Recently, lawyers Han Jiayi from Beijing Dacheng Law Firm and Yu Lin from Beijing Xinglai Law Firm jointly represented Mr. Xu in a case involving alleged contract fraud and misappropriation of funds. The Sichuan Provincial High People's Court has now issued a "Criminal Ruling," upholding the original trial's verdict of not guilty. With this decision, the case has finally come to a close.

Xu Moumou was detained for three years and nine months after being accused of contract fraud involving more than 200 million yuan and misappropriation of funds amounting to 100 million yuan. The case went through two pre-trial conferences and two full court hearings. During the trial, the prosecution twice returned the case for additional investigation. Meanwhile, the Supreme People’s Court extended the proceedings six times—each time by three months—before ultimately delivering a not-guilty verdict in the first instance. Following the verdict, the procuratorate filed an appeal, while Xu Moumou simultaneously filed an appeal of his own, urging the second-instance court to rule that he was innocent "based on clear facts and solid, sufficient evidence." After nearly half a day of intensive discussions between Xu’s defense counsel and multiple prosecutors from the Sichuan Provincial Procuratorate, the procuratorate decided to withdraw its appeal. In response, Xu Moumou also chose to withdraw his appeal, aiming to swiftly resolve the legal battle and alleviate the ongoing litigation burden. As a result, the Sichuan Provincial High Court granted both parties’ requests to withdraw their appeals, effectively bringing this wrongly initiated criminal prosecution to a definitive end.

Looking back on the journey we’ve traveled—filled with countless efforts and unwavering determination—I’ve gained profound insights. I’ve written this piece specifically to share and discuss these reflections with all my colleagues.

1. Effective Meetings: Gaining Key Clues

The client is the direct witness to the entire case, intimately familiar with its background, progression, and any conflicts of interest—making them the most knowledgeable party involved. Only through a face-to-face meeting can an attorney truly immerse themselves in the client’s perspective, enabling them to uncover overlooked details and key insights hidden among the abundant evidence—and even help identify fresh leads for additional proof.

Meeting with clients is one of the core skills for criminal defense lawyers. Many young attorneys initially struggle with practical questions at the start of their practice—such as how many times they should meet, how often those meetings should occur, and how long each session ought to last. However, if lawyers can genuinely treat their clients as if they were family, these concerns naturally fade away. Instead of merely going through the motions of a standard criminal defense routine, they’ll feel an urgent need to hear directly from their clients as soon as possible. During these meetings, lawyers must immerse themselves fully in the details of the case, actively engaging with their clients to clarify any points that remain unclear or confusing. By combining thorough client interviews with a careful review of case files, lawyers can cross-reference and analyze the client’s statements and defenses against the evidence already on record. This process helps them uncover hidden gaps, pinpoint critical flaws in the prosecution’s evidence, and gain a crystal-clear understanding of every intricate detail of the case. Throughout this case, especially during the early stages of involvement and while gathering evidence, the author met with the client nearly every week—sometimes even spending up to three consecutive days in sessions. On those occasions, the lawyer would arrive at the detention facility earlier than the staff, conducting morning meetings followed by afternoon ones, until the purpose of the visit was achieved: ensuring the client’s version of events was clearly understood. Armed with insights gained from these face-to-face discussions, the lawyer could then proceed to gather additional evidence, meticulously examine the case files, and refine their strategy—all while maintaining an unwavering focus on unraveling every layer of the case. How could one possibly fail to thoroughly grasp the essence of the matter under such relentless, client-centered engagement?

More importantly, during the meetings, lawyers need to guide and help their clients recall key facts and critical timelines related to the case, encouraging them to share clues that could lead to favorable evidence for the defense. For instance, in the prosecution’s accusation against Mr. Xu of contract fraud, the logic hinges on the claim that a certain investment company was merely a shell corporation. According to the charges, Mr. Xu allegedly used this shell company to acquire equity stakes—allegedly as part of a deceptive scheme involving concealed truths and fabricated facts. However, after several meetings, when the defense attorney revisited this specific detail, Mr. Xu suddenly remembered that back in 2012, the so-called shell company had actually made a real cash contribution of over $6 million, acquiring approximately 70% ownership in a real industry-based company. If this information can be verified, it would directly undermine the prosecution’s entire case. Similarly, through repeated discussions, the client also recalled that the company’s financial staff had previously calculated the financial losses incurred due to the other party’s breach of contract—losses that, according to the contract terms, should have been offset against the proceeds from the equity transfer. The more evidentiary leads gathered during these meetings, the better equipped the legal team will be to move forward with targeted investigative efforts, ultimately enabling them to uncover additional evidence of innocence.

