On the afternoon of December 28, 2025, The 20th “Ten Criminal Defense Lawyers” Forum At China University of Political Science and Law Conference Room 0111, Comprehensive Library Building, Haidian Campus Successfully held, special seminar “ The Liaison Between the Two Laws and Defense in Offenses Involving Official Duties under the Background of “Three Transformations” (Standardization, Rule of Law, and Regularization) ”。

This forum is hosted by The “Ten Criminal Defense Lawyers” Forum in Beijing is co-organized by the Institute of Evidence Science at China University of Political Science and Law and jointly hosted by Beijing Zhoutai Law Firm. The guests attending this forum include the initiators of the “Ten Criminal Defense Lawyers” Forum: Yang Kuangsheng, Director of Beijing Zhongtong Law Firm; Xu Lanting, Attorney at Beijing Junyong Law Firm; Qian Lieyang, Director of Beijing Zihua Law Firm; Liu Weidong, Director of Beijing Guanheng Law Firm; Wang Zhaofeng, Director of Beijing Zhoutai Law Firm; Zhao Yunheng, Honorary Director of Beijing Xinglai Law Firm; Mao Lixin, Director of Beijing Shangquan Law Firm; Zhu Yonghui, Director of Beijing Jingdu Law Firm; and Mao Hongtao, Director of the Management Committee of Beijing Dongwei Law Firm. Cheng Xiaolu, Chairperson of the Partners’ Meeting of Beijing Xinglai Law Firm, and Zhao Chunyu, Director of the Management Committee of Beijing Yingke Law Firm, also attended the meeting and participated in the discussions.

This forum also invited Professor Liu Yanhong, Vice President of China University of Political Science and Law, to deliver the opening address, and invited... Professor Zhang Zhong, Vice Dean of the Institute of Evidence Science at China University of Political Science and Law and Doctoral Supervisor; Professor Li Fenfei, Jointly Appointed Professor at the School of Law and the School of Discipline Inspection and Supervision of Renmin University of China, and Doctoral Supervisor; and Associate Professor Fang Baoguo from the Institute of Evidence Science at China University of Political Science and Law served as commentators and moderators. This forum is supported by institutions including Fazhi Net, China Net, and Lushi Weiyan. From... More than 70 experts, scholars, lawyers, and senior professionals from law schools, the legal community, and industry media attended the forum in person. The forum adopted a hybrid “online-plus-offline” approach and was simultaneously live-streamed, drawing extensive attention from the legal community, the legal profession, judicial authorities, and media colleagues. The number of online viewers reached 9,000 at any given moment.

The forum officially began at 2:30 p.m. The opening of the forum was chaired by Attorney Cheng Xiaolu, Chair of the Partner Meeting of Beijing Xinglai Law Firm and Secretary-General of the “Ten Criminal Defense Lawyers” Forum. Attorney Cheng Xiaolu pointed out that, This year’s forum, themed “The Integration of Two Laws and Defense in Offenses Involving Public Officials under the Background of ‘Three Modernizations,’” carries significant contemporary relevance and practical value. The 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and the Fourth Plenary Session of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection have emphasized the need to deepen the building of discipline inspection and supervision work along the lines of “standardization, rule of law, and regularization.” This year not only marks a year of deepening the “Three Modernizations” initiative but also sees the official implementation of the newly revised Supervision Law. The new law introduces important adjustments in areas such as coercive measures, detention periods, and remedies for rights; at the same time, it establishes principles including “equal responsibility and authority,” “protection of rights,” and “minimizing the impact of investigations on the normal operations of enterprises.” This development signifies that supervisory work is now firmly placed within the framework of the rule of law, while also presenting both new opportunities and challenges for criminal defense. Under the current context of “three transformations,” what substantive, procedural, and evidentiary challenges does defense in cases involving official misconduct face? And how can lawyers expand their roles and effectively fulfill their duties within the framework of the new legal system? These are the key topics and significance of this forum.

