After more than 14 years of a long and arduous appeal process and 5,158 days of wrongful imprisonment, January 13, 2026, marked an extraordinary day for the defendant, Mr. Ning, as he was exonerated and given a new lease on life.
The retrial for the fraud case involving Ning and others, handled by attorneys Tian Wenchang and Xu Ying of Beijing King&Capital Law Firm, has finally achieved ultimate justice: the original final judgment sentencing Ning to life imprisonment and deprivation of political rights for life for the crime of fraud was completely overturned after retrials at multiple levels of court, and all assets were fully returned. After a grueling 14-year legal battle, the case has finally been resolved and the wrongful conviction overturned, thanks to the team’s unwavering dedication and professional expertise.
I. Case Overview
The original defendants, Ning and Yu, were formerly employees of a certain company, while Gong claimed to be a staff member of the Guizhou Maotai Wine Group Technology Development Company. Sun, the legal representative of Daqing Longjia Company in Heilongjiang Province (hereinafter referred to as “Longjia Company”), met Ning and two others through a friend in 2010. Sun entrusted Ning and the other two individuals to secure the Heilongjiang provincial agency rights for Moutai Mingjiang liquor, agreeing on an agency fee of 2 million yuan, with an initial payment of 1 million yuan and the remainder to be paid upon obtaining authorization. During the Mingjiang liquor agency process, Sun further entrusted Ning and the others to secure the Heilongjiang provincial agency rights for 53-proof 750-milliliter Guizhou Moutai liquor. In June 2011, Gong Mou, acting on behalf of Longjia Company, signed a distribution contract and a supplementary agreement with Company Y, the national general agent for 750-milliliter Moutai wine. He obtained a letter of authorization from Company Y granting Longjia Company the status of a special dealer for 53-proof 750-milliliter Guizhou Moutai wine in Heilongjiang Province. Ning Mou and his associates collected 9 million yuan from Sun Moumou in installments.
At the end of 2011, Sun Moumou filed a police report accusing Ning Mou and others of fraud. By the time the case came to light, the agency rights for the wine had still not been secured. The 750-milliliter, 53-proof Guizhou Moutai that Sun Moumou intended to obtain was from the Guizhou Moutai Wine Company, but Ning Mou and others had arranged for him to obtain it from Company Y, and Company Y’s authorization was provided free of charge.
II. Findings of the Original Judgment
Sun Moumou, the legal representative of Longjia Company, met Ning Mou and two others through a friend in 2010. The three fabricated the identity of Gong Mou as an employee of the Guizhou Moutai Group Technology Development Company to gain Sun Moumou’s trust. From late 2010 to early 2011, the three defrauded Sun Moumou of 1 million RMB under the pretext of securing provincial-level agency rights in Heilongjiang Province for Moutai Mingjiang wine. By the time the case came to light, the three appellants had failed to secure the “Maotai Mingjiang” wine agency rights for Sun Moumou. Failing to secure the “Maotai Mingjiang” agency rights, the trio claimed they could instead secure for Sun Moumou the provincial-level agency rights in Heilongjiang Province for 53-proof, 750-milliliter Guizhou Maotai wine. In June 2011, Gong, acting on behalf of Longjia Company, signed a distribution contract and a supplementary agreement with Company Y, and obtained for Sun a letter of authorization from Company Y granting Longjia Company the status of Heilongjiang Provincial General Distributor for 53-proof 750-milliliter Moutai Prince and Moutai Welcome wines, as well as Heilongjiang Provincial Authorized Distributor for 53-proof 750-milliliter Guizhou Moutai. The sales authorizations for the Moutai series of wines obtained by the three individuals on behalf of Sun did not require any fees to be paid to Company Y, and they failed to inform Sun of this fact. Between February and July 2011, they defrauded Sun of a total of 9 million RMB. After the case came to light, public security authorities froze 3,211,581.96 RMB in bank deposits belonging to Gong and others and seized five vehicles.
III. The Trial Process
Attorneys Tian Wenchang and Xu Ying joined the case during the second-instance proceedings. After the second-instance court upheld the original verdict, faced with the weighty guilty verdict and the severe sentence, Attorneys Tian Wenchang and Xu Ying remained steadfast in their belief that the essence of this case was a civil agency relationship between equal parties, and by no means a criminal fraud offense. From that point on, the legal team, in collaboration with the defendant’s family, embarked on a sustained appeal process that spanned several years.
