Cheng Xiaolu, Chair of the Partner Meeting at Beijing Xinglai Law Firm Invited to attend the conference, she participated as one of the lawyer representatives in the prosecutor-defense-judge academic dialogue session on "Procedural Issues in Bribery Crimes" held on the morning of the 10th. During the discussion, she shared her insights on key topics such as the alignment of investigative and prosecutorial procedures regarding coercive measures, the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, and the standards of proof. She stated:

First, the procuratorate can only communicate and consult with the supervisory commission regarding issues arising in case investigations—it lacks formal legal oversight authority. As a result, cooperation between the two bodies tends to outweigh mutual checks and balances, creating an institutional hurdle. However, Article 62 of the new Supervision Law states that "special supervisors shall, in accordance with regulations, oversee the performance of duties by supervisory agencies and their staff," effectively establishing an additional avenue for redress. Therefore, we should actively encourage and leverage the supervisory role of these special supervisors.

Secondly, the new Supervision Law introduces mandatory appearance requirements, orders to await investigation, and protective measures—effectively addressing the previous lack of alternative measures aside from detention. This also creates room for lawyers to play a more active role during the Commission’s investigative phase. Specifically: First, if the person under investigation is subject to detention or protective measures, lawyers can provide legal assistance to their immediate family members, helping them petition the Supervisory Commission to request a change in coercive measures to an "order to await investigation." Second, during the period of the "order to await investigation," there is no legal prohibition against meeting with a lawyer; thus, lawyers can offer crucial legal support (without needing approval from the Commission)—provided the individual strictly adheres to the regulations governing this phase. Finally, after the case is transferred for prosecution, lawyers gain greater opportunities to influence decisions regarding the application of coercive measures, as well as to scrutinize whether extensions of detention or any re-calculations of detention periods comply with legal standards.

Finally, currently in bribery-related crimes, there is a widespread issue of failing to submit synchronized audio-video recordings, monitoring personnel not appearing in court, and prosecutors and judges neglecting to exclude illegally obtained evidence—essentially rendering the exclusionary rule ineffective. We hope that in the future, breakthroughs can be made in addressing these three "no's." Moreover, she emphasized the need to remain highly vigilant against the deceptive appearance of "consistency between testimony and confession" often seen in bribery cases. Some investigators mistakenly believe that as long as the statements from both the briber and the bribe-taker corroborate each other—even if the defendants later recant their testimonies at the procuratorate or court—the original verdict will stand without question. This mindset leads them to disregard whether the defendant’s retractions are genuinely justified or reasonable under common sense, ultimately risking wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice.

The two-day forum featured keynote speeches, thematic discussions, adversarial debates among prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges, as well as open-discussion sessions. Participants delved into critical topics such as the judicial identification of new forms of covert bribery, the legal classification of bribery offenses, mechanisms for seamless collaboration in handling official misconduct cases, and substantive and procedural issues related to bribery crimes—aiming to foster a deeper integration and mutual advancement of legal theory and judicial practice.

Layout: Wang Xin

Review: Management Committee