Therefore, a meeting isn’t about lawyers visiting detainees in detention centers—separated by cold iron bars, delivering stiff, formulaic language with an impassive, impartial demeanor. Nor is it about routinely snapping at or lecturing our clients in a harsh, intimidating tone. Instead, it’s about treating them like family, embracing and genuinely understanding the stories they share. After all, it’s also a process of mutual support and guidance.

II. Investigation and Evidence Collection: Fully Reconstructing the Facts

Although Article 52 of China's Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that "judges, prosecutors, and investigators must collect all types of evidence—whether proving the suspect or defendant's guilt, innocence, or the severity of the crime—in accordance with legal procedures"—in practice, due to various factors, some case-handling personnel often overlook or fail to gather evidence that could exonerate their clients or demonstrate lighter offenses. Therefore, defense attorneys should skillfully exercise their right to investigate and gather evidence during the course of a case, systematically collecting and preserving favorable evidence to reconstruct the full picture of the case.

Criminal defense isn’t a one-person show for the lawyer—it requires the active cooperation of the defendant and their family to create a unified, collaborative effort. During the investigation and evidence-gathering process, the family’s involvement is especially crucial. After multiple meetings with the client and careful analysis of case files to uncover vital clues, it’s essential to promptly communicate with the family, securing their support and cooperation.

In handling this case, the defense attorney immediately expanded on the key lead obtained during the meeting—mentioned earlier—by meticulously examining the industrial company’s business registration files and retrieving its audit reports. Additionally, the family members helped review local newspapers from previous years. Ultimately, they uncovered that this industrial company had been consistently recognized by the local government as a top taxpayer for five consecutive years, with average annual tax payments exceeding 10 million yuan. Meanwhile, the company’s undistributed profits to shareholders averaged over 30 million yuan each year. Such an outstanding enterprise, backed by such robust financial resources, effectively dismantled the prosecution’s allegations.

During the investigation and evidence-gathering process, lawyers should keep the following points in mind from the perspectives of evidentiary strength and potential risks to their professional practice: First, before collecting any evidence, lawyers must ensure they have all the necessary legal documents for investigation—such as the official letter from their firm, a specialized letter of introduction for attorney-led evidence collection, and both the original and a copy of their lawyer’s license. This step is crucial to verify the authenticity and legality of the evidence source, as failure to do so could become a key vulnerability exploited by prosecutors during cross-examination. Second, the author recommends prioritizing objective forms of evidence, such as documentary proof, audiovisual materials, and electronic data. Verbal or testimonial evidence tends to be more subjective and less reliable, often carrying significantly lower probative value compared to objective evidence—and thus helping to minimize the risks associated with a defense attorney’s practice. Finally, when gathering evidence, it’s essential to carefully align procedures with relevant provisions outlined in the Criminal Procedure Law. For instance, if engaging an accounting firm for an audit, lawyers must rigorously review the audit report’s formal aspects in accordance with the law and related judicial interpretations governing expert opinions, ensuring that no flaws compromise the admissibility or reliability of the evidence.

In this case, key evidence also includes professional materials such as mine area distribution maps, stock trading information, financial documents related to offsetting amounts, and financial statements. Before the trial, the defense counsel needs to consult with experts to thoroughly understand these specialized topics. Only by gaining a clear and comprehensive grasp of the subject matter can the lawyer effectively persuade the judge from a legal perspective. Therefore, during this period, the defense counsel is also taking the opportunity to deepen their knowledge in areas beyond the law itself.

