Lawyer Hu Riming is a full-time lawyer of Guangdong Zhiheng (Foshan) Law Firm. He has served in the procuratorial organs for many years, deeply participated in the examination of criminal cases and legal supervision, and systematically mastered the operation logic of public security organs and the core skills of criminal procedure. Since practicing, he has been deeply engaged in the field of criminal defense and economic crime, and has represented many complex cases.

2021-04-01 - 2025-02-28 Guangdong Honglei Law Firm

2015-09-01 - 2021-03-31 Foshan Nanhai District People's Procuratorate

2010-09-01 - 2014-07-31 Foshan Institute of Science and Technology

Case Name: The crime of fraudulently accepting bills is not prosecuted.

Basic situation: the actual controller of a trading company, together with former bank staff, forged purchase and sale contracts, privately engraved seals, applied for 37 bills of exchange from the bank and accepted them. The amount involved was more than 70 million yuan and the bank actually lost 30 million yuan, resulting in huge credit risks. After the incident, some personnel were arrested and sentenced. The shareholder Li, as an important person of the company, did not get rid of the suspicion until ten years later, the investigative agency arrested Li on the grounds that he was an accomplice.

Difficulties in the case: the interval between the cases is 10 years, the key documentary evidence is lost, the witness's memory is vague, the facts are difficult to restore, the complete crime cannot be verified, at the same time, the identity of Li's shareholder is easily presumed to be an accomplice, and the defense resistance is great.

Successful results: The lawyer opened his defense by digging deep into the file. Subjectively, Li lacks financial business knowledge, the company's early existence of real steel trade, coupled with the bank's early on-the-spot audit, its formation of reasonable trust in false materials, the signature is coaxed by the principal offender, and there is no criminal intent. Objectively, Li only ran errands to deliver documents, did not participate in fraud, capital manipulation, no stolen money involved in the account, and drifted away from the core link of the crime. In terms of evidence, the case cannot be completely verified due to the failure of the principal offender, the seal identification result cannot point to Li mou, the witness's memory is vague over the years, and the evidence chain has reasonable doubts that cannot be ruled out. In the end, the procuratorial organs adopted all the defense opinions and made a decision not to prosecute Li, completing the innocence defense of the major financial crime in the case.