Zhiheng Explanation | Full Analysis of the Key Points of Defending the Crime of Underworld Organization (Part 2)- Zhiheng Law Firm

Recently, Zhiheng Longhua Law FirmThe legal team led by Attorney Fang Qihuan handled a case involving the crimes of provoking trouble and participating in an organization with triad-like characteristics. During the preparation of the defense opinion at the review‑and‑prosecution stage, they conducted extensive legal and case‑law research. This article, drawing on concrete practice, systematically summarizes the key issues in the application of relevant laws and in judicial practice, with the aim of facilitating mutual learning and collaborative discussion, and providing legal professionals with valuable insights and guidance.

Undertaking“Zhiheng Clarifies Doubts|A Comprehensive Analysis of Key Defense Points in Cases Involving Crimes Committed by Triad‑Like Organizations (Part II)…

Zhiheng Clarifies | A Comprehensive Analysis of Key Defense Points in Cases Involving Crimes Committed by Triad‑Like Organizations (Part II)

Table of Contents

1. Legal basis related to the crime of triad-like organizations

...

8. Key points for defense on other issues

(I) Key Points for the Defense in Cases of the Crime of Sheltering or Tolerating Triad-like Organizations

(II) Key defense points regarding the liability of members of triad-like organizations.

(III) Defense regarding the identification and disposal of assets and proceeds related to organized crime involving black societies.

(IV) Determination and Defense of the Issue of Meritorious Service by Members of Triad-like Organizations

(V) On the identification and handling of "evil force" gangs.

1. Legal basis related to the crime of triad-like organizations

1. Article 294 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Criminal Law");
2. The "Interpretation of Article 294, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China" issued and implemented by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on April 28, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Legislative Interpretation")
3. The “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Questions Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Crimes Committed by Triad‑Like Organizations,” promulgated on December 4, 2000 (Fa Shi [2000] No. 42, hereinafter referred to as the “Judicial Interpretation”)
4. The “Opinions of the Guangdong Provincial Public Security Department, the Guangdong Provincial Higher People’s Court, and the Guangdong Provincial People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Criminal Cases Involving Triad-like Organizations (Trial)” (Guangdong Public Notice [2007] No. 97), issued and implemented on April 10, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Guangdong Opinions”);
5. “Minutes of the Symposium on the Handling of Criminal Cases Involving Triad-like Organizations” issued by the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Public Security (Fa [2009] No. 382, hereinafter referred to as the 2009 Minutes)
6. “Minutes of the National Symposium on the Trial of Crimes Committed by Triad‑Like Organizations Held by the Supreme People’s Court and Certain Courts Nationwide” (Fa [2015] No. 291, hereinafter referred to as the 2015 Minutes)
7. “Guiding Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, and the Ministry of Justice on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Criminal Cases Involving Evil Forces” (Fa Fa [2018] No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the “Guiding Opinions”)

8. Key points of defense for other issues

(I) Key Defense Points Regarding the Crime of Sheltering or Tolerating Triad-like Organizations

Image sourced from the internet

1. Defensive Strategies Regarding the Subjective Knowledge Element

(1) Core argument point: If the prosecution alleges that the defendant “knew” the organization was of a triad-like nature yet still shielded or tolerated it, the defense counsel may mount an effective defense by challenging the sufficiency of the defendant’s subjective knowledge.

(2) Specific analysis:

①The judicial application of knowingly lowering standards: According to the “Minutes of the Symposium” issued in 2009, for the crime of sheltering or indulging a triad‑like organization, the subjective element requires only that the perpetrator “knows or ought to know that the organization is engaged in illegal or criminal activities”; it is not necessary to have explicit knowledge that the organization is of a triad nature. This lowered standard of knowledge in judicial practice tends to lead to an overbroad application of liability.
②The strict definition of “should have known”: The defense counsel should emphasize that “should have known” cannot be established by mere presumption; it must be proven, based on specific evidence, that the perpetrator objectively had the possibility of knowing and subjectively harbored the intent to allow the outcome to occur. If the actor is only aware of individual unlawful acts but lacks knowledge of the organization’s overall nature, scale, scope of activities, and the like, then the “should have known” standard is not met.
③ Distinction between official conduct and subjective knowledge: With regard to work-related interactions between state functionaries and members of an organization during the course of their legitimate official duties, it cannot be automatically presumed that the functionaries possessed subjective knowledge. The defense counsel must examine whether there is objective evidence of abnormal interactions or the transfer of benefits that exceed the scope of normal professional activities.

