On February 13, 2026, at about 3:00 p.m., a court in Anhui Province rendered a retrial verdict in the first instance on the case of defendant Wang's suspected false invoicing of VAT, contract fraud, and forgery of a company seal: defendant Wang was acquitted of the crimes of false invoicing of VAT and contract fraud. Wang was released on the same day after being detained for 974 days. At this point, King&Capital Law Firm team of lawyers Liu Lijie, Qian Hao and Li Jingyan spent 17 months defending the case, and succeeded in clearing up a major tax-related economic crime case, which had been punished for three crimes and sentenced to 15 years in the original case, from the ambiguous zone of “crime and non-crime”. With precise control of criminal procedures, in-depth penetration of tax law, and closed-loop deconstruction of evidence chain, the team assisted the judicial authorities in restoring the essence of the case and realizing justice in individual cases, which demonstrated the professional value of criminal defense and the procedural justice of the rule of law in the new era.
First, in the face of danger:
Under the 15-year heavy sentence, the family entrusted in desperation
In September 2024, Wang's family went to Beijing from Anhui Province to find King&Capital Law Firm Criminal Lawyer Liu Lijie after going through many different places and visiting lawyers. At this time, the case has been pronounced in the first instance: Wang Mou for the crime of false VAT invoices, contract fraud, forgery of company seals and sentenced to 15 years in prison, has been detained for 456 days, the family is in deep despair.
After preliminary case study and material combing, Liu Lijie lawyer found that: the facts and evidence identified in the first trial verdict and the family's statement of the objective facts are fundamentally contradictory, the case there are major procedural violations, evidence defects, the application of the law is wrong, with the core foundation of the defense of innocence. In the face of the family entrusted, Liu Lijie lawyer adhering to the principle of professional prudence, did not make exaggerated promises, only based on the evidence and jurisprudence to make an objective analysis, it is this honesty and professional research and judgment, and ultimately won the family's trust and commission.
Second, the tent:
Dual-professional team linkage, penetrating dismantling of the crux of the case
In the face of the first instance effective re-sentencing of the case pressure, Liu Lijie lawyers plan to move, the formation of criminal defense professional group + tax experts think tank double echelon case mode:
1.Criminal defense group: led by Liu Lijie lawyer, Qian Hao, Li Jingyan lawyer assistance, went to Anhui comprehensive access to the case file, page by page comparison of the transaction contract flow, invoice flow, capital flow, service flow, focusing on the first instance procedures, facts, evidence, the application of the law in the whole dimensions of the loophole combing.
2. Tax think-tank: The team, together with well-known tax experts and a third-party accounting firm, conducted a penetrating audit of the flow of funds and tax declaration data involved in the case, and accurately locked the logical loopholes and evidence chain breaks in the determination of false driving.
The team gave up programmatic defense and built a professional framework for the defense of innocence from three dimensions: criminal norms, tax law principles, and judicial accounting, with “substantive justice” as the core.
Third, the precise breakthrough:
Directly attacked the procedural violations and evidence, and remanded for retrial in the second trial.
After nearly a month of intense reading and argumentation, the team accurately uncovered two serious procedural violations, three major evidence defects, and multiple legal application errors in the first trial verdict, and formed a logical and professional defense opinion:
(A) serious procedural violations, depriving the parties of the core litigation rights
1. The court of first instance temporarily changed the members of the panel before pronouncing the verdict, without informing the defendant and the defender in accordance with the law, without consulting the application for disqualification, and without reopening the trial, in violation of the core procedural provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law.
2. After the first trial, the defendant submitted an expert opinion that may prove innocence, the court did not organize the cross-examination of the verdict, completely depriving the defendant of the right to cross-examination, the right to defense, is a major procedural violations.
(II) The core evidence collapsed, and the finding of guilt was not supported by facts.
1. The Judicial Appraisal Opinion on Tax-Related Matters, which determined the crime of false VAT invoicing, had major problems: the appraisal method was unscientific, the test materials were not real and incomplete, and the appraisal organization exceeded its authority to make inferences on subjective motives and application of law, which was a serious violation of the mandatory provisions of the “Judicial Appraisal Operational Guidelines on Taxation (for Trial Implementation)”.
2. The first trial did not retrieve the service performance records, key witness testimony, did not verify the local tax rate and tax policy differences, detached from the real substance of the transaction that the “false opening”.
