Recently, in the appeal of the case involving Zhao Mou’s illegal mining, which was handled by Wang Zichen, a lawyer on the team led by Wang Xintong of our firm, the original prison sentence was commuted to probation. The appellate court ruled that one of the facts established in the first-instance trial did not constitute the crime of illegal mining, overturned the first-instance judgment sentencing Zhao Mou to imprisonment, and instead sentenced him to a prison term with probation. Upon the judgment taking effect, the defendant regained his freedom. This case is a typical criminal case involving organized crime and the protection of land resources. The appellate court accurately corrected the core errors of the first-instance judgment—namely, the disproportionate sentencing and factual misapprehension—demonstrating the irreplaceable value of professional criminal defense.
I. Key Defense Arguments in the First and Second Instances:
The first-instance judgment imposed a disproportionately severe penalty for a minor offense and should be corrected.
Sun illegally mined peat soil from three plots without obtaining a mining permit; the value of the involved peat soil exceeded 480,000 yuan. Zhao purchased peat soil from two of these plots from Sun and resold it; the value of the involved peat soil exceeded 180,000 yuan. The first-instance judgment sentenced Sun, who played a more significant role, to one year and six months of imprisonment, suspended for two years, while sentencing Zhao, who played a lesser role and had more mitigating circumstances, to eight months of actual imprisonment.
The first-instance judgment contained two core errors, which also constituted the key challenges for the defense in the second-instance appeal: first, an expansion of the scope of criminal liability, erroneously classifying Zhao’s prior act of purchasing and reselling peat—which lacked prior conspiracy—as the crime of illegal mining; second, an imbalance in sentencing, resulting in an inverted sentencing pattern where the “lesser offender received a heavier sentence and the greater offender a lighter one,” violating the principle of proportionality between crime, culpability, and punishment.
II. Demarcating Joint Criminal Liability and Clarifying the Status of an Accessory,
Resolving the Sentencing Paradox
Addressing the fundamental errors in the first-instance judgment, the defense counsel demarkated the scope of joint criminal liability, corrected factual errors, and simultaneously resolved the sentencing paradox by clarifying the defendant’s status and role, ultimately achieving proportionality between crime, culpability, and punishment.
(1) Defining the Boundaries of Joint Criminal Liability to Narrow the Scope of Criminal Liability at Its Root
The core act of the crime of illegal mining is “the unauthorized extraction of mineral resources without obtaining a mining license.” Therefore, if there was no prior conspiracy and no participation in any mining activities, and the act of purchasing mineral products occurred only after all mining activities had been fully completed, it does not constitute joint criminal liability for the crime of illegal mining. The defense attorney thoroughly reviewed all case evidence and pointed out that in the first set of criminal facts alleged by the prosecution, Sun had already completed all peat extraction and piled the material by the roadside before contacting potential buyers. Zhao learned of the situation after the fact and purchased the mineral products; he had no prior collusion with Sun, did not participate in any decision-making or implementation during the extraction phase, and bore no causal relationship to the resulting damage to the black soil, thus not constituting the crime of illegal mining.
The “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Illegal Mining and Destructive Mining” issued by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, along with the adjudication principles in the Supreme People’s Court’s Criminal Trial Reference Guiding Cases, clearly stipulate that the act of purchasing after the upstream crime has been completed may only constitute the crime of concealing or disguising the proceeds of crime and cannot be deemed as complicity in the upstream crime. The first-instance judgment contained a logical error in the determination of guilt and improperly expanded the scope of the crime of illegal mining.
The appellate court adopted the defense’s arguments and explicitly stated in its judgment: “Regarding the first set of criminal facts alleged by the prosecution, Zhao purchased the goods after Sun had finished mining the peat soil; the two did not share a common intent to commit illegal mining. Therefore, Zhao does not constitute the crime of illegal mining in this instance.” This fundamentally narrowed the scope of Zhao’s criminal liability and laid a core factual foundation for the subsequent sentencing modification.
(2) Clarifying the Status of an Accessory to the Crime to Strengthen the Basis for Sentencing Adjustment
Addressing the first-instance court’s failure to distinguish between principal and accessory offenders, the defense counsel strictly adhered to the statutory criteria for determining accessory status. By presenting arguments across four dimensions—executory conduct, illicit gains, initiation of criminal intent, and substitutability—the defense comprehensively demonstrated Zhao’s secondary and auxiliary role. This line of argument fully aligned with the core adjudicative principles for distinguishing principal and accessory offenders in judicial practice, undermining the factual basis of the first-instance judgment’s liability determination. Although the second-instance judgment did not classify Zhao as an accessory, it provided a comprehensive legal basis for arguing for a balanced sentence, thereby advancing the defense’s objectives.
Furthermore, the defense attorney maintained close communication with the prosecuting attorney handling the case prior to trial, thoroughly explaining the facts of the case, the application of the law, and the mitigating circumstances of the defendant. This gradually fostered the prosecutor’s understanding and mutual trust, creating a favorable atmosphere for the case’s progression. Ultimately, the prosecution delivered its closing statement in court, explicitly proposing that “to ensure balanced sentencing and consistent treatment of co-defendants, probation should be applied to Zhao,” thereby aligning with the defense’s position. This achieved a unified consensus among the prosecution, defense, and court regarding sentencing principles, further encouraging the appellate court to adopt relevant defense arguments and laying a crucial foundation for the favorable outcome of converting the original custodial sentence to probation.
The successful reversal of the original verdict in this case not only serves as a powerful defense of the client’s legitimate rights and interests but also exemplifies the synergistic power of professional criminal defense and effective judicial communication. From precisely delineating the boundaries of joint criminal liability and correcting factual errors in the first-instance ruling, to systematically demonstrating the client’s secondary role and resolving the issue of disproportionate sentencing, and finally securing the prosecution’s support through thorough pre-trial communication—every step of the defense was grounded in facts and the law, highlighting the core value of meticulous and systematic criminal defense.
Wang Xintong, Senior Partner at King&Capital Law Firm, has worked at international criminal and commercial law firms in London, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. She is a specially appointed expert lawyer in the “Expert Consultation Pool for Prosecution and Appeals” of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, a hearing officer for the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, Deputy Director of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Beijing Lawyers Association, Deputy Director of the Public Interest Law and Legal Aid Committee of the Beijing Lawyers Association, and a member of the Criminology Research Association of the Beijing Law Society. a lawyer in the Legal Daily’s Expert Lawyer Database; and a mentor for the Criminal Defense Skills Training Program at Northwest University of Political Science and Law. She has represented Beijing King&Capital Law Firm in the “Advanced Training Course for Foreign-Related Legal Professionals” organized by the Ministry of Justice. She is the author of *Persuading the Court: An Advanced Guide for Master Litigators* (Law Press, ISBN: 9787519764821); Co-author of the chapter on “Defense in Foreign-Related Criminal Cases” in *Criminal Defense Tutorial*, Peking University Press, ISBN: 9787301345009.
Attorney Wang possesses extensive experience in both international and domestic criminal litigation. He specializes in major and complex economic crimes, foreign-related criminal litigation, official misconduct, internet crimes, white-collar crimes, and corporate compliance matters. He has achieved favorable outcomes in numerous cases he has handled.