The forum was opened with a speech by Professor Liu Yanhong, Vice President of China University of Political Science and Law. Professor Liu Yanhong warmly congratulated and highly praised the continued smooth operation and academic branding of the “Ten Criminal Defense Lawyers Forum.” Drawing on the discussion theme of this forum, she pointed out that defense in cases involving official misconduct has always been an important component of criminal defense practice, posing significant challenges to defense lawyers’ professional skills and strategic acumen. In practice, lawyers have actively explored various approaches and systematically summarized their experiences, thus developing a relatively mature set of defense strategies. Overall, the trend in defending against official misconduct is moving in a positive direction. As the country continues to advance its rule-of-law efforts—especially under the backdrop of the “Three Modernizations”—the mechanism for connecting the two legal systems is becoming increasingly sophisticated, bringing continuous good news for defense in official misconduct cases. This forum, bringing together top criminal defense lawyers and outstanding scholars, provides an opportune platform for specialized discussions, which will have profound implications for promoting effective defense in related fields. Finally, Professor Liu Yanhong extended her best wishes for the complete success of this forum.

Fang Baoguo

Director of the Management Committee, Dongwei Law Firm, Beijing Municipality Attorney Mao Hongtao focused on the “ Three Transformations Effective Defense in Second-Instance Trials for Official Crimes under the Current Context 》 We propose the following four key points: First, establish a solid foundation for representation through mutual selection. When taking on a case, conduct a careful assessment—begin by analyzing the first-instance documents; if there is room for defense, thoroughly review the entire case file. Reach a shared understanding of objectives with the client and avoid making promises about specific outcomes. Second, strive for procedural rights based on absolute trust. When the court urges the submission of written submissions or intends to hold a written trial, rely on the client’s explicit authorization and, in accordance with the law, firmly insist that “a hearing must be held whenever new evidence emerges.” Third, proactively gather evidence to open up the factual battleground. Be bold and skilled in challenging accusations by obtaining various types of evidence—especially objective evidence—and ensure compliance in evidence collection through having two witnesses present and recording the entire process with audio and video. Fourth, build consensus on the case through professional interaction. Engage in rational, continuous, and constructive communication with the court and the procuratorate regarding new evidence and legal opinions, thereby encouraging the prosecution to recognize the defense’s arguments and laying the groundwork for a consensus that can lead to a retrial with a more favorable outcome. Under the “three modernizations” requirements set forth at the Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, the above-mentioned practices embody standardized review procedures, rule-of-law-based protection of rights, and formalized operational approaches—using individual cases to drive the ecosystem for handling official misconduct cases toward greater fairness and enhanced attention to the protection of rights.

Lawyer Yang Kuangsheng, Director of Beijing Zhongtong Law Firm, delivered a keynote speech titled “Standards for Examining Evidence in Official Crime Cases and Evidence-Based Defense.” He argued that the linkage between the “Two Laws” refers to the integration of the investigation procedures conducted by the Supervisory Commission and the criminal litigation procedures. In this integration process, the issue of evidence is paramount. Lawyer Yang Kuangsheng elaborated on his views from four specific aspects. First, he emphasized that the core of linking the “Two Laws” lies in upholding the consistency of evidentiary standards. Since evidentiary standards remain consistent across different stages of criminal proceedings, the evidentiary standards for official crime cases should also be aligned with those for other criminal cases. Second, he stressed the need for rigorous scrutiny of testimonial evidence in official crime cases. Given that evidence in such cases is obtained prior to the initiation of criminal proceedings—and that in many cases, testimonial evidence constitutes the primary form of evidence—relying solely on superficial mutual corroboration among these testimonies makes it extremely difficult to ensure the legality and authenticity of the evidence content. Therefore, lawyers must make full use of the means permitted by law to conduct thorough and stringent reviews; this is an indispensable tool for lawyers to mount effective evidence-based defenses. Third, Should be given high priority. The current situation is characterized by a lack of effective means for examining verbal evidence in cases involving official misconduct, as well as the difficulty faced by defense attorneys in mounting a truly effective evidentiary defense. He argues that in many cases, both lawyers and defendants raise questions about the legality and authenticity of evidence, yet prosecutors and judges rely on extremely limited review methods. They tend to conclude that evidence is both lawful and authentic simply because it was obtained in accordance with the law and corroborates other pieces of evidence. Moreover, numerous requests submitted by lawyers are routinely denied. Finally, Attorney Yang Kuangsheng believes that efforts to scrutinize evidence must be intensified, and that this should facilitate more effective evidentiary defenses by lawyers. To this end, he puts forward specific recommendations covering aspects such as requiring witnesses to appear in court, allowing access to simultaneous audio and video recordings, having investigators appear in court to explain the circumstances, and enabling lawyers to conduct their own investigations and gather evidence.

