Recently, a criminal appeal case involving 16 defendants accused of forced transactions and causing a disturbance in a certain city—handled by a seven-member team led by Attorney Zhu Yonghui, Director of King&Capital Law Firm; Nie Sufang, Managing Partner of the Third Criminal Practice Department; Sun Guangzhi, Senior Partner; Xiang Sujing, Partner; Ma Lixi, Partner; as well as Keyan and Qi Qiong, a team of seven, successfully secured a landmark reversal in the second-instance criminal case involving 16 individuals from a certain city accused of coercive trading and provoking trouble.
Thanks to the team’s highly professional division of labor, seamless collaboration, and tenacious defense efforts, the appellate court overturned the original verdict following a hearing. The sentences of all five defendants represented by King&Capital Law Firm who had filed appeals were reduced, while also legally correcting the first-instance court’s erroneous determination that partnership assets worth hundreds of millions of yuan belonged to the “victims.” The team successfully established the ownership rights of the defendants and more than a dozen families regarding their substantial investments, achieving the dual defense outcome of reduced prison terms and the protection of civil rights worth hundreds of millions of yuan. Through the power of professionalism and collaboration, the legal team safeguarded their clients’ freedom and property, demonstrating their formidable expertise in criminal defense.
Preface
This case is a major criminal case that has attracted significant local attention. In the first instance, the prosecution charged 16 defendants with repeatedly engaging in forced transactions and acts of provocation and disorder over a period of more than ten years, causing a severe negative social impact. The first-instance court sentenced the defendants to prison terms ranging from eight years and six months to one year and three months. Notably, the court ruled that partnership assets worth hundreds of millions of yuan were solely owned by the “victims,” directly resulting in the loss of hundreds of millions of yuan in investments for over a dozen defendants and inflicting devastating damage on the legitimate property rights upon which more than a dozen families relied for their livelihoods. With the dual crises of criminal liability and civil property disputes looming, the protection of the parties’ rights is in an extremely precarious situation.
Securing a Trial: Initial Substantial Progress in the Defense
Following the first-instance judgment, the King&Capital Law Firm team was entrusted with the critical task of serving as appellate defense counsel for the first defendant and several other principal defendants—a total of five individuals. When submitting the retainer documents to the appellate court, the presiding judge explicitly informed the lawyers that the second-instance trial would not be held in open court but would proceed through written proceedings, and requested that the defense briefs be submitted as soon as possible. In his remarks, the judge even suggested that the first-instance judgment was without issue and that the sentencing was lenient, implying that upholding the original verdict in the second instance was a foregone conclusion.
Faced with this challenging situation, the King&Capital Law Firm team, after repeated efforts, successfully secured meetings with the presiding judge and the panel of judges of the appellate court to thoroughly discuss issues such as factual errors in the first-instance judgment and the necessity of holding an oral hearing in the second instance. The team pointed out that the essence of this case was a civil dispute arising from a business partnership in a specialized industry, and that the first-instance judgment contained significant factual biases and an erroneous legal characterization of the case. The parties’ testimonial evidence was entirely contradictory, and the objective evidence conflicted heavily with the testimonial evidence. The absence of certain critical pieces of objective evidence resulted in insufficient evidence regarding key facts. Disputed issues—such as whether harmful conduct occurred and the extent of the resulting harm—required re-examination. Based on these grounds, the team legally recommended that the appellate court hold an oral hearing.
Following this meeting, the appellate court took the legal team’s professional opinions seriously. Subsequently, each defense counsel submitted an “Application for an Oral Hearing in the Second Instance” accompanied by detailed justifications. While submitting written arguments, the legal team did not simply wait passively but actively gathered a large amount of new, critical evidence, further facilitating the holding of an oral hearing in the second-instance trial. Ultimately, faced with the detailed reasoning presented by the lawyers—particularly the substantial new evidence—the second-instance collegial panel had no choice but to accept the lawyers’ recommendations and decide to hold an oral hearing. This secured an opportunity for a subsequent reversal of the original judgment, marking a substantial breakthrough in the defense efforts.
Five Days of Intense Courtroom Clashes: Teamwork Leads to Reversal
The parties involved in this case were quite diverse. In addition to the defendants and their defense counsel (a total of 16 defendants in the first instance, 13 of whom appealed), there were also legal representatives for the plaintiffs in the civil action attached to the criminal case (a total of 4 plaintiffs in the first instance, 3 of whom appealed), legal representatives for the victims, and witnesses. The tense second-instance trial lasted five days, with exceptionally intense courtroom confrontations.
