Recently, a case involving a private enterprise group accused of loan fraud—handled by Attorney Meng Fen, with the participation of Attorneys Wang Qi, Guan Jian, and Liu Hongyu—achieved a favorable outcome. The private enterprise group was accused of defrauding lenders of more than 780 million yuan, of which more than 500 million yuan remained unpaid. Four of its subsidiaries were named as corporate defendants, and there were as many as 12 individual defendants. Among them, the group’s legal representative, represented by Attorney Meng Fen, faced the most severe sentencing recommendation from the procuratorate—six to seven years and nine months. Following a robust defense, the court of first instance ultimately accepted Attorney Meng Fen’s argument that the defendant should be classified as an accessory throughout the entire case and sentenced the legal representative to a combined term of three years for multiple offenses. The defendant was satisfied with the sentence and did not appeal.
Since accepting the group’s retainer last year, Attorney Meng Fen has led her team on multiple business trips to other regions to investigate the case and research similar precedents within the province. The team drafted several legal opinions and engaged in repeated face-to-face discussions with prosecutors, providing detailed explanations regarding the substantive review standards for loan fraud cases, the specific causes of the losses incurred in this case, and provincial precedents where all defendants were classified as accomplices. However, the prosecution maintained that the amount involved in this case was exceptionally large—far exceeding that of previous local cases—and not only did they reject the defense’s arguments but also issued a very severe sentencing recommendation. Consequently, both the defense counsel and the group prepared for a tough battle in court.
As the case entered the trial phase, Attorney Meng Fen held multiple consultations with the corporate group to adjust the defense strategy and priorities for the trial. The corporate group actively sought favorable documentary evidence, and the defense attorney, in coordination with local counsel, submitted favorable evidence regarding multiple loans. During the trial, Attorney Meng Fen continued to engage in frequent face-to-face discussions with the judge, presenting multiple defense arguments from the corporate group’s perspective. The key points are summarized as follows:
The corporate group provided full collateral for all corporate loans and had no intent to commit loan fraud; the losses resulting from the bank’s independent classification of the loans as non-performing do not constitute “losses from loan fraud” under criminal law; the corporate group’s current assets are sufficient to cover the principal losses and it is willing to make every effort to compensate for them; during the legal representative’s tenure, all transactions involved loan renewals rather than new loans initiated on his own initiative, and his subjective malice was minimal; both he and the accused executives and employees can be classified as accomplices, and there are similar precedents in your province to support this, among other arguments.
Ultimately, after two court hearings, the court adopted key defense arguments and significantly reduced the prison terms for all individuals involved in the loan fraud. Attorney Meng Fen also presented a defense argument seeking leniency regarding a separate charge of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” involving the legal representative, which was also accepted. The legal representative was ultimately sentenced to a combined three years’ imprisonment, and the client was extremely satisfied with the outcome and did not appeal.
Throughout the handling of this case, the team’s attorneys divided responsibilities, held regular case review meetings, pooled their wisdom to discuss the facts meticulously, and learned from one another’s strengths and weaknesses. They not only conducted a thorough theoretical analysis of the crime of loan fraud but also collected judicial rulings on similar cases from across the country, identified the characteristics of different precedents in various regions, and formulated a defense strategy based on the facts and evidence of this case. From the successful handling of this case, the team identified several key factors for achieving favorable outcomes in major and complex cases:
1. The client (the Group) placed full trust in the attorneys, and the company operated in a relatively standardized manner. Although the Group had engaged in the submission of falsified documents in previous loan applications, it had consistently focused on its core business operations and maintained standardized management. The loan losses resulted solely from a temporary cash flow disruption during an economic downturn; following the incident, the company continued to operate actively, demonstrating a responsible and accountable attitude.
2. The outcome of a case can vary depending on the specific prosecutor or judge. Judges who are willing to take responsibility are open to hearing defense arguments and adept at handling complex cases in a layered manner, treating different individuals differently based on the extent of their liability within a joint criminal offense. In this case, the collegiate bench exempted all front-line employees from criminal punishment, demonstrating judicial wisdom that harmonizes natural justice, statutory law, and human compassion.
3. A legal team must not only be highly professional but also patiently persuade prosecutors and judges using legal principles, facts, evidence, and case law. If they cannot persuade the prosecutor, they should persuade the judge, helping the judge broaden their judicial perspective, draw on adjudication experiences from various regions, and have the courage to render a verdict after ascertaining the facts of the case.
A well-crafted criminal judgment is an organic synthesis of natural justice, statutory law, and human compassion. Similarly, achieving a favorable outcome in any case requires judges who are willing to take responsibility, highly skilled attorneys, and parties who maintain a rational and constructive attitude—these three elements are mutually reinforcing and indispensable.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
