Recently, the defense team led by Attorney Peng Jiyue of King&Capital Law Firm achieved a significant victory in the case of Zhang Moumou, who was charged with bribery and bribing a non-state official. When the firm was retained, the first-instance trial was imminent. The alleged bribery amount reached 34.79 million yuan, and the prosecution had recommended a sentence of up to 11.5 years, leaving the defendant facing the risk of a severe sentence. Facing tight deadlines and immense pressure, the defense team swiftly reviewed the case files, met with the client, and analyzed the case. They accurately identified the core disputes regarding the legal characterization of the charges. Focusing on key issues—such as whether “improper benefits” were established, whether the case should be classified as a corporate crime, whether project costs should be deducted from illicit gains, and whether the jurisdictional procedures were lawful—they presented systematic and in-depth defense arguments. Ultimately, the procuratorate amended the indictment to charge the entity as the criminal defendant, and the first-instance sentence was significantly reduced from the recommended 11.5 years to 3.5 years. This outcome fully demonstrates the critical value of professional criminal defense in major, complex corporate cases.
I. A Passionate Young Professional Enters the Financial Industry, Crossing Legal Boundaries Under the Constraints of Industry Unwritten Rules
The defendant in this case worked in the financial leasing industry, operating over a dozen companies under his name—a substantial operation generating significant profits. The defendant provided intermediary matching services for both funding providers and borrowers. By connecting financing parties with investors and facilitating the flow of social capital, he created considerable value.
However, in the fast-paced world of finance, where money flows constantly, an unwritten rule of “skimming a cut” gradually took root in certain business models. To close deals, the defendant inevitably had to “grease the palms” of key contacts at both upstream and downstream clients. This demonstrates that what appeared to be an industry norm had, in fact, crossed the red line of commercial bribery.
Yet, those immersed in the situation are often blind to the bigger picture, especially when their careers are on the rise; people tend to overlook potential risks.
Many people get into trouble not because they were fully aware of their actions from the start, but precisely because, in the routine of day-to-day operations, they gradually lost their sense of where the boundaries lie. By the time they truly realize something is wrong—by the time the case enters criminal proceedings, and they go from being industry participants to criminal defendants—it is often already too late. This was also the case for Mr. Zhang—by the time he finally realized that so-called “industry practices” were not a legal safe haven, much of the damage was already irreversible.
II. Trial Imminent, Urgent Appeal for Help: Facing a 34.79 Million Yuan Charge and the Risk of a Severe Sentence, Seeking King&Capital Law Firm at a Critical Moment
When Mr. Zhang’s wife approached King&Capital Law Firm, the case was already nearing the first-instance trial.
For defendants in criminal cases, this is typically one of the most agonizing and helpless stages. The case has already been transferred to the court, the logic of the charges has largely taken shape, sentencing expectations are clear, and the trial date is drawing ever closer—yet the time left for the defense team to thoroughly review the entire case and identify a genuine breakthrough is extremely limited.
Upon accepting the case, Attorney Peng Jiyue’s team immediately began meeting with the client, reviewing case files, organizing evidence, and conducting a comprehensive analysis. Everyone understood that with the trial just around the corner, there was no room for a gradual approach; they had to identify the “master switch” capable of shifting the case’s trajectory in the shortest possible time.
Soon, the team reached a critical conclusion: the breakthrough in this case lay in “corporate criminal liability.” Although the defendant personally played a central role in conducting business operations and ultimately reaped substantial profits, his actions were fundamentally aimed at securing business for the company, and a significant portion of the project proceeds was used for corporate operational expenses.
Sentencing standards for corporate crimes differ from those for individual crimes. Only by seizing this “master switch” could we achieve a significant breakthrough in sentencing; merely making “minor adjustments” without altering the legal characterization of the offense would clearly be futile.
The subsequent course of the case proved that it was precisely this emergency intervention at the last minute before the trial that truly opened up a new chapter in the Zhang Moumou case.