(3)Legal basis:

① Article 2 of the Criminal LawArticle 194: Harboring,Crime of Tolerating Triad-like Organizations
②The 2009 “Minutes” regarding the provisions on subjective knowledge

(4)Reference case:Summary of the Judgment in Case No. 1163, Liu Xuejun

2. Precise Differentiation of Behavioral Characteristics

(1) Core argument: The acts of harboring and condoning have distinct constituent elements; therefore, the defense counsel should tailor the defense strategy to the specific type of conduct alleged.

(2) Specific analysis:

①The active, affirmative nature of the act of harboring: Covering up requires active affirmative conduct, such as tipping off the suspect, concealing or destroying evidence, or preventing others from testifying. The defense counsel should examine whether the alleged act of harboring a criminal possesses clear elements of intentionality, purposefulness, and a concrete process of execution. If the evidence only shows that the perpetrator passively knew about the matter without taking any active measures, it does not constitute covering up.
②Identification of passive inaction as an act of condoning: Tolerance manifests as passive inaction—failure to perform one’s duties in accordance with the law—but this requires, as a prerequisite, that the actor be under a specific duty to act. The defense counsel should focus on examining the scope of the actor’s statutory duties, their capacity to perform those duties, and the objective circumstances. If the actor was objectively unable to prevent the conduct or if it fell outside the scope of their authority, then no complicity by omission is established.
③ Causal relationship between the act and the result: Whether it is through cover-up or condonation, there must be a direct causal link to the illegal and criminal activities of an organization with triad-like characteristics. If the organization’s illegal or criminal activities do not arise from or persist due to the perpetrator’s connivance or tolerance, then the elements of the offense are not met.

(3)Reference case:

① Case No. 1359, Zhang Liqi: It is emphasized that the act of harboring does not require the use of one’s official position; however, if such an act is committed by taking advantage of one’s official position, a heavier penalty shall be imposed.
② Case No. 1163, Liu Xuejun: Distinguishing the differences in the subjective elements between shielding (with direct intent) and connivance (with either direct or indirect intent).

3. Substantive Review of the Severity of the Circumstances

(1) Core argument: Even if the conduct constitutes cover-up or condoning, the defense counsel may still challenge the “aggravating circumstances” sentencing factor to prevent the imposition of a severe penalty.

(2) Specific analysis:

①Specific criteria for serious cases: According to the judicial interpretation, “serious circumstances” include situations such as enabling a triad‑like organization to evade investigation and suppression, facilitating its expansion, and causing a severe negative social impact. The defense counsel shall examine each alleged circumstance to determine whether it meets the statutory criteria, such as whether it actually enabled the organization to evade prosecution and whether it bears a direct relationship to the organization’s growth and development.
②Examination of the number of acts and the degree of subjective malice: With regard to the allegation of “repeatedly shielding and condoning,” the defense counsel should rigorously examine whether each instance independently constitutes a crime, and whether there are instances of continuous conduct or multiple evaluations of the same act. At the same time, it is necessary to assess the subjective maliciousness of the perpetrator, such as whether the act was motivated by profit-seeking or whether there are deep-seated connections with an organized group.
③ Objective assessment of the severity of consequences: The defense counsel shall objectively assess the actual consequences of the defendant’s conduct, such as whether it resulted in bodily injury, economic loss, or other specific harmful outcomes, and shall refrain from relying on potential risks or speculative consequences as grounds for sentencing.

(3)Legal basis:

① Article 6 of the “Judicial Interpretation”
② The sixth provision of the “Guiding Opinions” concerning the strict punishment, in accordance with the law, of “protective umbrellas.”

4. Effective Defense in Cases of Concurrence of Offenses

(1) Core argument: The act of shielding or condoning may simultaneously constitute multiple offenses; the defense counsel may invoke the doctrine of statutory concurrency to seek the application of a lesser‑included offense.

(2) Specific analysis:

① The special principle of priority in statutory concurrency: The crime of sheltering or condoning triad‑like organizations overlaps with the crimes of harboring criminals and abuse of power, among others, in terms of statutory concurrency. In accordance with the adjudication rules established in Case No. 1359, Zhang Liqi, a conviction should be rendered under the more severe offense of harboring or condoning an organization of a triad nature; however, the defense counsel may argue that the specific circumstances of the case better satisfy the elements of a lesser offense.
②Distinction between prior conspiracy and post-facto assistance: If the perpetrator had prior collusion with an organization of a triad nature, they may be found to have committed complicity rather than this particular offense. The defense counsel should focus on examining evidence regarding the timing of the collusion and the clarity of its content, so as to avoid mistakenly characterizing routine official interactions as collusion.
③ Questioning the Rationality of Cumulative Sentencing for Multiple Crimes: Where a defendant is charged with multiple offenses, the defense counsel should examine the logical relationships among those charges, such as whether acts of covering up or condoning and acts of accepting bribes are based on the same set of facts, and whether there is any double counting, in order to prevent an undue increase in the sentence.