During the trial, two prosecutors and two assistant prosecutors, along with several legal representatives, continued to insist on the defendants’ guilt and the severity of their crimes, even submitting new incriminating evidence during the proceedings. Faced with the guilty verdict from the first instance and the accusations raised by the prosecutors and various legal representatives during the second instance, the legal team focused closely on the key points of contention in the trial, engaging in detailed debate on critical issues such as the facts of the case, deficiencies in the evidence, legal characterization, and procedural irregularities. The courtroom exchanges fully demonstrated the strengths of the King&Capital Law Firm team’s collaboration:
Some lawyers concentrated on conducting a thorough, meticulous review of the evidence on file. Building on this foundation, they focused on the underlying facts. By carefully reconstructing the transaction process and combining testimony from all parties with investment settlement records, they successfully established in court the fundamental fact that the case involved a joint investment by all parties rather than sole ownership by the opposing party.
Meanwhile, other attorneys spent several days meticulously reviewing video footage frame by frame. By examining the footage regarding the parties’ conduct at the time of the incident, the team successfully uncovered significant issues, such as edited body camera footage and the selective playback of video evidence, which had led to a severe distortion of the facts. Building on this, the team collected additional video footage from on-site witnesses and submitted it to the court, clarifying the true conduct of all parties at the scene.
Building on this groundwork, team members coordinated closely during the trial, filling in gaps and jointly mounting a robust defense, fully demonstrating the collaborative strengths of the King&Capital Law Firm team.
“One person can run fast, but a group can go far.”
This five-day, high-intensity trial served as the perfect testament to the spirit of teamwork.
Ultimately, the appellate court accepted the defense team’s arguments and directly overturned the original verdict, reducing the sentences for all five defendants represented by the King&Capital Law Firm team. This fully demonstrated the appellate court’s recognition of the defense team’s work.
Breaking the Criminal Defense Impasse: Billions of Yuan in Civil Rights Protected
Although this was a criminal case, it stemmed from a civil cooperation dispute between the two parties. The first-instance court not only imposed heavy sentences on the defendants but also erroneously ruled that the property rights in question belonged to the opposing party, leading to the devastating consequence that the defendants faced the total loss of hundreds of millions of yuan in investment funds.
Consequently, in the second-instance proceedings, the legal team not only defended against the criminal charges but also prioritized the protection of the defendants’ civil rights. Through pre- and post-trial communications with the judge, as well as during the presentation and cross-examination of evidence and in courtroom arguments, the team consistently centered their arguments on the fundamental fact that the parties were engaged in a cooperative business relationship.
During the intense courtroom debate, the King&Capital lawyers solemnly stated:
“The first-instance judgment ‘substituted civil claims with criminal ones,’ making erroneous factual findings and rendering an incorrect judgment regarding the allocation of civil rights and interests during the criminal proceedings. If the second-instance court upholds the original judgment and it takes effect, it will directly result in more than a dozen defendants and dozens of families being unable to separately assert their civil rights and interests, and their investments totaling hundreds of millions of yuan will be completely lost! Therefore, the first-instance judgment must be corrected!”
King&Capital Lawyers’ forceful defense and precise analysis of the case’s stakes were given high priority by the appellate court. Ultimately, the appellate judgment legally determined that the dispute between the defendants and the plaintiffs in the incidental civil action “arose from a partnership business dispute and was justified; the original judgment’s failure to recognize this fact was improper.” Consequently, the appellate court overturned the first-instance court’s finding that the opposing party held exclusive ownership, ruling instead that the business was jointly operated by both parties. Furthermore, based on the opposing party’s fault in the civil dispute, the court reduced the sentences for all five defendants represented by King&Capital Lawyers.
Through the team’s professional, meticulous, and collaborative defense, King&Capital Lawyers not only reduced the defendants’ prison terms but also safeguarded their property rights worth hundreds of millions of yuan, achieving a dual victory of reduced sentences and the protection of substantial financial interests. This outcome demonstrates the value of criminal defense in safeguarding civil rights!
Conclusion
The appeal in this criminal case—which originated from a business partnership dispute—has now been concluded. For the King&Capital Law Firm team, the fact that the case did not result in an acquittal leaves some regret. However, it is certain that the legal team, grounded in responsibility, armed with expertise, and united through collaboration, withstood the pressure and fought resolutely, ultimately overturning the first-instance judgment. Although the reversal in the second-instance trial did not fully meet our expectations, the correction of the critical errors in the first-instance judgment is indeed a rare achievement.
King&Capital Lawyers will continue to uphold the professional philosophy of “pursuing excellence and living up to the trust placed in us.” We will deepen our expertise in defending major, complex, and challenging criminal cases, spare no effort in resolving the deadlocks of various criminal cases, safeguard our clients’ personal freedom and property security, and demonstrate the professional strength and sense of responsibility of criminal defense attorneys.