The speech delivered by Attorney Xu Lanting from Beijing Junyong Law Firm was titled “Key Points in Defending Cases Involving Bribery Through Lending and Interest Collection.” Drawing on his analysis of several cases he has handled, Attorney Xu elaborated in detail on the key points of contention and the difficulties faced in defending such cases. He pointed out that the core distinction between legitimate private lending and bribery disguised as lending lies in examining whether the borrower genuinely has a need for funds, whether the two parties are on an equal footing, whether the agreed-upon interest rate significantly deviates from the normal market level, and whether there exists a relationship of official authority or control. The essence of “power-for-money transactions” is the cornerstone for establishing the crime of bribery; if this characteristic is absent, it would be inappropriate to impose a simple conviction. Addressing the common defense challenges in these cases—where evidence often consists of “one-to-one” testimonies and predominantly relies on verbal evidence—Attorney Xu Lanting proposed three major strategic approaches to defense: focusing on verifying the authenticity of the borrower’s funding needs, meticulously identifying and comparing contradictions in the evidence, and demonstrating the reasonableness of the interest collected. He emphasized that in defending such cases, it is crucial to adhere to the principle of unity between subjective and objective elements and uphold the spirit of “presumption of innocence,” thereby ensuring effective defense.

Lawyer Qian Lieyang, director of Beijing Zihua Law Firm, delivered a speech titled “Challenging Evidence in Official Crime Cases and Legal Analysis.” He... He pointed out that “the alignment of the two laws under the backdrop of ‘three transformations’” directly addresses the pain points in criminal defense, but its positioning and applicability still need to be clarified. He Pose the key question: Is the “Three Transformations” ultimately an internal restraint mechanism within the discipline inspection system, or a quantified standard for external oversight? He especially... Pay close attention to whether the procuratorial organs’ supervision over cases handled by the supervisory authorities can truly be implemented effectively. He pointed out that the Criminal Procedure Law grants the procuratorates powers of supervision, such as excluding illegally obtained evidence and applying the principle of “in dubio pro reo.” However, whether these mechanisms can function equally effectively when dealing with the supervisory authorities remains a question continuously debated in practice. Particular attention should be paid to the differences between the prosecution opinion letter and the indictment—these differences reflect whether the procuratorial organs are genuinely fulfilling their supervisory duties in accordance with the law.

Attorney Qian Lieyang A typical case was shared: In traditional bribery cases, the ingrained mindset of “the boss issuing a promissory note to the official—calling it a loan but actually giving money” is widespread. However, in... In this case, the loan contract signed between the official and the businessman was in fact a joint investment agreement, supported by evidence such as property mortgages and profit-sharing arrangements. The objective facts clearly indicate that this was a commercial collaboration rather than a quid pro quo transaction involving power and money. Yet despite the abundance of evidence, the procuratorial authorities, in their response, still appeared somewhat helpless, finding it difficult to conduct a thorough legal analysis of the case. Based on this, he emphasized that the key intersection point for the “three transformations” and the seamless connection between the two laws lies precisely with the procuratorates. The procuratorial authorities must accurately grasp the essence of the “three transformations,” effectively implement the requirements for linking the two laws, and—just as they would handle criminal investigation cases initiated by public security organs—lawfully revise, overturn, or suspend prosecution in cases handled by the disciplinary inspection commissions, thereby truly achieving a rule-of-law-based system of checks and balances on power.