5. Defense Strategy Tip:

(1) Fully utilize the standard of subjective knowledge established in the 2009 “Minutes” to prevent the imposition of criminal liability based solely on objective facts;

(2) In conjunction with Case No. 1163, conduct a precise defense by distinguishing between shielding and condoning;

(3) Apply the statute-of-limitations rule for consecutive offenses as set forth in Case No. 1359 to examine the issue of the limitation period.

(II) Key points of defense regarding the responsibilities of members of triad-like organizations.

Image sourced from the internet

1. Legal Basis and Basic Principles for the Allocation of Liability

(1) Core argument: The allocation of responsibilities among members of triad‑type organizations must strictly adhere to the provisions of Article 294 of the Criminal Law, as well as the “Minutes of the Symposium” issued in 2009 and 2015, and must upholdConsistency between the subjective and the objective andProportionality between crime, culpability, and punishment Principle: Avoid the overextension of liability determination.

(2) Specific analysis:

①Clear hierarchical legal basis:

Organizer, leader: Bear criminal responsibility for all crimes committed by triad-like organizations (2009 “Minutes,” Section II, Item 2)
Active Participant: Shall bear criminal responsibility in accordance with the crimes in which they participated and their respective roles in those crimes.
Other participants: Shall be held liable only for the specific criminal acts it has committed.

②Strict limitation of the subjective knowledge requirement:

Members need only know, or ought to know, that the organization’s primary activity is the commission of illegal and criminal acts (2009 “Minutes”).
Members are not required to be explicitly aware that the organization is a “triad-like organization.”
Where there is a mistaken understanding of the nature of the organization or where participation is due to being misled, subjective intent shall be excluded.

2. The Scope of Responsibility and Key Defenses for Organizers and Leaders

(1) Core argument: The organizer and the leader do not bear equal responsibility for all criminal acts committed by the organization; it is imperative to rigorously examine the connection between the actions and the organizational will, as well as the individual’s actual role in each specific crime.

(2) Specific analysis:

① Restrictive interpretation of the scope of liability:

According toCase No. 1158: Liu Han Case Rules of adjudication: Organizers and leaders shall be held criminally liable only for crimes that reflect the organization’s will or serve its interests.
The organizer’s or leader’s liability shall be excluded in the following circumstances: crimes committed by individual members that are unrelated to the organization; crimes arising from personal grievances not sanctioned by the organization; and criminal acts expressly prohibited by the organization’s internal discipline.

② Criteria for distinguishing the degree of responsibility:

Those who directly organize, plan, and command the crime shall bear primary responsibility.
Those who tacitly consent to or subsequently ratify a crime shall bear secondary responsibility.
Organizational members who are completely unaware do not bear responsibility for individual crimes.

3. Distinction of responsibilities between active participants and other participants

(1) Core argument: The key distinction between active participants and other participants lies in their level of involvement, the extent of their contributions, and their degree of affiliation with the organization; care should be taken to avoid elevating ordinary participants to the status of active participants.

(2) Specific analysis:① Criteria for identifying active participants (Minutes of 2009):

Repeatedly and actively participated in organizing and carrying out illegal and criminal activities.
Played a major role in the commission of the crime.
Holds a high position within the organization and has clearly defined managerial responsibilities.
Obtaining greater economic benefits or a higher allocation ratio

②Defensive space for other participants:

Temporarily hired or instructed to participate in a single illegal or criminal activity
Auxiliary behaviors with a low level of participation and limited impact
Has not been subject to organizational discipline or organizational management.
Short duration of involvement, few instances of illegal or criminal activity

4. Distinguishing Between Individual Crime and Organized Crime

(1) Core argument: Strictly distinguish between the individual criminal acts of organizational members and organizational crimes, and prevent the improper attribution of individual conduct to the organization or the unwarranted expansion of the organizers’ liability.

(2) Specific analysis:

①Criteria for the identification of organized crime (Case No. 1158):

Carried out in the name of the organization and approved by the organization.
For the benefit of the organization or to uphold its authority
Implemented in accordance with organizational discipline and established practices.
Multiple members acted to achieve the organization’s common objectives.

