Recently, a verdict was handed down in the case of Mr. Wang, a former senior executive of a state-owned enterprise, who was accused of embezzlement and bribery and was represented by attorney Xu Ming of King&Capital Law Firm. By analyzing the ownership of the funds and reviewing comparable cases, the attorney identified flaws in the charges for both offenses. He consistently argued for acquittal during both the prosecution review and trial phases, ultimately persuading the court to rule that the characterization of the embezzlement charge was incorrect. The court consolidated the two charges into a single offense, thereby avoiding cumulative sentencing and absorbing the two serious crimes—each carrying a sentence of more than ten years—into a single charge.

I. Case Summary

The defendant, Mr. Wang, was nearly 60 years old at the time and had previously served as a senior executive at a key state-owned enterprise. The prosecution alleged that Mr. Wang used 19 million yuan from security deposits paid by business counterparties to purchase government bonds and stocks, constituting the crime of embezzlement; additionally, he facilitated construction contracts for others and accepted over 6 million yuan in property payments corresponding to real estate, constituting the crime of accepting bribes. Both charges carried sentences of ten years or more. After the case entered the review and prosecution stage, Attorney Xu Ming was retained to represent the client. The lawyer faced enormous challenges: how to resolve the adverse situation posed by these two serious crimes; how to find a breakthrough within the fine line between guilt and innocence, as well as between the legal characterization and sentencing of the offenses; and how to ensure a smooth resolution of the case against the backdrop of official misconduct.

II. The Attorney’s Work

After accepting the retainer, Attorney Xu Ming comprehensively assessed the evidence in the entire case and concluded that the defense should first focus on the legal characterization of the charges, maintaining a not-guilty defense as a breakthrough point to facilitate negotiations with the prosecuting authorities.

Guided by this strategy, Attorney Xu Ming scrutinized each element of the embezzlement charge—including the negotiation process, agreements, receipts, fund flows, and relevant civil judgments—item by item. He pointed out that the original copies of the relevant agreements were missing, and that the parties had not established a complete chain of evidence regarding the amount of the security deposit or the method of its safekeeping; relying solely on the receipt issued by Mr. Wang was insufficient to establish that all funds constituted the company’s security deposit; the disputed 19 million yuan had not entered the company’s accounts, the company had not actually managed or used the funds, and no corresponding losses had been incurred. To strengthen the defense regarding the legal characterization of the charges, Attorney Xu Ming reviewed similar criminal trial cases, which provided strong support for the argument that the charge of embezzlement could not be established. Based on this, Attorney Xu Ming drafted a written defense brief and engaged in multiple rounds of communication with the investigating authorities. By addressing the scope of the security deposit, the company’s control over the funds, and the explanation of losses, he prompted the authorities to reexamine the basis for the embezzlement charge.

At the same time, regarding the evidentiary dispute concerning the real estate portion of the case, Attorney Xu Ming—drawing on materials such as the nominee holding agreement, the flow of proceeds from the sale, and special notes signed by the business counterparties—argued that one cannot presume, based solely on formal property registration and disposition acts, that Wang actually controlled the proceeds from the property sale and possessed the intent to accept a bribe. This prompted the investigating authorities to conduct a comprehensive review of the control over funds and subjective intent.

III. Case Outcome

Thanks to the attorney’s persistent focus on the issue of legal characterization, the investigating authorities conducted a meticulous review of the case. Ultimately, the court reclassified the embezzlement charges as bribery, ultimately convicting the defendant of a single count of bribery for the two alleged acts, thereby consolidating two serious crimes—each carrying a sentence of ten years or more—into a single offense.

In the defense of official misconduct cases, the characterization of the case, strategic choices, and communication with the investigating authorities are all indispensable. Ultimately, however, grasping the essence of the case is paramount. Only by looking beyond the surface appearance of the funds’ intended use and focusing on ownership, control, losses, and the chain of evidence itself can one accurately define the boundaries of criminal liability and achieve substantively effective defense outcomes. The significant reduction in the prison sentence in this case fully demonstrates Attorney Xu Ming’s professional ability to identify breakthroughs in the defense and safeguard the boundaries of criminal liability.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)