Chairman of the Partners’ Meeting, Beijing Xinglai Law Firm Attorney Cheng Xiaolu’s speech is titled: The Expansion of Criminal Lawyers’ Participation and Functional Scope in the Context of Amendments to the Supervision Law She pointed out that current defense strategies in cases involving official misconduct face several prominent challenges: 1. Post-transfer to judicial authorities, recantations are not uncommon; 2. The exclusion-of-illegally-obtained-evidence procedure often remains merely formalistic, rendering procedural defenses virtually ineffective; 3. Defense counsel appointed by clients frequently face interference and “placeholder” defense tactics are prevalent; 4. Separate trials for guilty pleas versus non-guilty pleas weaken the effectiveness of cross-examination. The underlying causes include: the closed nature of investigative procedures and the lack of external oversight; the consultation-and-reporting mechanism undermines the independent judgment of prosecutors and judges; and judicial personnel, facing real career risks, hesitate to exercise their supervisory powers. The implementation of the new Supervision Law not only brings challenges related to expanded powers but also offers opportunities for the rule of law. Lawyers should proactively leverage the rights-protection provisions in the new law, achieve substantive expansion of their functions, and take an active role in the process of rule-of-law development: First, preventive measures—provide legal training to public officials and entrepreneurs, emphasizing the importance of backing up and retaining copies of critical documents; second, during the investigation phase—although direct meetings with clients are prohibited, lawyers can still offer legal advice to family members, assist in applying for changes to coercive measures, guide families on how to respond prudently to demands for restitution, legally represent clients in appeals, and even act as agents for handling assets involved in the case; third, once the case enters the judicial process—persist in comprehensive defense, covering both substantive and procedural aspects, actively filing all necessary motions without hesitation; utilize channels such as complaints and appeals to protect clients’ rights, and explore the possibility of seeking oversight through the system of specially appointed supervisors.

The commentator for the first half is... Professor Zhang Zhong, Vice Dean of the Institute of Evidence Science at China University of Political Science and Law and Doctoral Supervisor. He first... From multiple perspectives—including case-handling techniques, evidence review, legal application, and business development—this summary encapsulates the valuable experiences shared by the first five speakers in defending against official misconduct charges. Afterwards, he pointed out... Evidence-based defense has become the new norm in criminal defense. The following aspects should receive particular attention: the admissibility and probative value of evidence during the supervisory process, the issue of excluding illegally obtained evidence, the issue of investigators appearing in court, the issue of the identity of evidence, and the issue of challenging expert opinions, as well as... How to Leverage Expert Assistants Question. Finally, Professor Zhang Zhong summarized: Defense attorneys should not confine themselves to passive defense; rather, they should proactively build a defense system centered on evidence. By conducting thorough evidence analysis, they can promote substantive adjudication of the case and achieve effective defense.

Wang Bo

The second half of the forum was moderated by Wang Bo, an attorney from Beijing Shangquan Law Firm and the secretary of the “Ten Criminal Defense Lawyers” Forum.

The first speaker in the second half of the forum was Liu Weidong, Director of Beijing Guanheng Law Firm. His speech was titled “The Determination of ‘Agreed-upon’ Bribery Should Strictly Adhere to Evidence Standards.” Director Liu Weidong shared defense strategies for conventional bribery cases from two main perspectives. The first is to defend from the angles of facts and evidence, including: 1. Whether there are circumstances where illegally obtained evidence should be excluded; 2. Whether the verbal evidence is inconsistent over time; 3. In cases where proceedings are split for separate hearings, is there a situation in which the related files are incomplete or not comprehensive? 4. Whether the agreement is obviously unreasonable or contrary to common sense and normal human conduct; 5. The defense requested the court to obtain the simultaneous recording to verify whether the defendant had memorized the text and then read or wrote it verbatim. 6. The “deceptive leadership” agreement and the “no one takes it seriously” agreement should be treated with caution as grounds for conviction; 7. An agreement with a specific related party should be defended not only from the perspective of whether the party was “aware,” but also from the perspective of whether the party “gave instructions”; 8. Defend from the perspective of whether there is reasonable suspicion of profit-driven enforcement.

Second, defense from the perspective of legal application. Includes: 1. Assuming that the aforementioned facts and evidence can both be established, the criminal form of “agreed-upon” bribery should be classified as preparatory crime rather than attempted crime. 2. The view in judicial practice that “custodial” bribery should be treated as attempted crime should be corrected.

Finally, he offered two specific recommendations for judicial practice. First, With regard to convictions for “agreed-upon” bribery, the court should mitigate or exempt the punishment. If evidence existed prior to the incident indicating that payment was impossible, prosecution should no longer be pursued. Second, Investigating officers should abandon the mindset of presumed guilt and prevent the trend toward the expansion of agreed-upon bribery cases in judicial practice.