② Circumstances for excluding individual criminal liability (Case No. 626, Zhang Baoyi):

A crime purely stemming from personal grudges.
Private conduct unrelated to the organization’s interests
Illegal acts explicitly prohibited by the organization
Using the organization’s name to seek personal gain

5. Sentencing Defense Strategies for Members at Different Levels

Member Type	Basis of Liability	Key Points of Sentencing Defense	Reference Case
Organizer, leader	Responsible for all the organization's crimes	Degree of responsibility, magnitude of influence, attitude toward admitting guilt	Case No. 1158: Liu Han Case
Active Participant	Involvement in the crime and role played	Level of participation, actual role, and attitude of repentance	Case No. 626, Zhang Baoyi
Other participants	Specific commission of the crime	Degree of being instructed, subjective malice, and social harm	Case No. 188, Shi Guangzhen

Key Points of the Defense Strategy:

(1) Organizers and leaders: Focus on limiting the scope of criminal liability, emphasizing that culpability should be reduced for crimes in which one was not directly involved.

(2) Active participant: The role in the offense was relatively minor, and involvement was limited; therefore, avoid being identified as a key member.

(3)Other participants: Emphasize the circumstances of being deceived and coerced, and strive for a more lenient sentence.

6. Exemption from and Reduction of Liability in Special Circumstances

(1) Core argument: In specific circumstances of participation, criminal liability should be excluded or mitigated in accordance with the law, thereby reflecting a criminal policy that combines leniency and strictness.

(2) Specific analysis:

① Circumstances that do not constitute membership in an organization (2009 “Minutes”):

Temporarily hired to participate in a single illegal or criminal activity
Being deceived and coerced into participation without knowledge of the organization’s nature
Has not accepted organizational management and has no intention of joining.
Very short participation time, extremely limited impact.

② Circumstances for lenient treatment:

First-time offenders, occasional offenders, and participants with relatively minor circumstances
Voluntary surrender and truthful confession of one’s crimes
Assisting judicial authorities in investigating cases and recovering stolen assets to mitigate losses.
Actively returning the ill-gotten gains and compensating the victim, thereby obtaining the victim’s forgiveness.

7. Common Pitfalls in Judicial Practice and Defense Strategies

(1) “Identity-based blame” tendency: Simply being a member of the organization is sufficient to presume responsibility for all offenses.

Defense Strategies: Adhering to the principle of adjudication based on evidence requires the prosecution to prove the connection between the specific crime and the organizational intent.

(2) Confusion of liability levels: Ignoring the actual differences in the roles of organizers and leaders across various crimes

Defense Strategy: Analyze the degree of involvement and decision-making role in each offense, and distinguish between primary and secondary responsibilities.

(3)Participation standard is unclear: Elevating ordinary participants to active contributors.

Defense Strategy: Strictly compare against the criteria outlined in the 2009 and 2015 “Minutes,” and conduct a multi-dimensional analysis based on factors such as frequency of participation, magnitude of influence, and profit‑earning outcomes.

(4)Legal basis support:

① Article 294 of the Criminal Law regarding the liability of organizers, leaders, active participants, and other participants.
②Specific criteria for the allocation of liability among members as set forth in Article 2 and Article 3 of the “Minutes of the Symposium” issued in 2009.
③The 2015 “Summary of the Symposium” further refined the policy of combining leniency with strictness.

5. Reference Case: The adjudication rules established in Case No. 618, Chen Jinbao; Case No. 626, Zhang Baoyi; Case No. 1158, Liu Han, and other cases.

(III) Defense regarding the identification and disposal of assets and proceeds related to organized crime involving triads.

Image sourced from the internet

1. Core defense principle: Accurately distinguish the nature of the property.

Core Defense Positioning: The identification and disposition of assets derived from organized crime and their proceeds constitute a critical component of the “cut off the financial lifeline” policy. The primary focus of defense strategy lies in strictly distinguishing between lawful property and illegally obtained gains, so as to prevent overbroad confiscation that infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of the defendant.

2. The Argumentative Path for Challenging the Standards of Property Recognition

(1) Core argument: Examination of the connection between the property and the organization.

①Legal standard: According to the “Minutes of the Symposium” issued in 2009, assets associated with organized crime must meet one of the following criteria: “used to support the organization’s activities” or “obtained through illegal or criminal means.”
② Refutation path:
Disconnection of Relevance: If the acquisition of property is not directly related to the organization’s activities, or if it constitutes lawful income derived from an individual’s legitimate business operations, it should be excluded from the scope of assets associated with organized crime.

Timeline Review: Lawful property that existed prior to the establishment of the organization should not be classified as proceeds derived from organized crime.

(2) Detailed analysis

① Review of funding sources:
In the defense, particular attention should be given to examining the source documentation for each transaction and distinguishing between legitimate business profits and proceeds derived from criminal or unlawful activities.

