Dehehantong represented a case involving a mining-related corruption crime. They overcame multiple difficulties and achieved favorable results.
Preface
Recently, a case involving a crime of embezzlement in a mining enterprise handled by Zheng Chen, the director of the Anti-Corruption and Compliance Business Committee and senior partner of Dehehan Tong Shanghai law firm, has reached the final verdict. The case went through the investigation, review and prosecution, first instance, and second instance procedures. The first instance court changed the charge from theft to abuse of power by personnel of a state-owned company and sentenced the defendant accordingly; the second instance court revoked the first instance judgment, remanded the case to the court for a new trial, and sentenced the defendant within the range of less than three years, while also recognizing the defendant's act of self-surrender. At the same time, the charges of some external personnel in the same case were adjusted from theft to illegal mining.
This case involves the determination of joint crimes between state-owned enterprise managers and external miners, the boundary of responsibility for state-owned company personnel in criminal acts, the distinction between theft and illegal mining crimes, as well as the application of sentencing grades and self-surrender circumstances, among other disputes.
How to evaluate criminal responsibility for different individuals based on their specific behaviors, subjective intentions, and scope of duties is the core of the case trial and defense. The case ultimately distinguishes the nature and responsibility of the actions and individuals involved in the enterprise manager and the external miners, and has certain reference value for the determination of the crime of mining and the division of internal responsibilities in the state-owned enterprise.
01 Case Background
In early 2022, multiple external individuals planned to enter a state-owned mining enterprise for the mining and theft of iron ore. Leveraging their previous experience of having contracted projects for the enterprise and being familiar with the terrain and personnel, the external individuals approached the person in charge of the mining area, who was the defendant in this case, and expressed their intention to take some iron ore from the mine during the New Year period and ask him for help. The defendant refused and stated that the mine's management was strict and it was impossible to successfully privately remove the iron ore from the mine. The external individuals left several tens of thousands of yuan and indicated that they did not need his supervision. After that, the external individuals went up and down and bribed as many as 30 people in the mine, including the duty room, dispatch, security team, production operation area, etc., and ultimately removed over 6,000 tons of iron ore from the mine and successfully sold it.
The defendant in this case was the factory director of the mine, responsible for production organization, safety management, and on-site management. During the investigation and review and prosecution stages, the investigation authorities and the procuratorial authorities believed that the defendant was aware of the external individuals' theft of iron ore and constituted a conspiracy in advance, and was accused of being involved in the crime of theft with the external individuals, and as the defendant was the highest-ranking personnel among the enterprise's officials, the case had an extremely bad impact within the province and faced criminal liability for nearly a decade.
This case involves both internal and external personnel. The behaviors and responsibilities of different individuals in the organization of mining, on-site control, transportation and sales, and enterprise management vary, and the facts and legal relationships are relatively complex.
After the case entered the investigation stage, the defendant entrusted Zheng Chen as the defense attorney. Subsequently, Zheng Chen continued to represent the case, and the case went through the investigation, review and prosecution, first instance, and second instance procedures.
02 Highlights of the Lawyer's Representation Work
After accepting the case, Zheng Chen analyzed the defendant's job responsibilities, the involved behavior, subjective intention, and the relationship with other involved individuals, and systematically sorted out the case facts and evidence. He then formulated a defense plan that ran through all litigation stages, focusing on issues such as criminal determination, evidence investigation, causal relationship, sentencing grades, and self-surrender recognition.
1. Clarify the boundary of responsibilities, distinguish different responsibilities
During the investigation and prosecution stages, Zheng Chen's lawyer conducted meetings with the client to present defense arguments regarding whether the client was involved in the conspiracy to steal, whether they participated in the distribution of benefits, and whether they shared the criminal intent of stealing with external individuals. The lawyer emphasized that the client did not have the joint criminal intent for theft with the external individuals, and argued from the opposite perspective that the client was not guilty of an act of omission. The case did not meet the criteria for constituting theft through an act of omission, as acts of omission and acts of commission should have equivalent consequences. The client's act of omission had no causal relationship with the completion of the crime of theft.
At the same time, the defense lawyer, based on the internal responsibilities of the enterprise, relevant testimonies, and management processes, sorted out different aspects such as production organization, on-site control, and safety supervision. This laid the foundation for further distinguishing the nature and responsibility scope of the behaviors of enterprise managers, front-line control personnel, and external individuals.
II. Conducting on-site investigations to solidify the factual basis for case classification
To further clarify the actual mining method of the involved iron ore, Zheng Chen's lawyer conducted on-site investigations in the case location, to understand the differences in operation methods between using mechanical equipment to mine ore and directly transporting existing ore.
Based on the on-site situation and the evidence presented, the defense lawyer analyzed whether the external individuals had carried out substantive mining activities. This work provided a factual basis for determining whether the external individuals' actions should be classified as theft or illegal mining, and further clarified the responsibility relationship between the client and the external individuals. If the external individuals could be convicted of the less severe crime of illegal mining, the sentencing for the enterprise personnel would also be reduced accordingly.