The topic of Attorney Wang Zhaofeng, Director of Beijing Zhoutai Law Firm, is: Expression of Defense Arguments Under the Background of “Three Transformations” He pointed out that, The realization of the “three modernizations” goal in disciplinary inspection and supervision requires not only self-discipline on the part of supervisory authorities but also external oversight, including from the legal profession. The prerequisite for lawyers to promote the “three modernizations” is that they should have ample opportunities to fully express their defense arguments throughout the handling of official misconduct cases. However, the reality is this: during the investigation stage under the supervision authority, lawyers are unable to intervene, leaving the procedural and substantive rights of those under investigation inadequately protected in a timely manner. In the stages of review and prosecution and trial, on the one hand, the supervisory authorities continue to wield extensive supervisory powers over the entire process and lifecycle of a case, wielding considerable influence over the direction and outcome of the case; on the other hand, lawyers are still barred from directly submitting their views to the supervisory authorities, thereby undermining the achievement of the goal of fairness in case handling.

To this end, Attorney Wang Zhaofeng suggests the following: 1. During the investigation stage by the Supervisory Commission, lawyers should be permitted—as family representatives—to submit evidence favorable to the person under investigation to the supervisory authority, file applications for recusal, raise objections to jurisdiction, request changes to coercive measures, and submit preliminary legal opinions. 2. Add a provision stipulating that, as needed, prior to transferring a case for review and prosecution after the conclusion of the supervisory investigation, the supervisory authority shall solicit the opinion of the lawyer. During the review and prosecution stage, depending on the specific circumstances, investigators from the Supervisory Commission should be invited to participate in evidence disclosure sessions and case hearings. In the trial stage, it should be stipulated that, in cases where the defendant does not plead guilty or where the lawyer is mounting an acquittal defense, the supervisory authority must assign personnel to observe the proceedings. 3. It should be stipulated that, whether reporting to or consulting with the supervisory authority, both the procuratorial organs and the judicial organs must simultaneously submit to the supervisory authority the lawyer’s written defense arguments. In short, lawyers should be viewed as a positive force in promoting the “three modernizations” of the supervisory authority; mechanisms should be optimized to encourage greater involvement of lawyers in the handling of official misconduct cases, thereby accelerating the achievement of the “three modernizations” goals.

Lawyer Zhao Yunheng, Honorary Director of Beijing Xinglai Law Firm, with the topic: The issue of redress for the rights of non-official personnel when they are under investigation. Under the title “Rights and Remedies for Non-Official Personnel When Investigated,” Zhao shared his views on this issue. Lawyer Yun Heng It is observed that the number of non-official personnel—including entrepreneurs—currently under investigation by supervisory authorities continues to rise. Yet, in these cases, lawyers’ right to defense is conspicuously absent. This issue should be addressed from three perspectives. First, non-official personnel have the right to a full and comprehensive right to defense; depriving them of this right lacks legal justification. After all, non-official personnel are not subjects of supervision and thus do not fall under the purview of ordinary disciplinary violations or Party and administrative sanctions. Non-official personnel First, being placed in custody automatically triggers criminal prosecution, and anyone subject to criminal prosecution naturally enjoys the full right to defense. Second, where there is a right, there must also be redress; therefore, we should promptly establish a transitional mechanism, starting with limited defense provided by lawyers, helping those under investigation request changes to coercive measures, offering substantive defense opinions, and safeguarding their lawful property. Third, we should make good use of the “three modernizations” context, intensify research on both the theoretical foundations and institutional design of the right to defense for those under investigation, and thereby achieve greater progress in fully and effectively aligning human rights protection within the framework of the “two laws.”