With respect to funds from mixed sources, the allocation shall be made in accordance with the principle of proportionality, and only the portion constituting unlawful proceeds may be recovered.
②Analysis of the use of assets:
If the property is primarily used for household living, personal consumption, or other purposes unrelated to the organization, it does not meet the requirement of “supporting organizational activities.”

In accordance with the principles established in Case No. 1158 concerning Liu Han, liability shall be limited to assets that reflect the organization’s will and serve the organization’s interests.

3. The Legitimacy Defense of the Disposition Procedure

(1) Core argument: Review of procedural legitimacy

①Legal basis: The 2015 “Minutes” require a comprehensive review of evidence pertaining to property ownership, value, and other relevant matters.
② Path of rebuttal:
Allocation of the Burden of Proof: The prosecution shall bear the burden of proving that the property has organized-crime–related characteristics; it may not shift this burden to the defendant.

Procedure for Filing a Claim of Ownership: When a third party files a claim of ownership, the court shall review the matter in accordance with the law and ensure that the party’s procedural rights are protected.

(2) Detailed analysis

① Scope of seizure and impoundment:
In the defense, it should be examined whether the seizure and impoundment exceed the necessary scope and whether there is a situation of over‑seizure.

With respect to property unrelated to the case, an application for the lifting of coercive measures should be filed promptly.
② Legality of the order of disposition:
In accordance with the “civil priority” principle established in Case No. 1425, Luo Jiansheng: first enforce the subsidiary civil compensation and restitution to the victim; then recover the illegal proceeds; and finally impose the property penalty.

The defense must ensure that this order is strictly observed to prevent the enforcement of property-based penalties from undermining legitimate creditors’ rights.

4. A Defense of the Distinction in Responsibilities Among Members

(1) Core argument: Liability should be commensurate with the scope of control.

①Legal standard: **Organizers and leaders are responsible for all of the organization’s assets; participants are only responsible for the portion they participate in or control.**
② Path of rebuttal:
Limitation of Participants' Liability: Active participants and other participants shall be liable only for the property over which they have direct custody or control.

The element of subjective knowledge: If a participant lacks awareness of the illicit nature of the property involved, they may assert an exemption from liability.

(2) Detailed Analysis

①Responsibility boundaries of organizers and leaders:
In reference to Case No. 626, Zhang Baoyi: Property obtained solely for personal gain, even if acquired under the guise of an organization, should not be classified as proceeds derived from organized crime.

In the defense, the focus should be on examining the decision-making records and the flow of funds to demonstrate that the specific property is unrelated to the organization’s will.
② Limitation of Participants’ Liability:
Individuals temporarily hired to transport or safeguard property who are unaware of its alleged ties to organized crime may argue that they lacked the requisite subjective knowledge.

If a participant only receives a fixed salary or remuneration for services rendered and does not participate in the distribution of illegal proceeds, their lawful income shall be protected.

5. Good Faith Acquisition and Protection of Legitimate Property

(1) Core argument: Protection of third-party rights

①Legal basis: Article 28 of the 2018 “Guiding Opinions” clearly sets forth the rules on bona fide acquisition.
②The Path of Refutation：
Good-faith acquisition defense: If a third party acquires proceeds of organized crime in good faith and pays a reasonable price, their legitimate rights and interests shall be protected.

Evidence-gathering strategy: The key is to prove that the transferee was unaware, the transaction price was fair, and the transaction procedures were lawful.

(2) Specific analysis

①Review of the requirements for bona fide acquisition: The property’s association with organized crime was unknown; a reasonable price was paid; and it was acquired through lawful transaction.
Evidence to be collected for the defenseTransaction contract, payment voucher and other evidence to substantiate the aforementioned elements.
②Family property protection: The lawful portion of the jointly owned property of family members shall be preserved.
The defense must be approved.Property Registration, Proof of Capital Contribution and other evidence to distinguish between personal property and family property.

6. Mitigating circumstances in sentencing and disposition

(1) Core argument: The mitigating effect of restitution and compensation.

①Legal basis: Both the 2009 and 2015 “Minutes” emphasized the policy of combining leniency with strictness.
② Path of rebuttal:
Actively returning the ill-gotten gains: Where a party voluntarily returns the ill-gotten gains or makes restitution, and assists in the recovery of such gains, lenient treatment may be accorded in accordance with the law.

Assist in recovering stolen assets: Providing leads that assist judicial authorities in recovering other property involved in the case may be recognized as a mitigating circumstance.

