Every successful not-guilty defense involves a level of adversarial struggle that far exceeds common imagination. Those who dare to confront such cases—both clients and lawyers—undoubtedly require immense courage and responsibility. This is not merely a mission to defend individual cases but also a contribution to advancing the progress of the rule of law.
Recently, the first instance verdict was handed down in a criminal case involving a private entrepreneur, represented by lawyers Zhou Wenda and Li Wei of King&Capital Law Firm. Facing the severe charges brought by the prosecution against the defendant T for alleged crimes of provoking trouble (with a sentencing recommendation of four years) and fraud (with a sentencing recommendation of thirteen years), the two lawyers consistently upheld the defense of innocence for the entire case. Over the course of the two-and-a-half-year first-instance litigation process, they endured seven arduous court hearings. Ultimately, the court fully adopted the defense counsel's argument for acquittal on the charge of provoking trouble, ruling that the defendant was not guilty of provoking trouble. Additionally, the court significantly reduced the sentence for fraud, lowering it from the prosecution's recommended 13 years to 10 years, ultimately sentencing the defendant to three years' imprisonment. This marked a breakthrough in the defense strategy. This case fully demonstrates the ability of King&Capital lawyers to accurately grasp the core of the case and use professional strategies to overcome difficulties when faced with major, difficult, and complex cases.
I. The dilemma of defense in the face of serious charges and complex circumstances
This case involved a criminal dispute arising from a demolition compensation dispute. The company controlled by the defendant T was demolished by the local government, and after years of negotiations with relevant departments over the demolition compensation, no agreement was reached. Finally, under the mediation of a certain department, T and the local government signed a compensation agreement reached through friendly negotiations. However, after signing the compensation agreement, the relevant government departments failed to fulfill the agreement for various reasons. T then escalated his reasonable demands to the relevant units and departments. During the process of expressing his demands to higher authorities, he was suddenly criminally detained by the local public security authorities on suspicion of provoking trouble. The prosecution subsequently filed charges against him for the same offense. After the trial for the charge of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” concluded, the prosecuting authority supplemented the indictment against Mr. T for a fraud case involving him in another region several years prior. However, under the same facts and evidence, the prosecuting authority in the other region had already made a decision not to prosecute, and the defendant had assumed repayment responsibilities in the subsequent civil proceedings. Regrettably, the prosecuting authority in this case reopened the supplementary investigation procedure and supplemented the indictment against the defendant for the crime of fraud. In the indictment, the prosecution accused the defendant of committing the crimes of provoking trouble and fraud, with a sentencing recommendation of four years for provoking trouble and a staggering 13 years for fraud, leaving the defendant facing extremely severe legal consequences. The trial process spanned two and a half years, with seven court hearings, posing a significant challenge to the lawyers' professional endurance, adaptability, and the defendant's mental resilience.
II. Precisely Dismantling the Charges and Persevering in Pursuing Procedural Justice
During the defense process, Zhou Wenda and Li Wei thoroughly analyzed the case and systematically dismantled and refuted each of the prosecution's charges.
Regarding the prosecution's allegation that the defendant extorted over 4.5 million yuan from the government under the pretext of petitioning, which constitutes the crime of provoking trouble, the two lawyers pointed out that the defendant had legally and reasonably expressed his grievances and reported issues to relevant units and departments (if deemed a petitioning behavior, it was done in accordance with the Petitioning Regulations to truthfully report legitimate grievances to the relevant authorities). This did not result in severe disruption of public order. During the process of reporting to the relevant departments, the local government authorities paid the defendant expenses through a loan arrangement. The defendant did not obtain illegal benefits or engage in the act of forcibly demanding money as defined in the crime of provoking trouble. The expenses paid to the defendant by the relevant departments through a loan arrangement cannot be deemed as the act of forcibly demanding money as defined in the crime of provoking trouble. Furthermore, the people's government is a state organ with legal person status and cannot be the target of forcible demands by T. The two lawyers argued that the defendant's actions did not meet the elements of the crime of provoking trouble, and thus firmly defended the defendant against the prosecution's charges of provoking trouble.
Regarding the prosecution's allegation that T defrauded others of 62.27 million yuan by fabricating his ability to handle affairs, constituting the crime of fraud, the two lawyers pointed out that the defendant never participated in H's fraudulent activities involving fabricating facts and concealing the truth. He only accepted H's commission to handle related matters after H had completed the fraudulent acts, and never formed an agreement with H or jointly committed fraudulent acts. After H's fraudulent activities were completed (after actually obtaining the defrauded funds), T borrowed money from H for renovation matters and signed a loan agreement. Therefore, from a purely chronological perspective, the loan transaction itself has no connection to the fraud. Additionally, a civil judgment issued by a certain court in 2022 has already determined that T is liable for joint repayment, and T has already repaid part of the funds. This judgment remains valid and is currently in the enforcement stage. The two lawyers argued that the prosecution's allegations against the defendant for fraud were unclear and lacked sufficient evidence, and the existing evidence was insufficient to prove that the defendant had committed fraud.
Over the course of two and a half years of defense, the two lawyers closely monitored the evolving dynamics of the case and continuously adjusted their defense strategies. During the trial, they fully utilized the seven court hearings to conduct meticulous cross-examination, present detailed defense arguments, and request the court to thoroughly review and respond to the defense's positions.
III. Acquittal for the Crime of Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble and a Dramatic Reduction in Sentencing for the Crime of Fraud
After seven court hearings, the court fully adopted the two lawyers' defense arguments regarding the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble, legally determining that the defendant T did not commit the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. Although the first-instance court did not fully adopt the defense arguments for acquittal on the charge of fraud, it fully acknowledged the core arguments of the two lawyers regarding the determination of key facts and favorable circumstances. The court ultimately determined that the defendant's fraudulent (attempted) amount was 27 million yuan, down from the 62.27 million yuan originally alleged by the prosecution, and reduced the prosecution's recommended sentence of 13 years' imprisonment to three years' imprisonment.
Behind this breakthrough achievement was the two lawyers' in-depth understanding of the case and their precise grasp of the law. During the long defense process, the two lawyers were well aware that every detail could be the key to turning the case around, so they always maintained a high degree of professionalism and rigor, not missing any opportunity to fight for the legitimate rights and interests of the defendant.
4. King&Capital Law Firm demonstrated its professionalism and effective defense in another case
Under the dual pressures of severe criminal charges and a prolonged litigation process, the two lawyers steadfastly upheld the position of innocence, leveraging their exceptional professional skills and resilient professional ethos to secure the maximum possible legal rights for the defendant. Not only did they strive to secure the greatest possible benefits for the defendant, but they also demonstrated through their actions that, in the face of complex and challenging cases, lawyers must uphold justice and courageously assume responsibility. From the sentencing recommendation at the time of the public prosecution to the final trial result, the outcome of the case was relatively ideal. This once again highlights the outstanding strength and professionalism of King&Capital Law Firm in the field of criminal defense. Of course, in determining some of the facts, the judges in this case not only upheld the dignity and authority of the law, but also reflected the principles of fairness and justice in a society ruled by law. Their wisdom and courage provided a strong guarantee for the case. After the first-instance verdict was announced, the two lawyers once again visited the court to engage in in-depth discussions with the presiding judge. The presiding judge highly praised the professional competence of the two lawyers and pointed out the arduous process of reaching the verdict in this case, allowing the two lawyers to see the tremendous efforts made by the first-instance court in handling this case.
It is reported that the parties involved in this case remain dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, which found them guilty of fraud, and have filed an appeal. The two lawyers will continue to represent the case and strive to protect the rights and interests of the party T.