Lawyer Mao Lixin, director of the Beijing Shangquan Law Firm, delivered a speech titled “Review and Cross-Examination of the Authenticity of Verbal Evidence in Official Crime Cases.” He began by pointing out that the “three transformations” represent both requirements for discipline inspection and supervision work and for anti-corruption efforts—a task that calls for long-term commitment. From the perspective of evidence review, verifying the authenticity of evidence and distinguishing between true and false is of great significance in preventing wrongful convictions. At the legislative level of criminal procedure, he suggested establishing the principle of voluntariness of confessions, excluding entirely any non-voluntary statements; and setting forth rules for excluding hearsay evidence—whenever either the prosecution or the defense raises objections to witness testimony records, the witness must invariably appear in court to testify and undergo cross-examination by both sides. On the technical level of defense, he shared methods for reviewing and challenging the authenticity of verbal evidence: First, examine the process by which verbal evidence was obtained, checking interrogation audio and video recordings as well as transcripts to determine whether there are inconsistencies over time or “synchronous fluctuations” caused by artificial inducements or directed questioning; second, challenge “corroboration”—assessing whether corroborating pieces of evidence are admissible, whether they come from independent sources, and whether there are substantial discrepancies among them; third, apply common sense, everyday reasoning, and empirical logic for verification—when seemingly corroborating pieces of evidence fail to conform to common sense, everyday reasoning, and empirical logic, the only conclusion we can draw is that they are “both false,” rather than “both true”; fourth, drawing on the “anchoring narrative method,” conduct a holistic analysis of the entire case. The core facts—such as bribery and acceptance of bribes—must be “anchored” in a series of preliminary and foundational facts, including the reasons for the bribe, the source of funds, and the destination of those funds. If the preliminary and foundational facts lack sufficient evidentiary support, the core facts themselves will be difficult to establish.

Lawyer Zhu Yonghui, director of Beijing Jingdu Law Firm, proposed a systematic reflection and a phased reform strategy regarding whether simultaneous audio-video recordings of interrogations can replace interrogation transcripts as admissible evidence. He pointed out that current criminal proceedings heavily rely on interrogation transcripts, yet such evidence is essentially “secondary evidence,” fraught with risks of information loss and distortion. As a result, it is difficult for these transcripts to fully and objectively reflect the original substance of the interrogation, creating an inherent contradiction with the fundamental goal of judicial activities—seeking “objective truth.” By contrast, simultaneous audio-video recordings of interrogations can comprehensively, intuitively, and continuously capture the entire interrogation process, encompassing every detail, including verbal expressions, tone of voice, and facial expressions. This makes them significantly superior in ensuring the voluntariness of statements, preventing illegal evidence collection, and restoring the factual truth, and they should rightfully become a more reliable form of evidence. However, the practical application of this approach faces real-world obstacles: legally, the evidentiary status of such recordings remains unclear, and in practice, they are often rejected as independent evidence for retrieval and cross-examination; furthermore, in actual operations, challenges such as time-consuming access procedures and relatively high storage costs also pose significant hurdles.

In response, lawyer Zhu Yonghui believes that the issue can be addressed from three perspectives: First, at the legislative level, the independent evidentiary status of simultaneous audio and video recordings of interrogations should be clearly defined, ensuring that such recordings can be legally obtained and used as a basis for final judgments. Second, during the transitional period, a rule should be established stipulating that "the probative force of simultaneous audio and video recordings takes precedence over written transcripts"—that is, when the content of the recordings conflicts with the transcript, the recorded version shall prevail, thereby compelling more standardized evidence collection practices. Ultimately, the long-term goal is to promote legislative amendments and a shift in practice, gradually making simultaneous audio and video recordings the primary form of fixed verbal evidence, reducing or even replacing written transcripts altogether, and enabling courtroom investigations to be directly based on more objective and comprehensive original materials. This vision aims to enhance judicial fairness from the very source of evidence and represents an important exploration toward making the criminal procedure system more rigorous and transparent.