(2) Detailed Analysis

① Determining the extent of leniency:
For first-time offenders, occasional offenders, and those who participated under duress, the effects of returning illicit gains and providing compensation are even more pronounced.

Organizers and leaders who can clearly distinguish between their personal assets and the organization’s assets, and actively return the lawful portion, may also be eligible for a more lenient treatment.
②Procedural leniency:
Actively cooperating in the property disposal procedure and truthfully explaining the source and whereabouts of one’s assets may be regarded as evidence of a good attitude of guilt admission.

The defense should place particular emphasis on the defendant'sLevel of cooperation andRemedial measures。

7. Evidence Review and Proof Strategy

(1) Core argument: Strict adherence to the standard of proof

①Legal requirement: The identification of assets related to organized crime must meet the standard of “facts being clear and evidence being solid and sufficient.”
② Path of rebuttal:
Review of the chain of evidence: The prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence demonstrating both the illicit origin of the property and its connection to the organization.

Insufficient evidence defense: If the prosecution’s evidence only establishes ownership of the property but fails to prove its connection to organized crime, the defense should argue that the charges do not stand.

(2) Detailed Analysis

① Key points for examining documentary evidence:
The authenticity and completeness of bank statements and ledger records

The legal validity of the property ownership certificate and the transaction contract

The Objectivity and Scientific Nature of Audit Reports
②Analysis of Verbal Evidence:
The degree of mutual corroboration among the co-defendants’ testimonies

Is there any exaggeration or distortion in the witness testimony?

Examination of the Defendant’s Defense for Reasonableness

(3) Fundamental principle of defense: Adhering to the principle of adjudication based on evidence, the source, nature, and intended use of each item of property involved in the case shall be reviewed individually, ensuring that the identification of assets linked to organized crime strictly complies with statutory standards and evidentiary requirements.

(IV) Determination and Defense Regarding the Meritorious Service of Members of Triad-like Organizations

Image sourced from the internet

1. Basic Principles and Key Review Points for Recognizing Meritorious Service

(1) Core argument: The recognition of meritorious conduct by members of triad‑type organizations must strictly adhere to the dual standards of “clue relevance review” and “sentencing proportionality review” to prevent such individuals from leveraging their organizational position to secure more lenient sentencing.

(2) Specific analysis:

①Legal basis: The substantive basis of the meritorious service system encompasses both the objectives of rehabilitation and policy-based rewards, but a comprehensive assessment must be made in conjunction with the defendant’s subjective culpability and the likelihood of recidivism (Case No. 1162, Wu Yaxian).
②Special review criteria:
Organizer, leader: Reporting criminal leads related to triad‑type organizations (such as “protective umbrellas” or other crimes committed by organization members), even if such reporting constitutes meritorious service, shall be strictly scrutinized during sentencing (as stipulated in the 2009 and 2015 “Minutes”).

Active participant/General participant: Providing leads or assisting in evidence collection, where such contributions significantly aid in solving a case, may warrant a lighter punishment even if they do not constitute meritorious service (2015 “Minutes”).

2. Differences in the Recognition of Meritorious Service Among Members at Different Levels

(1)Strict enforcement against organizers and leaders

①Legal standard:
If a tip-off originates from a person’s special status (e.g., obtained by leveraging an organizational position) and is related to the activities of a triad‑like organization, leniency is generally not granted.

A comprehensive review is required, taking into account the defendant’s attitude toward admitting guilt, the source of any leads provided, and whether such factors would lead to an imbalance in sentencing.
②Reference case:
Case No. 1162: Wu Yaxian case: Wu Yaxian, the leader of a triad‑style organization, reported that Ma Dongjin, an “umbrella” protecting the organization, had accepted bribes. Although this constituted meritorious service, he was ultimately not given a lighter sentence because he refused to admit guilt, his motive for reporting was to evade punishment, and the information he provided was directly related to the organization’s pursuit of “illegal protection.”

(2) Differential treatment of active participants

Key Points of Defense: The key review focuses on whether the meritorious conduct is dissociated from organized crime:

If the reported information constitutes part of an organized crime (such as related offenses committed by individual members), it may affect the independent determination of meritorious service (Case No. 1158, Liu Han).

Assisting in the recovery of illicit proceeds and minimizing losses, as well as cooperating with judicial authorities in investigating and solving cases, may, in conjunction with the circumstances of restitution and compensation, be considered for leniency.

(3) The leniency range for ordinary participants

Strategic Focus:

Emphasizes its non-core status; the act of making meritorious service reflects a remorseful attitude.

In light of circumstances such as being a first-time offender or an occasional offender, it is argued that the risk posed by the individual has been reduced.

