In terms of the nature of the actions, the group meeting held in September 2013 served as a critical decision point that led to the escalation of losses in this case. Notably, Sun某某 did not actually participate in either the communication or the decision-making process. Moreover, the approval forms involved were retroactively prepared and backdated by the sales company—clearly with the intent of "carrying out the group company's directives"—rather than being exercised within the scope of their statutory authority. At its core, this was essentially the sales company’s attempt to sidestep its own risks, lacking any legitimate institutional basis. Finally, Director Wang Jun reiterated the core logic behind the case’s acquittal: Criminal trials should go beyond the formalities of documentary evidence to examine the substance. Under the administrative management system of state-owned enterprises, Sun某某’s retroactively signed, hastily prepared approval form was merely an act of implementing the group’s pre-established resolutions—more accurately described not as an exercise of official authority, but rather as a reluctant move to take the blame within the systemic framework. Co-hosting the lecture, Associate Professor Lingbo Xu from Nanjing University School of Law and Associate Professor Guohé Yuan from Fudan University School of Law Co-hosting.

The course used the "Steel Case" and the "Smuggling Case" as entry points, engaging participants through practical adversarial simulations, expert commentary, and interactive Q&A sessions—drawing approximately 1,300 online viewers. It provides students and legal professionals alike with rich material for in-depth discussion and analysis. Among them, Director Wang Jun used the "Steel Case" as an example to systematically outline the case background, defense strategies, and the core logic behind the acquittal—this case stands out as a rare and successful instance of a defense successfully securing an acquittal in a job-related crime trial.

First, Director Wang Jun outlined the case background and the significance of the victory: In the current judicial context—where cases involving official misconduct typically face a "neither return nor extend" scenario after being transferred to the procuratorate (i.e., the procuratorate neither sends them back for further investigation by the supervisory commission nor extends the review-and-prosecution deadline, but instead directly prosecutes the original case in court)—this case successfully refuted the charge of abuse of power. At the heart of the defense was a strategic approach that cut through the unique dynamics of state-owned enterprises' "administrative-style operations": Specifically, the steel group (a state-controlled entity) relied on direct decision-making via its Party Committee meetings, with its subsidiary (the steel company) serving merely as an implementational tool backed by these decisions.

Next, Director Wang Jun elaborated on the specific defense strategy for this case:

Regarding the subject's identity, Director Wang Jun pointed out that the defendant, Sun某某, does not meet the criteria of being classified as "personnel from a state-owned company." According to the 2005 Interpretation issued by the Supreme People's Court on "How to Identify Personnel from State-Owned Companies and Enterprises in Jointly State-Controlled or Partially State-Owned Joint-Stock Companies," only individuals dispatched by purely state-owned enterprises to non-purely state-owned companies to perform official duties fall within this category. Meanwhile, under the 2010 Opinions jointly released by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on "Specific Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases Involving Official Misconduct in State-Invested Enterprises," this offense specifically refers to misconduct committed by state employees working in state-invested enterprises—particularly during "enterprise restructuring or state asset transfers." Notably, recent judicial interpretations and practical applications have expanded both the interpretation and scope of this crime.

In terms of the nature of the actions, the group meeting held in September 2013 served as a critical decision point that led to the escalation of losses in this case. Notably, Sun某某 did not actually participate in either the communication or the decision-making process. Moreover, the approval forms involved were retroactively prepared and backdated by the sales company—clearly with the intent of "carrying out the group company's directives"—rather than being exercised within the scope of their statutory authority. At its core, this was essentially the sales company’s attempt to sidestep its own risks, lacking any legitimate institutional basis.

Regarding the causal link and the determination of losses, the steel company involved is a mixed-ownership enterprise. Based on the prevailing practical debate at the time—specifically, whether to apply the "proportional approach" or the "holistic approach"—the loss of state-owned assets should not be calculated in full. More critically, examination of the documentary evidence reveals that Sun's signature was merely an act of implementing the group’s resolution; therefore, his approval signature has no substantial causal connection to the actual loss incurred. Ultimately, the court chose to sidestep the controversy over Sun's specific role, instead focusing on the chain of causation behind the alleged actions and delivering a verdict of not guilty.

As for the subjective elements, Director Wang Jun emphasized that the crime of abuse of power is an intentional offense, requiring proof that the perpetrator knowingly exceeded their authority or engaged in improper actions to achieve a specific outcome. However, in this case, the decision-making level—including the group’s chairman—clearly weighed business considerations between "immediate recognition of losses" and "potential future opportunities to minimize further damage," with no direct intent to cause financial harm. The trial did not focus on this particular point primarily because, while the sentencing for negligence among personnel of state-owned companies, enterprises, and institutions is not significantly different from that of abuse of power, the distinction still holds theoretical value for legal analysis.

Finally, Director Wang Jun reiterated the core logic behind the case’s acquittal: Criminal trials should look beyond the formalities of documentary evidence to examine the substance. Under the administrative management system of state-owned enterprises, Sun某某’s retroactively signed, hastily prepared approval form was merely an act of implementing the group’s pre-established resolutions—more accurately described not as an exercise of official authority, but rather as a reluctant move to take the blame within the systemic framework.

Additionally, Associate Professor Chen Haoming From the perspectives of fact-finding, key points of contention, and state-owned enterprise governance structures, a theoretical supplement is provided to the "Steel Case."

Director Mao Hongtao and Dr. Zheng Tong It analyzes the "smuggling case" from both practical and theoretical perspectives, offering students multi-dimensional insights.

This session of the course concluded successfully amid lively discussions, effectively bridging the gap between criminal law theory and judicial practice through case studies—and significantly enhancing participants' skills in case analysis and courtroom advocacy.

Edited and Layouted by: Wang Xin

Review: Management Committee