The lawyers successively submitted appeal materials, defense briefs, and arguments addressing key points of contention to the Heilongjiang Provincial High People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Court. The path to appeal was arduous and long; the exoneration of wrongful convictions has always been the most difficult, time-consuming, and challenging area of judicial practice. Through multiple rounds of document review, communication, and deliberation, as well as repeated periods of waiting and reassessment, the lawyers and the family supported and trusted one another, never giving up.
Perseverance paid off. In 2019, the Supreme People’s Court accepted the lawyers’ key arguments, ruling that the original verdict was based on unclear facts, insufficient evidence, and erroneous application of the law. It issued a retrial order, directing the Heilongjiang Provincial High Court to hear the case. Coinciding with the impact of the pandemic, the trial process was hindered. After navigating through multiple procedural stages, in September 2021, the Heilongjiang Provincial High Court ruled to overturn the original judgment and remanded the case to the Daqing Intermediate People’s Court for retrial.
During the retrial phase, the defense attorney remained steadfast throughout the process, vigorously advancing the trial proceedings. After six court sessions, the attorney ultimately dismantled the flaws in the original conviction layer by layer through solid evidence, rigorous logic, and precise application of the law. On March 11, 2026, the Daqing Intermediate People’s Court finally issued a landmark ruling: Ning was not guilty of fraud, completely overturning the guilty verdict that had stood for many years.
IV. Core Controversy
Due to the long-standing influence of China’s culture of personal connections, the practice of seeking favors to obtain qualifications, secure employment, or arrange school admissions has persisted for a long time. Such acts often involve social obligations and the exchange of power for money, creating complex legal and social relationships. Issues such as distinguishing between criminal and non-criminal conduct, determining intent to illegally appropriate property, establishing the fabrication of facts, assessing the ability to fulfill obligations, and characterizing partial fulfillment of obligations not only involve the application of the law but also the examination and evaluation of evidence and the disposition of involved assets. These represent difficult challenges in judicial practice, are subject to much debate, and also present opportunities for defense attorneys to challenge the case.
In solicitation-based fraud, the core chain of events involves fabricating facts, concealing the truth, causing the other party to form a mistaken belief, and leading to the payment of property based on that mistaken belief, thereby resulting in financial loss. The absence of any one of these links affects the establishment of the crime. Specifically in this case, whether Ning et al. actually performed their obligations, the characterization of partial performance, whether Sun was fully aware of and accepted the performance status, and whether the payment of property was based on “mistaken belief” have become the core points of contention between the prosecution and the defense:
(1) Substantive Review of Whether Performance Acts Were Carried Out
A key factor in distinguishing between a civil agency act and fraud disguised as agency is determining whether the perpetrator possessed the capacity to perform and actually carried out acts of performance. The capacity to perform can be assessed based on the perpetrator’s identity, social connections, and history of successfully handling similar requests. Even if such capacity exists, the perpetrator must have carried out acts of performance aimed at achieving the agreed-upon objective. Performance must be substantively effective rather than merely perfunctory; particularly in cases involving partial performance, it is necessary to assess, based on objective circumstances, whether such actions played a substantive role in advancing the agreed-upon objective. If, based on common sense and reasonable expectations, certain performance actions are not necessary for achieving the objective, then even if the actor claims to have performed such actions, it cannot be ruled out that they were merely a means to continue the deception. Conversely, if the actor genuinely made efforts to achieve the objective but was temporarily unable to do so due to objective reasons, the conduct should not be uniformly characterized as fraud.