3. Framework for Examining the Relevance of Meritorious Service Leads

Clue Type	Clue Type	Principles of Handling
Organizational Correlation Clues(e.g., “Umbrella” organization, other crimes committed by members)	Organizational links and leads (e.g., “protective umbrella,” members’ other crimes)	Strictly determine liability to prevent sentencing imbalances.
Unrelated Clue(if another person commits the crime independently)	The legality of the source of the lead; whether it demonstrates genuine remorse.	The legality of the source of the clue; whether it demonstrates genuine remorse.
Assist in recovering stolen assets and mitigating losses	Repayment ratio; the substantive contribution to loss recovery	Mitigation at the court’s discretion may be considered in conjunction with the defendant’s guilty plea and acceptance of punishment.

4. Key Points for Defending the Legality of the Procedure

①Review of the source of the clue:
Questioning the admissibility of meritorious conduct leads obtained through illegal means such as torture-induced confessions and inducements.

The defense requests that the prosecution provide a full audio and video recording of the entire process by which the leads were discovered.

②Standardized verification process:

Review whether the judicial authorities have verified the authenticity of leads in accordance with the law;

With regard to meritorious service involving “assisting in the apprehension of other criminal suspects,” it is necessary to examine whether such assistance played a substantive role.

5. Common Defense Pitfalls and Points to Note

(1) Avoid blindly pursuing recognition for meritorious service: For organizers and leaders, overemphasizing meritorious service may be counterproductive; priority should be given to clarifying the boundary between individual culpability and organizational criminal liability.

(2) Emphasize the justification for sentencing consistency: Even if the circumstances constitute meritorious service, the severity of the case and the degree of social harm should be taken into account to demonstrate that a reduction in punishment is inappropriate.

(3)Protection of procedural rights: With regard to cases in which judicial authorities fail to verify meritorious service leads in accordance with the law or deliberately conceal such leads, procedural violations may be argued by reference to the property rights review principles established in Case No. 188, Shi Guangzhen.

(4) Fundamental principle of defense: The recognition of meritorious service by members of triad‑type organizations must adhere to the criminal policy principle of “combining leniency with strictness,” so as to prevent the system of meritorious service from being exploited by core members of such organizations as a means to evade severe punishment. The defense should focus on the independence of the evidence, the defendant’s genuine remorse, and the substantive fairness of the sentencing.

(V) On the identification and handling of "evil force" gangs.

Image sourced from the internet

1. Core Positioning of the Defense

“Evil forces,” as the nascent form of triad-like organizations, have relatively vague criteria for identification, making them prone to misidentification in practice.Height Determination orDowngraded processing The tendency of . The core of the defense lies in strictly distinguishing the essential differences between “evil forces” and triad-like organizations, ensuring thatProportionality between crime, culpability, and punishment, Avoid upgrading criminal groups that do not meet the criteria to organizations of a triad nature.

2. The statutory criteria for “evil forces” and the avenues for rebuttal

(1)Legal basis:

① Article 14 of the “Guiding Opinions”: The term “evil forces” is defined as criminal groups that frequently gather together and, through violence, threats, or other means, repeatedly engage in illegal and criminal activities within a specific area or industry, committing wrongful acts, disrupting economic and social order, and causing a relatively adverse social impact, yet have not yet formed an organization of a triad‑like nature.
②Basic characteristics:
Organizational: Typically involves three or more individuals, with a relatively stable group of instigators;

Behavioral style: Primarily engaged in illegal and criminal activities such as forced trading, intentional injury, unlawful detention, extortion, affray, and provoking trouble;

Hazard: It has established illegal influence within a certain area or industry, but has not reached the level of illegal control.

(2) Core argument: Insufficient level of organization

①Loose organizational structure:
Criminal gangs typically lackStable hierarchical division of labor andClear disciplinary regulations, the members are mostly temporarily assembled and have not formed the rigid structure characteristic of a triad‑style organization (as in Case No. 1157 involving Fu Qingyou, where the group lacked a clear hierarchical structure and distributed profits directly upon acquisition).
②Defense Strategy:
Based on evidence such as the members’ statements and communication records, it has been proven that the gang…No long-term stable organizational form, the participation of members is sporadic and intermittent, which does not meet the “organizational characteristics” of a triad‑like organization.

(3) Weak economic characteristics

①Insufficient economic strength:
The economic gains of criminal gangs are mostly used forPersonal Allocation Instead of supporting organizational development, there is a lack of the cyclical pattern of “using organized crime to protect businesses and using businesses to sustain organized crime” (as in Case No. 1156 involving Jiao Haitao, where the group merely profited by attaching itself to specific projects and did not establish an independent economic base).
②Defense strategy:
Examine the flow of funds to verify that the profits were not used forProcurement of criminal tools, member benefits Such organizational activities do not meet the economic characteristics required of triad‑type organizations.

