Taking advantage of his position, Mr. Huang illegally secured shares in a listed company through an intermediary that he himself controlled. Using this method, Mr. Huang was able to make a profit of CNY 3,480,000.00 (USD 535,000.00). A second manipulation using this method also netted him CNY 306,000,000.00 (USD 47 million). King & Capital argued that these transactions were in the best interests of the company and well outside the restricted period of stock transactions.
As for illegal business operation, with the assistance of a senior official from the Chinese Ministry of Public Security, Mr. Huang was involved in the illegal exchange of Chinese currency (CNY) into Hong Kong Dollars (HKD) and the amount was in the order of HKD 822 million (USD 105 million). In his defense, King & Capital argued that Mr. Huang had no direct knowledge of this exchange and as such should not be prosecuted and his behavior clearly fell short of the minimum requisite to be classified as a crime.
Regarding the bribery charge, through intermediaries, Mr. Huang made payments to a police officer and officials from the Chinese Administration of Taxation who were investigating the business activities of companies that he was managing. Payments ranged in value from CNY 1,050,000.00 (USD 160,000) to CNY 500,000.00 (USD 77,000). In the case of the police officer’s bribery case, King & Capital argued that Mr. Huang made the payment to show his gratitude for not visiting his company in police uniforms and police cars, damaging the reputation of the company. In the case of the taxation bribe, King & Capital established that the bribe was solicited by the powerful tax officials but not the true will of Mr. Huang or his company or was for illegal interest of the company and thus shall not be deemed as the crime of offering bribery according to Chinese laws.
Mr. Huang was ultimately sentenced to 14 years in jail, was ordered to pay of fine of CNY 600 million (USD 92 million) and had CNY 200 million (USD 31 million) worth of property confiscated. Comparing with the original prosecution, the sentence has been made after much consideration of the defending lawyers’ argument.
