Wonderful case | A client's alleged illegal absorption of public deposits case: public prosecution recommended 12 to 14 years, and the sentence was commuted to 5 years in the first instance

Author | Zhang Nannan Attorney Team

Zhang San has been prosecuted by the procuratorial organ on suspicion of the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits, with the amount involved being particularly huge. The prosecution argues that Zhang San, as the company’s chief financial officer, is a person directly responsible and should bear responsibility for the total amount of the crime committed in this case; he is thus a principal offender, and the prosecution recommends a sentence of twelve to fourteen years’ imprisonment. Faced with serious charges, the defendant and their family are under immense psychological pressure, placing all their hopes on the defense team and hoping that professional legal assistance will help minimize their culpability to the greatest extent possible.

After the case entered the trial phase, it underwent three court hearings. The legal team led by Attorney Zhang Nannan focused their defense on two key issues: the determination of principal and secondary offenders, and the calculation of the criminal amount. They systematically refuted the prosecution’s line of argument, and ultimately the court of first instance fully adopted the defense’s views, finding Zhang San to be a secondary offender and sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment. When the verdict was announced, the parties involved felt a great sense of relief, and their families were also deeply comforted.

01Investigation process

Upon accepting the commission, Director Zhang Nannan promptly conducted a comprehensive review of the case and communicated with the investigating authorities.Quickly identify the two main defense strategies in this case:First, the determination of principal and accomplice; second, the attribution of the amount involved in the crime. On this basis, the defense counsel team drafted multiple defense briefs, systematically addressing each of the prosecution’s allegations in turn.

1-1▶On the determination of principal and accessory offenders: Precisely substantiating the status of an accessory offender.

The determination of principal and accomplice is a prerequisite for determining the severity of the sentence in this case.The defense counsel argued that Zhang San was merely an ordinary employee in the company’s finance department, whose duties were entirely subject to the instructions of the de facto controller, and who possessed no decision-making authority. He did not participate in the company’s operational management or marketing activities, nor did he receive any commissions or dividends from the funds involved in the case.

Their specific duties are limited to performing routine, mechanical operations such as executing fund transfers and payroll disbursements in accordance with instructions; they have no authority to approve or control the funds involved. At the same time, in conjunction with the company’s organizational structure, the statements of co-defendants, and relevant case precedents, the defense counsel argued that Zhang San played only a secondary and auxiliary role in the joint crime and should, in accordance with the law, be classified as an accomplice.

1-2▶Regarding the amount involved in a crime: Clearly delineate the scope of liability.

The defense counsel argued that Zhang San’s actual period of employment was relatively short, and that due to pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, and other reasons, he/she was absent from work for an extended period, during which the financial duties had been effectively assumed by another person. The defense counsel clearly distinguished between the employment relationship and criminal participation, pointing out that wages, social security benefits, and other entitlements during maternity leave constitute legally mandated labor protections and bear no causal relationship to the company’s illegal acceptance of public deposits.

The amount of deposits absorbed by Zhang San during the period in which he was not performing his duties should not be included in his individual criminal liability, thereby ensuring a precise correspondence between the criminal facts and individual responsibility.

1-3▶Multiple rounds of professional adversarial exercises to build a comprehensive defense system.

Lead attorney Zhang Nannan drafted and submitted multiple legal documents, including the first-instance defense brief, supplementary submissions for the second court hearing, and a specialized response addressing the prosecution’s line of reasoning. She meticulously identified inconsistencies in the prosecution’s chain of evidence and deviations in the application of law, maintained professional and efficient communication with the court throughout the proceedings, and steadfastly adhered to a defense strategy grounded in facts and guided by the law.

02Case outcome

Through the professional, sustained, and precise defense provided by Attorney Zhang Nannan’s team, the court of first instance fully adopted the defense counsel’s core arguments:

First, it is determined that Zhang San played a secondary and auxiliary role in the joint crime, thus constituting an accomplice under the law, and he shall be given a significantly lighter punishment in accordance with the law.

Second, based on the prosecution’s sentencing recommendation of twelve to fourteen years’ imprisonment, the court significantly reduced the term of imprisonment, ultimately sentencing Zhang San to five years’ fixed-term imprisonment.

03Case-handling insights

In this case, the sentence was reduced from the prosecution’s recommended range of twelve to fourteen years to five years, which fully demonstrates the lead attorney’s solid professional expertise, meticulous work ethic, and courageous commitment to taking on challenging cases in the course of their defense. In major, complex illegal fundraising cases involving particularly large sums of money, the key to effective defense lies in precisely identifying the core issues in dispute and, through logically rigorous legal arguments, persuading the investigating authorities to adopt the defense’s position.

3-1▶In determining the principal–accessory distinction, the key lies in “role” rather than “official position.”

In cases of illegal fundraising, financial personnel are often presumed to be directly responsible and even principal offenders due to their handling of funds. However, the criterion for distinguishing between principal and accomplice should be the actual role played by each participant in the joint crime, rather than the nominal level of their official position. In this case, the defense counsel, through specific efforts such as preparing a diagram of the company’s organizational structure, comparing the functional differences among co-defendants, and tracing the flow of funds, clearly demonstrated to the court that Zhang San merely played the role of a passive executor of instructions, lacking both managerial authority and decision-making power, thereby fully meeting the statutory requirements for being classified as an accomplice.

3-2▶Case‑law retrieval provides empirical support for the defense.

The defense counsel conducted a systematic review of judicial documents pertaining to similar cases in the province where this case is located and in neighboring regions over recent years, identifying multiple precedents in which finance personnel with job titles and positions comparable to those of Zhang San were classified as secondary offenders and received relatively lenient sentences. The case materials in this category provide robust empirical support for the defense arguments, thereby enhancing the persuasiveness and acceptability of the defense’s position in the judge’s eyes.

The successful outcome of this case ultimately hinges on a meticulous examination and organization of the facts and evidence.From drafting organizational charts to meticulously comparing the roles of co-defendants, from reconstructing a complete timeline of events to verifying the flow of every transaction, the defense counsel, through extensive and painstaking groundwork, presented a clear and comprehensive picture of the case to the court, ultimately securing a just verdict for the client.

lawyer

Introduction

Director Zhang Nannan

Director of the All-China Criminal Law Committee of Zhiheng

Member of the Guangdong Provincial Lawyers Association’s Committee on Defense in Official Crime Cases

Lawyers on the first batch of the Criminal Defense Attorney Roster in Guangdong Province

Deputy Director of the Specialized Committee on Criminal Defense in Civil Cases, Shenzhen Lawyers Association

Professional field:

Criminal defense, criminal prosecution, and criminal risk prevention and control

Contact Us:

-Phone: 18824306754 (same number for phone and WeChat)

-Address: 21st Floor, Guangdian Financial Center Building, Pengcheng 1st Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province (Please contact us in advance to schedule a visit)

-WeChat: 18824306754 (Please add and indicate “Criminal Consultation” in your message.)

-For urgent matters, please call the team leader directly at: 18824306754.

Past Highlights

Zhiheng Legal Education·Zhiheng Analyzes the Law·Zhiheng Clarifies Doubts·Outstanding Cases