For instance, the defense attorney planned to present the victim’s breach of contract—specifically, their failure to pay the equity transfer fee—to the court and the audience by using a detailed mine-site distribution map. This approach was designed to offer a more intuitive and compelling visual representation, clearly highlighting the rationale behind Xu某某’s refusal to make the payment. However, the technician provided the attorney with a satellite-coordinate map that could only be accessed via specialized software. Although the attorney managed to understand its meaning with the guidance of a professional, they realized that, in the high-stakes atmosphere of the courtroom, it would be impractical to fully explain such an intricate "satellite map" on the spot. Therefore, the attorney decided to simplify the complex diagram into a straightforward, easy-to-grasp plan view—a format accessible even to those without technical expertise.To achieve this transformation, the defense attorney engaged in over 20 rounds of communication with the technician—through face-to-face meetings, phone calls, and WeChat exchanges. During this process, they meticulously crafted more than 10 different versions of the map before finalizing the design. Although the resulting drawing appeared somewhat basic at first glance, its true strength lay in its ability to faithfully, vividly, objectively, and comprehensively depict the actual circumstances of the case. As a result, viewers could instantly grasp the key details of the mine site—and, thanks to the courtroom’s projector, the attorney was able to seamlessly display the map on a large screen. Over 160 spectators and participants in the trial were able to clearly follow the attorney’s explanation, gaining a deeper understanding of the other party’s breach of contract.

In handling this case, the defense counsel submitted a total of six bound volumes of evidence to the court, including the company’s balance sheet, screenshots of text messages (and call records), contracts and proof of fund transfers, an audit report, a guarantee agreement, and other exculpatory documents—all carefully crafted to bolster the defense arguments and systematically refute the prosecution’s allegations.

3. Motion to Exclude Evidence: Upholding Procedural Justice

During the meeting, the individual recounted how they were taken to a detention center situated at an altitude of over 3,000 meters, where they endured severe altitude sickness during interrogations—instances that amounted to disguised forms of coercive interrogation. At the pre-trial conference, we also requested the defendant’s presence and provided the judge with a detailed account of the events described above. Although all of the defendant’s recorded statements clearly indicated innocence, we nonetheless filed a motion to exclude illegally obtained evidence, seeking to have all confessions made during that period deemed inadmissible.

From an evidentiary standpoint, whether or not the above-mentioned evidence is excluded would not substantially affect the case’s classification, which is why both the judge and the prosecutor concluded there was no need to exclude it. While formally responding that the situation does not fall under the category of coercive interrogation and thus cannot be deemed illegal evidence for exclusion, we still firmly intend to proceed with our motion to exclude the evidence during the pre-trial conference. The defense argues that the client remains deeply troubled by this experience—so much so that failing to file the exclusion motion would leave him feeling unresolved. Even if the motion isn’t granted, we hope at least that this highly questionable investigative practice will draw attention from legal professionals. Moreover, although all statements provided by the suspect clearly affirm their innocence, certain details in the transcripts remain somewhat ambiguous. To ensure the court and courtroom observers gain a clearer, more precise understanding of the case, we insist on excluding all statements made by the suspect during this period—and instead rely solely on the live testimony presented in court. During the pre-trial conference, we also suggested that if the court rules that transporting someone who has lived year-round in a zero-altitude region of southern China to a high-altitude plateau exceeding 3,000 meters, coupled with severe altitude sickness, does not constitute coercive interrogation, we would invite a renowned expert in procedural law—a respected professor—to provide a detailed legal analysis on this critical issue.

Ultimately, during the final pre-trial hearing, the prosecutor voluntarily proposed that instead of presenting the defendant’s original full statements, only the transcripts from the prosecution’s re-interrogation would be introduced as evidence—essentially treating them as the defendant’s formal admissions. This move underscored the critical importance of the defendant’s presence at the pre-trial meeting, though it also required the cooperation of a skilled defense attorney to make it happen. Later, during their meeting, the defendant revealed that while speaking with prison officials, he learned this was the first-ever case in the region where an attempt to exclude illegally obtained evidence had actually succeeded—something that had never occurred before.

The verdict must not only be correct and fair, aligning with both the letter and spirit of substantive law, but also ensure that the parties perceive the fairness and reasonableness of the judicial process. Procedural justice safeguards the fundamental human dignity of those in a weaker position—those being judged—empowering them to maintain their sense of worth. This principle is essential for both the individuals involved and the broader rule-of-law system, and it is a commitment that every legal professional must uphold.

Conclusion

Highly common charges targeting entrepreneurs, such as contract fraud and misappropriation of funds, have become like the "Sword of Damocles" hanging over their heads. In recent years, an increasing number of private enterprises and business leaders have faced bankruptcy or even imprisonment after being accused of criminal offenses. That’s why businesses must prioritize criminal compliance throughout their operations and work closely with experienced criminal lawyers to proactively manage and mitigate legal risks—after all, it’s crucial not to let minor issues escalate into major crises.