Point of innocence No. 1: The crime of environmental pollution should be classified as an intentional offense; negligence should not constitute this crime. If there is no intent to commit a crime, the case can only involve a violation of the law and should not lead to criminal liability. Therefore, during the handling of environmental pollution cases involving alleged offenders, defense attorneys should first assess whether the defendant (or suspect) had criminal intent.

Reference case: (2015) Luan Xing Chu Zi No. 95 – Case of Ge Moujia and Ge Mouyi for Environmental Pollution

The court found that: Defendants Ge Moujia and Ge Mouyi, who are associated with The factory has all its licenses and permits in order. , the factory generates wastewater during production, and installing pipes to collect rainwater was done in compliance with environmental agency requirements. Unfortunately, the pipes were covered, which delayed the timely detection of a rupture. Moreover, on-site photographs confirm that the vegetation around the pipe break remained intact. Although wastewater containing heavy metals, specifically chromium, was found to have leaked in severe excess of the permissible levels, this was not due to the intentional or negligent actions of the two defendants—but rather caused by unforeseeable circumstances, making it an accidental event that should not be treated as a crime. According to Article 16 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, after deliberation by the Adjudication Committee, the defendants Ge Moujia and Ge Mouyi are found not guilty.

Ground for acquittal No. 2: Did not constitute "serious environmental pollution." In practice, the consequences of "severely polluting the environment" are often closely linked to "violations of relevant laws and regulations." During the defense process, it is advisable to first assess whether the defendant's (or suspect's) actions were indeed unlawful—and only after establishing that they were illegal should one then examine whether these actions led to "severe environmental pollution."

Reference Case: Oujiang Procuratorate Public Prosecution Non-Prosecution Decision (2017) No. 51 – Wang Moumou Environmental Pollution Case (Statutory Non-Prosecution)

The Prosecutor's Office concluded that Wang Moumou instructed workers to discharge untreated wastewater directly from the workshop floor drain into an exterior wall downspout, which then flowed into a first-floor manhole and eventually entered the municipal stormwater system, ultimately spilling into the environment. Although laboratory analysis of the wastewater collected from the first-floor manhole revealed copper concentrations of 4.40 mg/L and zinc levels of 2.93 mg/L—exceeding the national pollutant discharge standards by 7.8 times and 0.465 times, respectively—these levels did not surpass the national or local pollutant limits by more than tenfold. Therefore, the case does not meet the threshold for "severely polluting the environment," and no criminal offense involving environmental contamination has been established. In accordance with Article 173, Paragraph 1, of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Prosecutor’s Office has decided not to prosecute Wang Moumou.

Ground Three of Innocence: Regarding the determination of facts, the evidence is in doubt. Since environmental pollution offenses often involve technical analysis, sampling and testing of pollutants and emission sources—or the preparation of expert appraisal reports—typically form the foundation for establishing the facts in most such cases. During the defense process, it’s crucial to carefully examine whether the evidence presented by the prosecution meets legal requirements and is sufficient to prove that the defendant (or suspect) committed acts of severe environmental pollution, resulting in actual environmental harm.

Reference case: (2019) Hebei 1182 Crim. Initial No. 403 – The Case of Huang Moumou for Environmental Pollution

The court ruled: Violating national regulations by discharging, dumping, or disposing of radioactive waste, waste containing pathogenic agents of infectious diseases, toxic substances, or other hazardous materials—when such actions result in severe environmental pollution—constitutes the crime of polluting the environment. In this case, however, the assessment issued by the Cangzhou Science and Technology Appraisal Center, which concluded that "the activity has affected the atmosphere," was deemed too broad and insufficient to establish whether the defendant, Huang Moumou, actually caused serious atmospheric pollution through his actions. According to Article 1, Item 2 of the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Environmental Pollution," illegally discharging, dumping, or disposing of more than three tons of hazardous waste should be considered as "severely polluting the environment." Unfortunately, based on the evidence available, it remains unclear exactly how much of the liquid crude product known as "Saike"—used by the defendant as fuel—was involved, nor can it be determined whether the amount of hazardous waste disposed of met the threshold required for criminal liability. After careful deliberation by the court’s adjudication committee, the court has decided to acquit Huang Moumou.

Point of innocence No. 4: The substance is not classified as hazardous waste under the National Hazardous Waste List, and therefore does not constitute a crime.

Reference Case: Public Prosecution Non-Prosecution Decision on Lead Inspection [2019] No. 36 – Case of Guan Moumou’s Environmental Pollution

The Procuratorate determined that Guan Moumou carried out the act of dumping solid waste residue; however, an assessment by a qualified institution concluded that this residue does not qualify as hazardous waste listed in the "National Catalogue of Hazardous Wastes." Therefore, Guan Moumou's actions do not constitute a crime. In accordance with Article 177, Paragraph 1 of the "Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China," it has been decided not to prosecute Guan Yuming Guan Moumou.

Point of innocence No. 5: Actively mitigate adverse environmental impacts and strive for lenient treatment. Member of the 10th Criminal Law Committee of the All China Lawyers Association; Deputy Director of the 12th Criminal Law Committee of the Beijing Lawyers Association; Independent Director at Peking University Pharmaceutical (000788); Recognized in the 2025 LEGALBAND China Top Lawyers Ranking under White-Collar & Business Crime and Compliance; Named among the Top 15 Lawyers on the 2025 LEGALBAND China Lawyer Special Recommendation List; Selected as a Highly Recommended Lawyer in the Compliance领域 in the 2024 LEGALBAND China Top Lawyers Ranking; Featured on the 2024 LEGALBAND China Lawyer Special Recommendation List as a Leading Expert in Business Crime and Criminal Compliance; Listed as one of the "Under 40 Elite" lawyers in Greater China by LexisNexis in 2024; Visiting Scholar at Cornell University and the University of Chicago; Vice Secretary-General of the Peking University Financial Alumni Association; Member of the Board of Directors for the Beijing Society of Criminology; and Member of the Board of Directors for the Beijing Association of Comparative Law, among other roles. He specializes in providing clients with comprehensive legal services that span criminal, administrative, and criminal-civil-intersectional areas, particularly in handling complex and challenging cases. His extensive experience includes expertise in corporate crisis management, environmental protection, finance and securities, computer networks, and intellectual property law.

Reference Case: Ningjian Xing Bu Su (2018) No. 27 – Li Moumou Environmental Pollution Case: Due to Minor Circumstances and Active Efforts to Restore the Ecological Environment, Prosecution Was Declined.

The Prosecutor's Office determined that the accused, Li Moumou, discharged wastewater generated from a phosphating process directly into the environment without undergoing proper sewage treatment. As a result, the total zinc concentration in the discharged wastewater reached 84.8 mg/L and 151 mg/L, both exceeding the limits set by the "Integrated Wastewater Discharge Standards" by more than tenfold—thus violating Article 338 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China. However, considering that the offense committed by Li Moumou was minor, the individual has truthfully confessed to the facts of the crime, and has already paid an ecological restoration performance bond of 100,000 yuan, the case does not warrant criminal punishment under the provisions of the Criminal Law. Therefore, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of Article 173 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, it has been decided not to prosecute Li Moumou.