Cases involving criminal offenses committed by senior bank executives often involve massive sums of money and multiple charges. How defense counsel identifies a breakthrough in the details of the case file tests their precise grasp of the facts and their ability to communicate effectively with judicial authorities. Recently, a first-instance verdict was handed down in a case handled by Attorney Xu Ming of King&Capital Law Firm, in which the president of a listed bank was accused of bribery, abuse of power by personnel of a state-owned company, and the illegal issuance of loans. The defendant’s sentence was ultimately reduced from over 20 years to 13 years, and the fine was reduced from 2 million yuan to 1 million yuan.
I. Case Summary
The defendant, Li, was formerly the president of a listed bank and had long been in charge of the bank’s overall operations and management. The investigating authorities determined that Li committed three types of criminal acts during his tenure: First, he accepted property from others totaling more than 11 million yuan by taking advantage of his official position, constituting the crime of bribery; second, he improperly disposed of non-performing loans, causing the bank to suffer losses of more than 2 billion yuan, constituting the crime of abuse of power by personnel of a state-owned company; third, he unlawfully granted loans to others, resulting in losses as high as 190 million yuan, constituting the crime of unlawful loan granting. With these three crimes to be tried concurrently and penalties to be imposed cumulatively, Li Mou faced the possibility of a prison term of 20 years or more. After the case entered the review and prosecution stage, Attorney Xu Ming was retained to represent him.
II. Seeking Recognition of “Voluntary Surrender” and Mitigation of Punishment for Unlawful Loan Granting
The most critical breakthrough in this case stemmed from a meticulous review of the circumstances surrounding Li’s apprehension. Initially, the investigating authorities did not recognize that Li had the circumstances of “voluntary surrender.” However, while reviewing the confession materials page by page, Attorney Xu Ming discovered that after Li was taken in for investigation, he voluntarily disclosed to the supervisory authorities the facts regarding the illegal issuance of loans—a criminal act that had not yet come to the attention of the supervisory authorities at the time of his apprehension. Focusing on this critical detail, Attorney Xu Ming submitted a detailed defense brief to the procuratorate, arguing from both factual and legal perspectives that this conduct constituted a special form of voluntary surrender. Ultimately, the prosecuting authorities accepted this argument, which laid a crucial foundation during sentencing negotiations and ultimately led to a reduced sentence.
III. Repeated Communication Facilitated Leniency Through “Admission of Guilt and Acceptance of Punishment”
Given the multiple charges and substantial amounts involved in this case, Li would typically have faced a prison sentence of 20 years or more—an unbearable burden for someone who had just retired. To secure the most favorable possible sentencing outcome, Attorney Xu Ming engaged in multiple rounds of communication with the prosecutor during the review and prosecution phase. Attorney Xu Ming first engaged in repeated discussions with the prosecutor regarding the facts of the case, presenting well-reasoned and well-documented defense arguments regarding the disputed amounts of bribery to create room for leniency in sentencing. Regarding the bribery charges, although the total amount exceeded 11 million yuan, the attorney argued that 4 million yuan constituted an attempted offense. This view was accepted by the prosecution, thereby securing the minimum possible sentence. Regarding the abuse of power by personnel of a state-owned company, although the loss to state-owned assets reached 2 billion yuan, objective factors were present, and Li’s role in the matter was limited; the procuratorate ultimately agreed to a sentence of less than five years. Regarding the illegal issuance of loans, the losses resulting from this act amounted to 190 million yuan, with a minimum sentence of five years and a typical sentence of around seven years; however, due to the successful application of the voluntary surrender mitigation factor, the sentence was set at three years. Building on this foundation, the attorney further appealed to the prosecutor’s sense of reason and compassion, fully detailing Mr. Li’s decades of dedicated service at the grassroots level of the banking sector, his tireless efforts in advancing local financial development—which transformed a small bank into a publicly listed institution—and his current circumstances as an elderly man suffering from multiple illnesses. After repeated negotiations and numerous discussions, the prosecution ultimately issued a sentencing recommendation of thirteen years’ imprisonment. During the trial phase, the defense attorney continued to advocate on behalf of the client. The court initially imposed a fine of 2 million yuan. During the hearing, the attorney highlighted issues with the case, emphasized the crucial role of the defendant’s guilty plea and acceptance of punishment, and explained the financial hardship the defendant faced after fully returning the ill-gotten gains and making restitution. The attorney requested that the court fully consider these factors when determining the fine. Ultimately, the court adopted the prosecution’s sentencing recommendation and imposed a fine of 1 million yuan.
IV. Value of the Defense
In recent years, cases of occupational crimes in the financial sector have been on the rise, with amounts involved often reaching tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of yuan, severely limiting the scope for effective defense. Against this backdrop, the success or failure of a defense often hinges on whether the attorney—within the established framework of case classification—can leverage solid case file analysis skills and extensive judicial experience to identify and solidify favorable sentencing factors from the details of the case file. Attorney Xu Ming, having previously worked in anti-corruption departments, has integrated investigative thinking into his defense practice, developing a defense methodology that relies on precise case file review to identify breakthroughs and effective communication to achieve sentencing objectives. The defense outcomes in this case are a concrete demonstration of this methodology in practice.