Specifically regarding this case, Ning and others argued that during the process of obtaining the agency rights for Mingjiang Wine, after accepting the commission, they did indeed communicate with relevant personnel regarding the matter and personally visited Guizhou Maotai Mingjiang Wine Co., Ltd. to handle the application. Since the rights had already been granted in 2011, they had to wait until 2012 to proceed, a fact of which Sun was aware; however, they were subjected to coercive measures in December 2011 and were unable to continue the process. To prove that Ning and others had indeed taken steps to fulfill the contract, the defense counsel traveled to Guizhou to investigate and gather evidence. A representative from Mingjiang Liquor explained that agency rights for Mingjiang Liquor are granted on an annual basis; the Heilongjiang Province agency had already been granted to a company in 2011, so a new authorization could not be processed until 2012. The representative also provided the defense counsel with the 2011 authorization letter. Considering that Ning and the others truthfully informed Sun of these objective circumstances at the earliest opportunity, but were criminally detained on December 1, 2011, the defense argued: The three defendants had objectively and substantially fulfilled the entrusted matters; due to objective reasons, they were temporarily unable to complete the formalities, and Sun was fully aware of this and agreed to postpone the process. The reason for the subsequent suspension of the agency work was triggered by Sun Moumou’s report to the police, which constituted force majeure for the three defendants; it cannot be ruled out that the three defendants could have processed the Mingjiang Liquor authorization in 2012. This view was accepted by the retrial court.
(2) Criteria for Determining Whether the Purpose of the Request Was Achieved and Review of Evidence
Generally speaking, in request-based fraud cases, it is difficult to gather evidence regarding whether the perpetrator had the intent to illegally appropriate property, whether they had the capacity to fulfill the agreement, and whether they performed acts to fulfill the agreement; there is also significant controversy regarding the application of the law. However, if the purpose of the request has been achieved, the act is generally not recognized as fraud. However, disputes persist in practice. First, the solicitant may argue that the completed matter does not align with the original request. Second, the solicitant may argue that the amount of property received is grossly disproportionate to the requested matter. For example, in this case, the victim claimed that the intended transaction was for the Heilongjiang provincial agency rights for 53-proof, 750-milliliter Maotai liquor produced by Guizhou Maotai Distillery Co., Ltd., rather than an authorization from Company Y. The author believes that this issue should be subject to a substantive review focusing on the similarities and differences between the intended objective and the actual outcome, as well as the client’s knowledge of and acceptance of the actual outcome.
In this case, first, Sun’s objective was clear: he sought the Heilongjiang provincial agency rights for 53-proof 750-milliliter Moutai liquor. His direct objective was the liquor authorization itself, not the means of obtaining it; second, the defense counsel was aware that Company Y was the national general agent for 53-proof 750-milliliter Moutai liquor, meaning that, objectively, the authorization Sun sought could only be obtained from Company Y; Third, Sun’s numerous objective actions demonstrate that, prior to processing the authorization, he was fully aware that he was seeking authorization from Company Y. He personally accompanied Gong to Company Y’s headquarters and issued a written authorization to Gong; Fourth, immediately upon obtaining the authorization, Sun reviewed the original authorization letter provided by Gong, which clearly specified the relevant terms of authorization, and Sun raised no objections to the contents of the authorization letter; Fifth, Sun Moumou’s conduct following the completion of the authorization process further confirms his full awareness of and acceptance of the outcome. On June 16, 2011, after Gong Mou handed over the original authorization letter to Sun Moumou, Sun Moumou paid a total of 4 million yuan in agency fees to Ning Mou and others on June 16 and 17, 2011, and paid an additional 3 million yuan in agency fees in July. Furthermore, evidence obtained by the defense counsel from Company Y—including delivery slips, freight waybills, deposit slips, and payment receipts—shows that from June to December 2011, Longjia Company made multiple purchases of alcoholic beverages from Company Y, acquiring a total of 260 cases of 750-milliliter Moutai liquor. The company proactively paid substantial sums for the liquor and received all the goods.
Based on the specific content of the solicitation, the entities authorized to handle the matters in question, and Sun’s objective conduct before, during, and after the events, the entire chain of evidence demonstrates that Sun was fully aware of and approved of the intended outcome. Therefore, the payment of funds did not involve the “mistaken belief” required for the crime of fraud. Ultimately, this defense argument was adopted by the retrial court.
(3) The degree of correspondence between the amount of property received and the requested favor should not serve as the sole criterion for determining criminal liability in solicitation-based fraud
In practice, some argue that even when the entrusted acts are fully performed and the entrusted objectives are achieved, one must still comprehensively consider the degree of alignment between the amount of property received and the entrusted matters. If the received property is not used entirely or largely for the entrusted matters, or if there is a significant discrepancy between the amount received and the entrusted matters, a “mistake regarding the amount” still exists, and the act can be deemed fraud.
