court of first instance found that Yang was an accessory, sentenced to ten years of imprisonment; the second trial to maintain the original sentence, commissioned by the family, Yan Huainan lawyers the first time to check the file, in the first instance ten years of imprisonment in the second trial to maintain the original sentence on the basis of the road to re-trial, but also understand the difficulties of the road ......

Second, retrial defense strategy: precise deconstruction of legal elements, proof of mitigating circumstances

In the face of the second trial to maintain the original sentence of the unfavorable situation, yan huainan lawyer after in-depth study of the case materials, for the first trial, “bribery from the key error,” combined with the financing background and the chain of evidence pointed out that: the case of more than 5000 yuan yuan is the two sides agreed to the cost of financing (the total interest rate of 14.3% is not more than the borrower's expectations of 15%), belongs to the consensus of the “financial consultant fee”, there is no evidence to prove that there is a threat, Blackmail and other acts of bribery. The second trial has recognized the first trial “bribery” as a clerical error, but did not correct the sentence, the retrial should be excluded according to law, the aggravating circumstances. In addition, even if it is recognized as a joint crime, Yang was only responsible for the program docking and allocation of funds, did not participate in the financing decision-making and coordination of duties, the role is significantly lower than the main culprit Yin Moumou.

Yang Mou in custody during the period of time to admit their own crimes, repeatedly expressed the willingness to plead guilty to punishment, to the indictment of the criminal facts and charges also did not have any objection, but also took the initiative to return all the stolen money, in the trial expressed sincere remorse, and expressed a willingness to accept the corresponding punishment, in full compliance with the conditions of the plea of guilty to lenient treatment. But the prosecutor's office and the court did not accept Yang's request, did not let her enjoy the judicial dividend of pleading guilty and accepting punishment, and substantially deprived her of the opportunity of leniency, which is a major procedural flaw.

Yan Huainan defended the case through the three dimensions of “evidence review-application of law-excavation of circumstances”, seizing the above mentioned errors in the determination of the circumstances of solicitation of bribes and procedural defects, and after repeated communication with the court of retrial, pointing out that only through the retrial of the corrections, in order to realize the justice of the entity and the procedure. The retrial court finally adopted Yan Huainan's viewpoints and decided to initiate a retrial of the case.

Third, the retrial judgment: correction of legal application and substantial reduction of penalty

The retrial court took into account the above circumstances and Yang's performance during his detention and imprisonment, and substantially reduced his sentence from ten years to four and a half years in accordance with the law, as well as confirming the calculation of the detention credit. In the end, the person concerned was able to be released from prison before the Spring Festival in 2025, and successfully returned to his family and regained hope for his life.

Conclusion:

This case is featured on the occasion of the entry into force of the new Supervision Law and the Regulations for the Implementation of the Supervision Law.

Let the individual case be a footnote to the progress of the rule of law

The change of sentence from ten years to four and a half years in this case is not only a turnaround in the fate of the client, but also a return to the principle of “appropriateness of crime and punishment” in criminal justice. Through the successful representation of this case, fully demonstrated Yan Huainan lawyers in the field of criminal defense solid professional skills and the spirit of unremitting efforts for the rights and interests of the client. In the face of complex legal issues and unfavorable trial situation, can accurately grasp the key case, the use of legal weapons for the client to get the best results.