3. The charge of contract fraud lacked the victim's statement, the amount of calculation errors, fictitious transaction subject, concealment of the ability to perform and other core facts without evidence to support, unable to form a complete chain of evidence of guilt.
(III) Errors in the application of law, confusing civil and criminal boundaries with the elements of the crime
1. For the crime of false invoicing of VAT: only formalized and administrative determination was made, without applying the legislative intent of Article 205 of the Criminal Law and the judicial interpretation of the “two high courts” in 2024, and without examining the double substantive elements of “subjective purpose of cheating tax and objective loss of national VAT” and “subjective purpose of cheating tax and objective loss of national VAT”. The dual substantive elements of “subjective purpose of tax fraud and objective loss of State VAT funds” have not been examined.
2. For the crime of contract fraud: confusing the boundaries of civil fraud and criminal fraud, failing to examine the core constituent elements of “illegal possession purpose”, failing to verify the authenticity of the victim's expression of meaning, the actuality of property loss, and the legal evaluation is totally inappropriate.
The court of second instance adopted the defense opinion in its entirety, and after initiating a comprehensive verification, it ruled to set aside the original verdict and remanded for retrial without a hearing. This result is the victory of procedural justice, more proof of the professionalism and persuasiveness of the defense.
Fourth, evidence is king:
Experts in court + evidence reconstruction, penetrate the guilty accusation
At the retrial stage, the defense team adhered to the core principle of “evidence adjudication” and systematically reconstructed the evidence system of innocence:
1. Thousands of pages of new evidence collected by themselves: covering service contract fulfillment vouchers, bank water, key witness testimony, etc., complete restoration of the real transaction facts.
New evidence submitted by Liu Lijie's legal team.
2. Apply for re-appraisal according to the problematic appraisal opinions, and at the same time commission five authoritative experts in the field of criminal law, tax law and judicial accounting appraisal to issue written argumentation opinions, and comprehensively deconstruct the illegality of the original appraisal opinions from the procedural, technical, and legal dimensions.
Some of the experts involved in the argumentation of this case
3. Apply for interdisciplinary experts to appear in court as “persons with specialized knowledge”, confront the original expert in court, and authoritatively explain the principles of tax law, deduction rules, accounting calculation logic and other professional issues, to completely eliminate the judicial misunderstanding of “appraisal opinion is conclusive”, so that the court can see the truth of the case. The court will be able to see the truth of the case.
Notice of Appearance of Person with Specialized Knowledge
Fifth, the right to fight:
Procedure and Entity Both Insist on Release on the Day of Acquittal for Both Crimes
In the retrial hearing, the accuser illegally participated in the hearing as a victim and expressed his opinions, and the defense team immediately proposed that the accuser (the enterprise involved in the case) was not a statutory victim in the case of false VAT invoices, and did not have the right to express his opinions as a participant in the litigation.
This procedural objection led to a stalemate in the trial, and the court adjourned for 2 days for special verification. The defense team was based on the law and did not give in, not only sticking to the factual basis of entity defense, but also defending the legal bottom line of procedural justice, winning the respect of the court and the participants in the litigation.
In the end, the retrial court fully adopted Liu Lijie lawyers team defense: that the crime of false VAT invoices without subjective intent and objective harmful results, contract fraud illegal possession purpose, fictitious facts and other allegations are insufficient evidence, the verdict that the two crimes are not guilty, Wang Mou released on the same day.
Sixth, the entrepreneur rights defense road.
To respect the professional, but also believe in the rule of law
The case of re-sentencing, not only the realization of individual justice, but also a vivid interpretation of the “trial-centered” litigation system reform - when the procedural rigidity becomes an insurmountable bottom line, when the evidence review to penetrate the technical fog directly to the substantive truth, when the interdisciplinary professional power When interdisciplinary professional strength is truly integrated into the judicial judgment system, the rule of law is truly from the provisions to practice, from the concept of dignity.
We know that behind every acquittal, is not an accidental victory, but including public prosecutors and lawyers, including all judicial staff to the rules of evidence, procedural boundaries of the defense and professional rationality of the victory; it stems from the defense lawyers on the modesty of the criminal law, the technicality of the tax law, the scientific accuracy of forensic science, but also rooted in the new era of the judiciary on the " Suspicion from innocence“, ”evidence judgment“, ”prosecution and defense equality" principle of consciously practicing. This beam of light not only illuminates the way back to freedom for an entrepreneur, but also reflects the solid steps of China's criminal justice toward substantive justice in the field of tax-related issues.