Lawyer Zhao Chunyu, Director of the Management Committee of Beijing Yingke Law Firm, delivered a speech titled “Procedural and Substantive Issues under the Expanded Application of the Crime of Unexplained Huge Assets.” Lawyer Zhao Chunyu pointed out that the crime of unexplained huge assets was first included in a special criminal law in 1988 and incorporated into the general Criminal Code in 1997. In 2009, Amendment (VII) to the Criminal Code raised the maximum statutory sentence from five to ten years’ imprisonment. Overall, this crime exhibits four key characteristics: few cases, a long time span, light burden of proof for the prosecution, and heavy obligation of explanation for the defendant. From a legislative perspective, defining the crime based on the inability to explain the lawful source effectively amounts to a conviction founded on the probabilistic nature of illegality, reflecting a utilitarian value orientation that conflicts with the principles of presumption of innocence and the rule of "in dubio pro reo." As an example, Lawyer Zhao Chunyu cited a case he personally handled—where the period from arrest to trial was less than two months—and noted that the proof process for the crime of unexplained huge assets is highly complex. Therefore, it is essential to grant the defendant’s family members sufficient time to verify income and expenditures, which constitutes a fundamental safeguard of the right to defense. The People’s Procuratorate and the People’s Court must also reserve adequate time for necessary review of indictments and preparation for trials, thereby demonstrating the due degree of prudence and realizing "visible justice." Regarding the standard of conviction, we should avoid common misconceptions and clearly distinguish between the burden of proof and the standard of proof. The crime of unexplained huge assets is not a case involving reversed burden of proof; the public prosecution agency still bears the burden of proving the objectivity and accuracy of the discrepancy between assets and income. If the underlying facts are unclear or evidence is insufficient, the public prosecution agency should bear the adverse consequences of its charges rather than shifting the responsibility of explaining the source onto the defendant. In the future, we should strengthen the standardization of investigations into the crime of unexplained huge assets and strictly adhere to the evidentiary standard of "excluding all reasonable doubt."

In the final segment of the conference, Li Fenfei, a dual-appointed professor at the Law School of Renmin University of China and the Institute of Discipline Inspection and Supervision of Renmin University of China, as well as a doctoral supervisor, provided commentary on the speakers from the second half of the session. Professor Li first acknowledged the theoretical and practical value of this forum, noting that the prominent issues identified by the speakers—based on their case-handling experience—were quite insightful and well-founded. He emphasized that the core of the “three modernizations” in supervisory work lies in the rule of law, and lawyers can play an active role in this process. Moreover, certain misunderstandings about lawyers still need to be clarified.

Against the backdrop of the fourth amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law, Professor Li Fenfei suggests that the revision of the Criminal Procedure Law should focus on optimizing the coordination among legal institutions in the following aspects: First, refine the mechanisms for mutual cooperation and checks and balances among various agencies, ensuring that such cooperation and checks and balances are effectively implemented. In particular, it is crucial to address the persistent issue in practice—where there is sufficient cooperation but insufficient checks and balances. When the Criminal Procedure Law is revised again, we might consider further perfecting the principle of mutual cooperation and checks and balances among the three agencies; for instance, including the supervisory authority as well, thus establishing a principle of mutual cooperation and checks and balances among four agencies. Second, improve the procuratorial investigation system by clarifying the conditions, methods, timing, and feedback mechanisms for early intervention. This would enable the procuratorate to participate in the criminal investigations conducted by the supervisory authority, allowing it to dynamically monitor the entire criminal investigation process and provide feedback to the supervisory authority. Third, enhance the procuratorate’s power of independent investigation. Fourth, refine the specific application of the lenient treatment system for guilty pleas and acceptance of punishment during the stage of supervisory investigations. Fifth, improve the mechanism for evidence linkage by introducing a provision stipulating that evidence collected by the supervisory authority during investigations into official misconduct can be used in criminal proceedings.

Professor Li Fenfei concluded by noting that the issue of衔接 between the Supervision Law and the Criminal Procedure Law remains a significant topic that warrants ongoing attention. However, the legislative process should be conducted with caution and care to avoid proposing radical amendments to the law. It might be advisable to prioritize incorporating into the revision those provisions that are already supported by practical experience.

The 20th “Ten Criminal Defense Lawyers” Forum After four hours, the event came to a successful conclusion. This forum brings together practitioners and academics to engage in an in-depth discussion on the key and challenging issues in defending against official misconduct crimes. It offers valuable insights into overcoming the difficulties in coordinating the two legal frameworks and enhancing the quality of defense in official misconduct cases, thus playing a positive role in advancing the construction of a rule-of-law criminal justice system. Thank you to all the experts and scholars for your insightful sharing and clarifications. We look forward to the next gathering of the “Ten Criminal Defense Lawyers” Forum!