Recently, in a case handled by our firm’s attorneys Yan Huainan and Jin Yuting, the head of a branch company was charged with the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits. The case involved an amount exceeding 100 million yuan, resulting in unpaid losses of more than 60 million yuan to investors, which falls under the legal definition of “an exceptionally large amount.” The defense attorneys precisely identified key mitigating factors—such as the defendant’s status as an accessory and the full restitution of ill-gotten gains—and constructed a comprehensive defense strategy, ultimately securing the most favorable outcome for the client: a suspended sentence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. Case Overview

 

 

 

The defendant was formerly the head of a branch office of a travel agency. In the second half of 2020, the defendant joined the travel agency’s branch office, successively serving as a sales representative, team leader, and branch manager. During his tenure, the company—without obtaining approval from financial regulatory authorities—illegally raised funds from the general public under the guise of selling travel packages, using public methods such as distributing flyers and word-of-mouth. According to a judicial audit, as of the time the case came to light, the defendant and his team had illegally raised a total of over 140 million RMB from more than 250 investors, resulting in unpaid losses exceeding 60 million RMB. The defendant personally profited illegally by approximately 1.45 million yuan.

 

 

 

II. Defense Strategy and Approach

 

 

 

Faced with the severe circumstances of a case involving over 100 million yuan and losses exceeding 60 million yuan, the defense counsel formulated a multidimensional, meticulous defense strategy centered on “establishing the defendant’s status as an accessory, supported by the return of ill-gotten gains and compensation, and grounded in a plea of guilt and expression of remorse”:

 

 

 

First, by emphasizing the defendant’s status as an accessory, the defense sought to significantly reduce the starting point for sentencing.

 

 

 

The defense counsel thoroughly reviewed all evidence in the case and fully demonstrated that Defendant A was not the initiator or organizer of the criminal activities, but rather carried out work under the direction of the actual controller at the higher level and the head of the branch office. In the joint criminal activity, he played only a secondary and auxiliary role and should therefore be legally classified as an accessory.

 

 

 

Second, the defense made every effort to facilitate the return of ill-gotten gains and compensation to demonstrate the defendant’s sincere remorse.

 

 

 

The defense counsel actively communicated with the defendant and his family, facilitating the family’s return of a portion of the ill-gotten gains on his behalf as early as the investigation stage; during the trial, the family returned the remaining ill-gotten gains. In total, all illicit proceeds were returned.

 

 

 

Third, emphasize the defendant’s admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment, as well as his demonstration of remorse, to solidify the basis for discretionary leniency.

 

 

 

From the moment he was apprehended, the defendant consistently provided truthful statements; during the trial, he voluntarily pleaded guilty and cooperated with judicial authorities in ascertaining the facts. The defense counsel presented comprehensive evidence regarding the defendant’s expressions of remorse, his attitude toward returning ill-gotten gains, his lack of prior criminal record or misconduct, and his family circumstances, thereby creating sufficient conditions for the granting of probation.

 

 

 

III. Reflections on the Case

 

 

 

The successful defense in this case fully demonstrates that in economic crimes involving a large number of victims, even when the amount involved is exceptionally large, it is still possible to secure a suspended sentence for the defendant as long as the defense counsel accurately grasps the criteria for determining an accessory and fully explores mitigating factors such as the return of ill-gotten gains, restitution, and expressions of remorse. This holds significant reference value for the defense in similar cases.

 

 

 

At the same time, this case also demonstrates the implementation of the criminal policy of combining leniency with strictness in judicial practice—by granting lenient treatment in accordance with the law to defendants who played a relatively minor role in a joint crime, demonstrated a sincere attitude of confession and remorse, and actively returned ill-gotten gains and provided restitution, thereby embodying the principle of proportionality between crime, culpability, and punishment.

 

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)