III. Precision Defense: Grasping the “crux” of corporate crime is not enough; the key lies in solid reasoning and argumentation
Corporate crime may sound simple, but truly persuading judicial authorities to change the legal characterization is no easy task. In judicial practice involving corporate crimes, the line between corporate and individual crimes is often blurred.
Corporate crime requires the will of the entity, yet in many private enterprises, the will of the entity is conflated with that of the owner. How should this be identified and distinguished?
Corporate crime requires acts to be committed in the entity’s name, but the prosecution may argue that the entity is merely a “shell” covering the individual. How should one address this line-of-sight scrutiny?
Corporate crimes require that illicit proceeds primarily accrue to the entity, yet operational expenditures are made under the control and direction of individuals. Does this imply that the nature of the crime is more clearly that of a natural person?
Theory alone is insufficient; to truly answer these questions, one must possess a solid theoretical foundation and extensive practical experience. During the trial, the defense counsel and the prosecutor engaged in a fierce verbal battle, exchanging arguments for hundreds of rounds. The defense counsel presented a comprehensive argument grounded in legal provisions, judicial precedents, and the operational characteristics of contemporary Chinese enterprises. To demonstrate that the illicit proceeds primarily belonged to the entity, the defense counsel organized employees of the involved company to compile several large boxes of financial documents and other evidence, with scanned electronic files totaling over ten gigabytes.
Ultimately, following the first hearing, the court accepted the defense counsel’s recommendation to conduct an audit of the disposition of the illicit proceeds. After several months of waiting, the audit results showed that approximately 70% of the funds were used for corporate expenditures, laying a solid foundation for the final determination of corporate criminal liability. At the same time, the defense counsel also focused on procedural issues such as case jurisdiction and identification of parties, using litigation to facilitate negotiations.
Ultimately, the procuratorate amended the indictment to reflect corporate criminal liability, and following the court’s ruling, the sentence was significantly reduced from 11.5 years to 3.5 years.
IV. Lessons from the Case: Industry Practices Are Not a Ground for Exemption; Business Operations Must Stay Within Legal Boundaries
In the view of the defendant, Zhang Moumou, the payment of the relevant funds was not entirely a form of bribery in the traditional, intuitive, and explicit sense. On the contrary, in the eyes of many business operators, such expenses are more akin to “brokerage fees,” “coordination fees,” or routine expenditures commonly found within the industry during project advancement. Over time, many develop a practical assumption: since others are doing the same and the industry tacitly accepts it, such practices—being customary—should not pose significant problems.
However, the law never automatically accepts something simply because “everyone does it,” nor does it grant immunity merely because a practice is “commonplace within the industry.” So-called industry practices, if they essentially constitute a quid pro quo involving project acquisition, competitive advantage, or specific assistance, may ultimately fall within the scope of criminal law—regardless of the commercial guise they may adopt. The most common mistake entrepreneurs make is not necessarily knowingly and willfully breaking the law, but rather, over time, becoming immersed in a certain industry culture that gradually rationalizes and normalizes inherently risky operations, ultimately losing their awareness of legal boundaries due to inertia.
This case precisely illustrates that the most dangerous aspects of business operations are not necessarily the illegal acts that are immediately obvious, but rather those gray-area actions that appear to be “customary practices,” sound like “industry rules,” and operate as “business common sense.” Many risks are often hidden in these very places that are easiest to overlook.
The significant reversal of the verdict in the Zhang Moumou case certainly demonstrates the critical value of professional criminal defense at pivotal moments; however, from a longer-term perspective, it serves as a wake-up call to all entrepreneurs: business operations must not disregard rules, but those rules must be legal rules; business practices must not ignore conventions, but conventions must never override legal boundaries.
The fact that a case can break through under immense pressure demonstrates that professional defense can alter one’s fate at a critical moment; yet the very occurrence of such a case also serves as a reminder to all business operators: truly sound business management has never been about moving fast based on experience, but about going far by staying within the boundaries.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
