Recently, attorneys Zhang Xiaofeng and Yang Hangsheng of Beijing King&Capital Law Firm, along with team members Lu Jingyi and Peng Qi, successfully secured a change in charges and a breakthrough in sentencing in a case involving the alleged production and sale of counterfeit and substandard products. As a case involving both criminal and civil aspects, the investigation initially took a misguided direction, and given the enormous amount of money involved, the client once faced a severe sentence of over ten years. The legal team tackled the case’s challenges head-on. Through nearly twenty client meetings, meticulous review of case files, comprehensive analysis of objective evidence, in-depth examination of case ambiguities, and multiple rounds of professional communication with the prosecuting authorities, they ultimately succeeded in piercing through the case’s superficial appearance to clarify the true nature of the crime. This effort led to the charge being reduced from the serious offense of producing and selling counterfeit goods to the lesser charge of harboring a criminal, The client’s sentence was significantly reduced from over ten years to a term of actual time served, effectively safeguarding the client’s legitimate rights and interests and fully demonstrating the professional analytical capabilities and practical effectiveness of King&Capital Law Firm’s criminal defense team.
Case Background
This case originated from a dispute over payment under a sales contract. Due to the buyer’s prolonged default on a large sum of money, Party A was compelled to file a lawsuit in court to recover the debt. During the litigation process, the parties reached a settlement and partially fulfilled their obligations, and the case was concluded through a dismissal of the lawsuit. Subsequently, the buyer reignited the dispute by citing alleged quality issues such as “the steel tower being crooked” and “insufficient weight of the steel pipe poles,” and, under the pretext of rectification demanded by the project’s general contractor, proceeded to dismantle the steel pipe facilities in question without authorization. After the case entered civil proceedings, the court referred the case to public security authorities for investigation, resulting in what was originally a civil contract dispute being transferred to criminal prosecution.
Due to the unique nature of the case, the initial direction of the investigation was somewhat misguided, making the case particularly difficult to handle. Party A, as the legal representative of Company A, was charged with the crime of producing and selling counterfeit or substandard products, involving an amount exceeding 1.98 million yuan. According to relevant provisions of the Criminal Law, the production or sale of counterfeit or substandard products with a value of 500,000 yuan or more but less than 2 million yuan is punishable by fixed-term imprisonment of not less than seven years. Combined with the prosecution’s sentencing recommendation for this offense, if Mr. A were found guilty, his sentence would exceed ten years, creating immense pressure on the defense.
Defense Process
Upon taking on this complex case involving both criminal and civil aspects, the teams led by attorneys Zhang Xiaofeng and Yang Hangsheng worked closely together. After becoming involved, through meticulous review of the case files and meetings with Mr. A, they discovered that his statements regarding key facts—such as the company’s actual operations, production management, and quality control—were vague, and he was unable to clearly explain the actual operational processes of the business in question. This unusual behavior raised serious concerns among the defense counsel; however, during the meetings, Mr. A insisted that all the acts in question were his own doing. Faced with these doubts, the defense team, acting in the best interests of their client, systematically reviewed all objective evidence in the case, including the company’s business registration information, internal decision-making documents, cash flow records, and the logical relationships among witness testimonies. Their analysis revealed that a significant amount of objective evidence indicated that Client A served merely as a nominal legal representative and lacked actual control or decision-making authority over the production, sales, and quality issues of the products in question. Consequently, the defense concluded that the criminal charges presented by the public security authorities might be flawed.
Faced with this complex situation, the defense counsel engaged in multiple rounds of in-depth communication with the prosecution regarding the ambiguities in the case, explicitly arguing that the charges against Mr. A for the crime of producing and selling counterfeit or substandard products were based on unclear facts and insufficient evidence. The prosecution took the defense counsel’s well-reasoned and well-documented analysis seriously and, on two separate occasions, returned the case to the public security authorities for supplementary investigation.
As the supplementary investigation progressed, the public security authorities obtained additional evidence indicating that Mr. A was not the actual person responsible. It was further established that the criminal acts in question were not committed by Mr. A, but rather that he had taken the blame for another person. At this point, Mr. A finally opened up, recounting the facts of his taking the blame to the investigating authorities and the defense counsel, and expressed deep regret. Based on the findings of the supplementary investigation, the prosecution subsequently amended the charges, indicting Mr. A for the crime of harboring a criminal. After trial, the court sentenced Mr. A to a prison term that was essentially equivalent to the time he had already spent in custody. Shortly after the verdict was handed down, Mr. A was released. In this case, the potential sentence Mr. A faced was reduced from over ten years to a sentence commensurate with the time already served, demonstrating a significant reduction in the severity of the sentence. This correction of the factual record in the case was successful. Subsequently, both Mr. A and the client expressed great appreciation for the work of the legal team, noting that due to a lack of legal knowledge, Mr. A had nearly been sentenced to over ten years in prison.
Defense Insights
I. The case originated from a unique source, requiring vigilance against cognitive biases in case handling
This case was initiated through criminal proceedings following a referral from a civil judge. In such cases, the direction of the investigation is often fixed at an early stage, making it easy to fall into a rut of thinking. Upon intervention, the defense counsel did not blindly accept the alleged facts but instead carefully examined the case’s origin, the investigative process, and the formation of Defendant A’s statements during the investigation phase. This revealed significant contradictions between Defendant A’s statements and the objective evidence, thereby identifying a breakthrough for the defense.
II. Maintaining a Perspective of Reasonable Doubt: Examining Whether Objective and Testimonial Evidence Corroborate Each Other
In economic crime cases, it is not uncommon for the nominal responsible party to be distinct from the actual controller. The defense counsel focused on obtaining and organizing objective evidence—such as articles of incorporation, shareholder resolutions, capital approval records, business contract signing procedures, and internal communication records—and compared them item by item with Mr. A’s statements and witness testimony. When it was discovered that Mr. A could not clearly explain specific details of daily operations and management, the defense counsel astutely concluded that Mr. A might not be the actual perpetrator.
III. Upholding the Professional Stance That Every Fact and Every Charge Must Withstand Scrutiny by the Evidence
The defense counsel has always believed that a thorough review of evidence and rigorous legal argumentation are key to ensuring justice in a case. Even after the case had been transferred for prosecution and Mr. A had been detained, the defense counsel did not cease to challenge the evidentiary framework, continuously conveying their defense arguments to the prosecuting authorities through multiple rounds of written submissions and face-to-face communications.
Case Summary
From the presiding judge’s referral of leads and the public security authorities’ initiation of an investigation for a serious crime, to the eventual amendment of the charge to harboring a criminal and a significant reduction in the sentence, this case fully demonstrates the critical role of criminal defense in ascertaining the facts of a case and preventing miscarriages of justice. From identifying gaps in Mr. A’s account of operational details to ultimately establishing a chain of evidence pinning the actual perpetrator; from challenging the validity of the original charges to persuading the prosecution to voluntarily amend the indictment—every step of communication and every argument demonstrated the defense counsel’s professional dedication, securing a sentence for Mr. A that was reduced from over ten years to a fine based on actual expenses.