The author disagrees with this view, as it blurs the line between civil acts and criminal offenses. In practice, when the client enters into a solicitation agreement with the agent, they acknowledge the amount of property to be expended. Achieving the objective and paying the property constitute a consideration relationship in civil transactions; once the objective of the solicitation is achieved, the property paid constitutes the consideration for the transaction. Whether the agent conceals expenses or exaggerates costs does not affect the principal’s knowledge and voluntary intent at the time of entrustment. This is analogous to the common saying in civil transactions, “The melon seller praises her own melons”—it is precisely the essence of civil transactional behavior. Even if one were to concede that the price was inflated, this would still constitute a civil dispute, not a criminal offense. In determining whether an act constitutes a civil agency arrangement or criminal fraud, judicial practice should look beyond the surface value of the amount and conduct a thorough examination of the actor’s subjective intent to appropriate assets and their objective conduct in carrying out the task.
In this case, Ning and others charged Sun 9 million yuan for handling the provincial agency rights for 75-milliliter bottles of 53-proof Moutai liquor—a fee agreed upon through mutual negotiation. Sun’s objective was to obtain the liquor authorization, not to determine whether official processing would incur fees; otherwise, why would he not have handled the matter personally? Therefore, Sun’s claim that the authorizing party does not charge fees, while Ning and others collected agency fees, thereby constituting fraud, lacks both legal and factual basis.
V. Reflections on the Case
This case involved the lawyer’s intervention at the appellate stage. After the original judgment was upheld, a retrial was initiated through a petition for review. Given the lengthy duration and high difficulty of the process, the lawyer gained profound insights through handling this case.
(1) The Crucial Role of Proactive Investigation and Evidence Gathering in Criminal Cases
During the handling of this case, the defense counsel conducted extensive investigation and evidence gathering. To prove whether Ning et al. had fulfilled their obligations, the defense obtained statements from relevant individuals confirming that Ning et al. had communicated regarding the handling of the matter. Simultaneously, objective evidence was gathered to demonstrate that the agency rights for Mingjiang Wine had not yet been processed due to objective force majeure circumstances. evidence obtained from Company Y—including delivery slips, freight waybills, deposit slips, and payment receipts—demonstrated Sun’s procurement of liquor following the acquisition of authorization. It can be said that the substantial body of evidence gathered by the defense effectively dismantled the prosecution’s logic, fully proving that Sun was fully aware of and approved the process and outcome of the entrusted matter, and that there was no “misunderstanding.” This established a compelling factual basis for the acquittal of Ning and others.
(2) Rational Expectations in Criminal Appeals and the Commitment to Perseverance, Resolve, and Steadfastness
In criminal appeal cases, initiating a retrial is a lengthy process. First, the lawyer must assess whether the facts and grounds for the appeal are sufficient; an appeal should not be filed merely for the sake of appealing. Second, during this protracted and unpredictable process, the lawyer, the family, and the client are comrades-in-arms in the same trench; they must trust one another, maintain unwavering confidence, possess the courage to persevere, and remain steadfast. Any imbalance among these parties will prevent the case from reaching its conclusion. Third, since an appeal essentially involves reopening the case for trial, it is an extremely challenging endeavor. The lawyer should provide an objective explanation, and the family and the client must also maintain rational expectations.
VI. The Dust Settles: Justice May Be Delayed, but It Is Never Absent
Looking at the case as a whole, the root cause of the wrongful conviction lies in the confusion over the legal boundary between civil agency and criminal fraud. In such cases, strict scrutiny must be applied to the determination of facts and the review of evidence. If an attorney accepts a retainer, receives payment, and genuinely performs the contracted services—even if the intended outcome is not achieved—and the client is fully aware of and consents to the relevant circumstances, it is not easily classified as a fraud offense.
Justice may be delayed, but it is never denied—this requires unwavering commitment and professional dedication. Moving forward, the King&Capital Law Firm team will continue to deepen our expertise in criminal defense and the appeal and rectification of wrongful convictions, safeguarding judicial fairness through professional expertise and defending citizens’ lawful rights and interests with unwavering dedication.
