Recently, attorneys Li Wei and Jin Yuting handled an embezzlement case in which the amount involved met the threshold for “a huge sum” under the crime of embezzlement, with the statutory sentencing range set at three to ten years of imprisonment. Amid the current high-pressure crackdown on strict punishment for crimes committed in the course of official duties, the two attorneys, through meticulous defense throughout the entire legal process, successfully secured a sentence below the statutory range. Ultimately, they helped the client receive a sentence of two years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, thereby successfully sparing the client from actual incarceration.

I. Case Overview

The client was a site manager at a subsidiary of a state-owned enterprise, with overall responsibility for the site’s daily operations and management. During his tenure, the client colluded with other staff members at the site to exploit his official position to steal liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) from the site and sell it privately for profit. The total amount involved in the joint criminal activity by the three individuals met the threshold for “huge amounts,” while the client’s personal illicit gains met the threshold for “substantial amounts.” Taking into account the client’s managerial status and job responsibilities, the prosecution determined that he played a leading role in the joint criminal activity and was the principal offender in this case.

II. Comprehensive Defense Strategy

(I) Focusing on the Statutory Mitigating Circumstance of Voluntary Surrender

The defense counsel meticulously reviewed the circumstances of the defendant’s surrender, the transcripts of disciplinary inspection interviews, and the materials from supervisory interrogations. They fully documented key evidence demonstrating that the defendant proactively contacted the unit’s disciplinary inspection department to turn himself in and truthfully confessed to all criminal facts throughout the entire process after his surrender. By strictly invoking the provisions on voluntary surrender under Article 67 of the Criminal Law, the defense established this as the core basis for a reduced sentence below the statutory penalty, thereby fulfilling the statutory requirement for a sentence below three years.

(2) Isolating the Leading Criminal Acts to Mitigate the Client’s Degree of Criminal Liability

By analyzing the entire case file and the statements of co-defendants, the defense counsel dissected the details of the crime. It was established that the proposal for the criminal act in this case originated from other co-defendants, and the client participated passively due to persuasion by colleagues, social obligations, and financial inducements; The defendant merely signed off on inventory surplus reports within the scope of his official duties and did not participate in core profit-generating activities such as liquefied gas filling, transportation, external sales, or the management of illicit proceeds; he received only a small share of the illicit proceeds, thereby diminishing his substantive role as a principal offender from the perspective of objective conduct.

(3) Implementing Multiple Measures to Establish Mitigating Circumstances and Accumulate Factors for a Lenient Sentence

1. Closely monitored the client’s restitution process throughout, assisted the client in fully returning all illicit gains, facilitated the victimized entity’s submission of a recommendation for leniency, and ensured full recovery of losses to state-owned property;

2. Collected documentation spanning over a decade of the defendant’s professional history, including annual industry awards and commendations for meritorious service, to substantiate his diligent past performance, status as a first-time and occasional offender, and lack of prior criminal record or misconduct;

3. Urged the defendant to cooperate fully throughout all stages of the proceedings by pleading guilty and accepting punishment, voluntarily signing a plea agreement to solidify the factual basis for leniency based on remorse.

(IV) Establishing a Defense Strategy to Realistically Seek a Favorable Sentence

During the review and prosecution phase, we submitted written defense opinions to the prosecuting attorney on multiple occasions. We focused our defense on verified statutory and discretionary mitigating factors—such as the distinction between principal and accessory offenders, voluntary surrender, full restitution of ill-gotten gains, admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment, and the victim organization’s forgiveness—thereby laying the groundwork for the court to issue a lenient judgment.

III. Retrospective Analysis

The breakthrough in securing a sentence below the statutory range in this case hinged on the defense attorney’s meticulous examination of every detail of the case. Rather than being confined by the prosecution’s initial determination of the defendant’s status as a principal offender and the level of criminal culpability, the defense consistently analyzed the facts of the case in light of sentencing guidelines. On the one hand, it was essential to firmly grasp the statutory mitigating circumstances as the core breakthrough point; without the statutory basis for reduced sentencing provided by voluntary surrender, the subsequent discretionary mitigating factors could not have cumulatively contributed to a more lenient sentence—this was the core prerequisite for achieving a breakthrough in the ruling. On the other hand, the defense against the prosecution’s characterization of the client as a principal offender could not rely solely on verbal arguments; instead, it had to start with objective details such as the origin of the criminal intent, the division of specific roles, and the distribution of ill-gotten gains, gradually undermining the prosecution’s logic regarding the client’s leading role in the crime and providing the judge with sufficient factual grounds to adjust the assessment of culpability. Furthermore, proactively facilitating the return of ill-gotten gains, securing the victim organization’s forgiveness, and confirming the defendant’s attitude of pleading guilty and accepting punishment also lay a solid foundation of multiple mitigating factors for ultimately securing a suspended sentence and helping the defendant avoid actual imprisonment. Against the judicial backdrop of strict crackdowns on official corruption, only this kind of comprehensive, detail-oriented defense can maximally safeguard the defendant’s legitimate rights and interests and achieve the anticipated defense objectives.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)