In an insurance fraud case in which attorneys Li Zhiguang and Ning Yu of Beijing King&Capital Law Firm served as defense counsel for the first and third defendants, respectively, the two attorneys’ persistent defense efforts resulted in a significant reduction in the penalties imposed. The alleged amount of fraud in this case was substantially reduced from over 5 million yuan to just over 200,000 yuan for the first defendant and 20,000 yuan for the third defendant. The recommended sentence for the first defendant was reduced from over ten years in the initial indictment to eight years and six months in the second indictment, and he was ultimately sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. For the third defendant, the recommended sentence was reduced from over ten years to one year and six months, and he was ultimately sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment, suspended for one year, transforming him from the third-ranked defendant in the indictment to the defendant receiving the lightest sentence in the entire case.
I. Erroneous Characterization of a Special Type of Criminal Case; Both Defendants Faced Sentences of Ten Years or More
This case involves a special type of criminal offense related to the assessment of vehicle insurance claims, with dozens of alleged instances of insurance fraud. The prosecution initially filed charges for insurance fraud, alleging damages exceeding 5 million yuan. The first defendant was accused of being responsible for all instances of insurance fraud in the case, while the third defendant, an appraiser from the involved appraisal agency, was the only motor vehicle accident damage appraiser identified as an accomplice in the dozens of alleged incidents. Based on the alleged amount of fraud, both defendants faced prison terms of ten years or more.
After the case entered the trial phase with sentencing recommendations of over ten years for both defendants, the families of the defendants urgently retained attorneys Li Zhiguang and Ning Yu from Beijing King&Capital Law Firm to serve as defense counsel for the first and third defendants, respectively.
II. Pretrial Conference Reveals Major Procedural Violations in the Appraisal; Prosecution Withdraws Indictment
After the two attorneys became involved, they swiftly established a not-guilty defense strategy, clearly pointing out that the case contained significant issues regarding both the determination of facts and the legal characterization of the charges. They applied to convene a pretrial conference and requested that the appraiser appear in court to testify.
At the first pretrial conference, through intensive questioning of the expert witness commissioned by the investigative authorities, the two attorneys demonstrated on the spot that: 1. The expert institution lacked the necessary qualifications to conduct the appraisal; 2. The source of the expert’s qualification certificate was illegal; 3. The certificate held by the expert indicated that he lacked the professional expertise required for the matters relevant to this case; 4. The selection of the appraisal agency in this case did not follow statutory procedures. More importantly, through questioning, the defense counsel uncovered the key fact that the so-called victim insurance company had paid the appraisal fees directly to the agency, proving the existence of a direct conflict of interest between the appraisal agency and the victim entity, and demonstrating that the original appraisal opinion lacked any legal validity.
Following the pretrial conference, the collegiate bench immediately canceled the trial scheduled for the following day, and the prosecution subsequently withdrew the indictment.
III. Amended Indictment Following a Re-examination: Significant Reduction in Alleged Fraud Amounts
Subsequently, the investigating authorities spent one year re-engaging an expert institution to conduct a re-examination. When the prosecution filed the amended indictment, the structure of the case underwent significant changes: the alleged fraud amount against the first defendant was reduced from over 5 million yuan to just over 200,000 yuan, while that against the third defendant dropped to just over 20,000 yuan; At the same time, to align with the reduced amounts, the charges were amended to two counts—insurance fraud and fraud—and sentencing recommendations were proposed: eight years and six months’ imprisonment for the first defendant and one year and six months’ imprisonment for the third defendant.
IV. Intense Clashes During Trial: Upholding the Not-Guilty Defense and Refusing Sentencing Bargains
During the second pretrial conference and the trial proceedings, the prosecution and defense continued to engage in intense exchanges. The two attorneys continued to mount a not-guilty defense regarding the facts related to the fraud charges, bolstering the defendants’ confidence. While the other four defendants in the case all pleaded guilty and accepted penalties, the two defendants represented by attorneys Li Zhiguang and Ning Yu consistently refused to plead guilty or accept penalties for the alleged fraud charges and refused to enter into any sentencing deals.
On the factual level, the defense counsel clearly pointed out that reasonable clerical errors made by the expert witness cannot be construed as intentional fraud; moreover, the court must not engage in selective interpretation by recognizing only the portions of the clerical errors involving double-counting as intentional fraud while ignoring the portions involving undercounting.
Regarding the legal characterization, the defense pointed out that there was no evidence in the entire case proving the existence of a common intent to commit fraud between the first and third defendants; therefore, the two could not be deemed accomplices in the crime of fraud. The original expert report involved more than ten experts, yet only the third defendant was indicted, while the primary expert responsible for the report was deemed by the procuratorate not to have committed a crime and was granted a decision of non-prosecution immediately after the first court hearing. It is difficult to rule out the possibility that the prosecution of the third defendant was based solely on a presumption arising from his familial relationship with the first defendant, rather than on evidence and legal facts.
V. Judicial Bureau Refuses Probation Assessment, Yet Court Still Issues Lenient Sentence
After the trial concluded, the court delayed rendering a verdict for an extended period. Prior to sentencing, the third defendant was required to undergo a probation assessment at the Bureau of Justice; however, because he insisted on not pleading guilty or accepting punishment during the assessment, the Bureau of Justice refused to conduct the assessment and returned the materials to the court.
Ultimately, the court handed down the following sentences: The first defendant, whose expected sentence had been ten years or more in the first indictment and eight years and six months in the second indictment, was given a reduced sentence of three years and two months’ imprisonment; The third defendant, whose expected sentence had been over ten years and for whom a sentence of one year and six months had been recommended, was instead sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment, suspended for one year, thereby changing his status from the third defendant in the indictment to the defendant receiving the lightest sentence in the entire case.
Although the case did not result in an acquittal, the two attorneys, through precise questioning during pretrial conferences, successfully challenged the unlawful forensic evaluation, prompted the prosecution to withdraw the indictment, and significantly reduced the alleged amount. During the trial, they steadfastly maintained a not-guilty defense, ultimately securing the most substantial leniency and mitigation of punishment for the two defendants among the six defendants in the case—a truly commendable defense achievement.
Attorneys Li Zhiguang and Ning Yu will continue to uphold their duties as defense counsel, safeguarding their clients’ legitimate rights and interests as well as the dignity of the law.