III. Proposing a layered classification plan and arguing that the client does not constitute a joint crime of theft
Based on the defense strategy adopted during the investigation stage, the defense lawyer initially considered only evaluating the client's actions as bribery. However, due to the exaggeration of the role of the factory director by several other co-defendants and numerous external factors, it was almost impossible to establish a crime based on only a few tens of thousands of yuan of bribery. Therefore, the defense lawyer further proposed that if the client's actions constituted a crime, they would meet the requirements for the crime of dereliction of duty in state-owned companies and the crime of abuse of power by state-owned companies personnel. Several similar cases from other regions were provided as evidence.
The first-instance court ultimately did not find that the client constituted a joint crime of theft, and adopted the defense lawyer's proposal to convict of the crime of abuse of power by state-owned company personnel, leading the client out of the heavy sentencing range corresponding to the original charge of theft.
IV. Submitting an application for investigation and evidence collection based on evidence gaps
After the first-instance judgment was made, although the first-instance court adopted Zheng Chen's lawyer's proposal to change the classification, it still imposed a 5.5-year prison sentence, which was the upgraded statutory penalty for the crime. Therefore, Zheng Chen's lawyer continued to represent the client and filed an appeal. During the second-instance stage, the defense team submitted defense opinions regarding the criminal classification of the co-defendants, the losses involved, and the sentencing grades, as well as whether the client constituted a confession.
Regarding the key facts and evidence gaps in the case, the defense team reorganized the evidence presented, analyzed the relevant individuals, testimonies, and their relationship with the classification of the case, prepared an evidence outline, and applied for further investigation and evidence collection by the second-instance court.
The second-instance court initially believed that the case could be heard in writing, but after carefully evaluating the factual objections and the evidence outline proposed by the defense lawyer, it agreed to supplement the collection of evidence that could reflect the specific mining methods of the external individuals. This further clarified that they did not simply transport existing ore but used mechanical equipment for mining. The relevant evidence provided a factual basis for re-evaluating the nature of the external individuals' actions. The case then entered the second-instance court hearing procedure.
In the second trial court hearing, the defense team, based on the supplementary evidence obtained and relevant legal provisions, argued that the external personnel did not directly transport the already mined iron ore within the mining area, but used large machinery such as chisels to dig the ore from the mine, and then used a crushing machine to crush the iron ore before transporting it out. Their actions constituted illegal mining, and should be determined as such according to the principle that special laws prevail over general laws, rather than theft. The second trial court ultimately adjusted the charges of some of the external personnel in the same case from theft to illegal mining. (The prison term for the external personnel was reduced from twelve years to four years.)
V. Conducting case comparison and demonstrating the sentencing level
After the first trial court determined that the party was guilty of the crime of abuse of power by a state-owned company personnel, it applied a sentencing range of three to seven years.
Regarding the controversy over the application of the upgraded sentencing standards, the defense team conducted a search, sorted out, and submitted the effective judgments of similar cases in the same region. They compared aspects such as the amount of loss, job responsibilities, participation degree, responsibility size, and actual sentencing results to demonstrate that the party's behavior and responsibility level were insufficient to apply the upgraded sentencing range.
The second trial court ultimately revoked the first trial judgment and made a new judgment within the sentencing range of less than three years for the party.
VI. Comparing confessions item by item and arguing for self-reporting determination
The first trial court did not determine that the party had the self-reporting circumstance. During the second trial stage, the defense team compared the party's various confessions and the trial records from the first trial, and sorted out the differences in their statements at different stages.
After analysis, the defense team proposed that the relevant differences were merely details of the statements and did not involve the main criminal facts. Therefore, the party's truthful confession should not be denied. The defense team further combined the relevant reference cases to propose that to determine whether the party reported truthfully, the focus should be on whether the person reported the main criminal facts.
The second trial court ultimately determined that the party had the circumstance of self-reporting.
03 Judgement Result
After the first trial court's hearing, it did not determine that the party was involved in the joint crime of theft and instead convicted the party of the crime of abuse of power by a state-owned company personnel. Compared with the statutory penalty corresponding to the initial accusation of theft, the sentencing range applied by the first trial court had been reduced.
After the party appealed, the second trial court further investigated the relevant evidence and held a court hearing. It reviewed the actual implementation methods of the same case personnel, the legal classification of related behaviors, the sentencing level applicable to the party, and whether the party's statements met the conditions for self-reporting.
The second trial court ultimately revoked the first trial judgment and made a new judgment within the sentencing range of less than three years for the party, and determined that the party had the circumstance of self-reporting.
At the same time, the crime of theft for some of the external personnel in the same case was adjusted to illegal mining.
04 Case Significance
This case involves different scenarios such as external personnel conducting mining-related activities, internal personnel participating in on-site control, and enterprise managers fulfilling supervisory responsibilities. The handling of this case reflects the importance of evaluating the specific behaviors, subjective intentions, job responsibilities, and responsibility levels of different entities. It has certain reference value for the internal responsibility division in state-owned enterprises.
Conclusion
For criminal cases in the field of mineral resources, one should carefully distinguish between theft and illegal mining based on the object of the behavior, the actual operation methods, and relevant legal provisions. The second trial court's adjustment of the crime charges for some of the external personnel in the same case provides a reference for the legal classification of similar mining-related cases.
Furthermore, the defense team of this case conducted case comparison and demonstrated the sentencing level for the crime of abuse of power by a state-owned company personnel through reference cases; and compared the party's various confessions with the trial records to propose opinions on whether the statements affected the determination of self-reporting. These efforts provided reference ideas for the sentencing and self-reporting defense in similar duty-related crime cases.