(4) Absence of the characteristic of illegal control

① Limited scope of impact:
The illegal and criminal activities of criminal gangs are often limited toSpecific domain or project (e.g., demolition-related disputes, construction-related conflicts), without establishing systemic control over a particular region or industry (as in Case No. 1156, where the Jiao Haitao gang was limited to demolition projects and did not extend its activities to other sectors).
②Defense strategy:
Based on the victim’s statement, industry regulatory records, and other evidence, it is demonstrated that the group did not monopolize resources or interfere with grassroots governance; its influence is characterized byTemporary, localized is fundamentally distinct from the “harmful characteristics” of triad-like organizations.

3. Distinction and Defense of Evil-Criminal Groups

(1)Legal standards

① Article 15 of the “Guiding Opinions”: An evil‑force criminal group must meet the statutory requirements for a criminal group: three or more members, a clearly identifiable ringleader, a fixed core membership, and the joint intentional commission of three or more offenses commonly associated with such groups.
②Key difference: Criminal syndicates of evil forces still do not possess the characteristics of triad-like organizations.Economic strength andIllicit Control Capability。

(2) Key Points of Defense

①The role of the principal offender is limited:
Even if there are instigators, their level of organization is relatively low, and they have not formed an organized crime group of a triad-like nature.Command and obedience system (As in Case No. 1157, Fu Qingyou, although the ringleader, did not exercise disciplinary control over the members).
② Singularity of the criminal act:
The criminal activities of criminal groups characterized by evil forces are relatively limited in type and lack the attributes of triad-like organizations.Diverse Criminal Networks (If it involves only extortion or forced trading and does not extend to other areas).

4. Sentencing Defense Strategies

(1) Avoid imposing excessively harsh penalties.

①Accuracy in the application of charges: Adhere to the principle of “prosecute according to the specific crime committed”; if a criminal group only meets the criteria for being classified as an evil force, it should be handled in accordance withSpecific charge(such as provoking trouble or extortion) should be convicted and sentenced without applying the more severe penalties reserved for organized crime of a triad nature.
②Reference case: In Case No. 1156 involving Jiao Haitao, the court explicitly convicted him of the crime of provoking trouble and did not impose a heavier penalty on the basis of the gang-like nature of his group.

(2) Distinction of individual culpability

① Individualization of Member Responsibilities: With respect to peripheral members who did not participate in the core criminal activity, they should be subject to theirLevel of actual participation Distinguish between principal and secondary offenders, and avoid applying harsh penalties across the board simply because of the “evil force” label.
② Room for policy easing: For first-time offenders, occasional offenders, or participants with a minor role, consideration may be given in conjunction withRestitution and compensation; guilty plea and acceptance of punishment and other circumstances, seeking lenient treatment in accordance with the law.

5. Key Points for Reviewing Procedures and Evidence

(1) The legality of the determination procedure

①Legal document standards: Examine whether the indictment and judgment explicitly designate the term “evil forces”; if the legal rationale is not duly set forth, the legitimacy of the determination procedure may be challenged.
②Sufficiency of evidence: The prosecution must prove the existence of a gang.At the same time possesses The three essential elements—organization, behavioral patterns, and harmfulness—must all be present; none can be lacking.

(2) Exclusion of Relevance-Separation of Individual Crimes：

For crimes committed by individual members that are unrelated to the gang (such as causing trouble while intoxicated), it should be insisted thatSeparate conviction shall not be classified as part of the overall conduct of a criminal syndicate.

6. Risk Warning

(1) Labeling effect:The designation of “evil forces” can easily lead to a tendency toward heavier sentencing; this should be emphasized during the defense.Principle of Legality in Criminal Law Principle: Prevent subjective imputation of guilt.

(2)Policy Understanding: Closely monitor the detailed criteria for identifying “evil forces” as set forth in local judicial documents to avoid confusion with triad-like organizations.

Summary: The core of defending a criminal gang lies in precisely determining its degree of organizational structure. By comparing key indicators such as its economic base and capacity for illegal control, one can prevent the gang from being reclassified as a triad‑type organization, thereby ensuring that the punishment fits the crime.

Zhiheng Clarifies | A Comprehensive Analysis of Key Defense Points in Cases Involving Crimes Committed by Triad‑Like Organizations (Final Part)

Previous Episodes Recap

Zhiheng Clarifies Doubts