How Criminal Defense Lawyers Can Advocate for Leniency for Their Clients in Clearly Defined Cases

In criminal cases, many people believe that the lawyer's job is to argue based on reason and be eloquent. However, in some cases where the nature is clearly defined and the sentencing range is limited, truly effective defense work often does not involve opposing the judicial authorities, but rather tests the lawyer's communication skills.

Especially under the current plea bargaining system, the sentencing recommendations of the prosecution play a key role in the final outcome of the case. At this stage, whether the lawyer can understand the true concerns of the case handlers and engage in professional communication based on seeking common ground while reserving differences often determines the direction of the case.

In other words, a lawyer's expertise is not only reflected in their grasp of legal principles but also in their ability to earn the trust of the case handlers. When a lawyer's opinion is recognized, it often means that there is room for the parties to seek leniency.

So, how can we better understand the psychology of the case handlers? There is no standard answer to this; it relies more on the accumulation of long-term case handling experience, but it is not without its methods. This article will discuss how to advance through specific strategies in a case involving virtual currency settlement and the charge of operating a gambling house, in order to achieve the ideal outcome for effective defense.

Case Overview

Months ago, I took over a case of setting up a gambling house: the person involved is a programmer who is accused of providing virtual currency payment settlement services for multiple overseas gambling websites, suspected of committing the crime of operating a gambling house.

According to allegations, the programmer assisted multiple gambling platforms in settling a total of over 400 million USDT in bets over the past two years, equivalent to approximately 2.7 billion RMB; his personal illegal profits amounted to over 900,000 USDT, roughly 6 million RMB.

According to the provisions of the criminal law, if the amount of gambling funds accumulates to 300,000 yuan, or the illegal earnings exceed 30,000 yuan, it is considered "serious circumstances," and usually should be punished with fixed-term imprisonment of more than five years but less than ten years.

In the face of such a clearly defined case with clear data and a huge amount of money, what can the lawyer do? Where is the space for defense?

Difficulties of the Case

After in-depth research of the case file, I found that there are two core difficulties in this case:

1. The evidence dilemma of "no one to witness the death." The parties claim there are two partners, but one has passed away and the other is missing. All actions involved point to the parties acting alone, intensifying the impression of "acting alone."

2. The objectivity of on-chain transaction data. Virtual currency transactions inherently possess transparency and objectivity. Even if there are statistical omissions, the total amount of 2.7 billion in gambling funds and the profit amount of over 6 million are difficult to significantly compress.

Defense Strategy

In the face of such cases, adopting a confrontational "deadlock" strategy is clearly not advisable. I have decided to approach this from the following aspects:

1. Conduct in-depth research on local past cases to understand sentencing tendencies in judicial practice.

2. Carefully sort out the key evidence points of the case and prepare targeted communication content.

3. Think from the perspective of the case handlers and identify the risk points that they cannot accept the most.

4. Propose reasonable and feasible defense viewpoints without denying the basic facts.

5. Gradually push the sentencing recommendations towards a favorable direction through continuous communication.

Communication Process

In multiple rounds of communication with the prosecutor, I emphasized the following points:

1. Doubts regarding the existence of entities and procedures in the case, such as the process of disposing of virtual currencies, the methods for calculating the amount involved in the case, etc.

2. Possible "aftereffects" if the parties are designated as the principal offenders.

3. Even if the investigation is reopened, it will be difficult to supplement stronger evidence.

Through continuous communication and discussion, the prosecutor eventually accepted some of my viewpoints. The sentencing recommendation was initially "at least seven or eight years", gradually adjusted to "under five years", "three years of actual imprisonment", and "sentence of three years with five years suspended", finally landing at "a fixed-term imprisonment of two years, with a three-year probation."

Final Result

After further communication with the court, the final judgment adopted the sentencing recommendations of the prosecutor's office:

Sentenced to two years in prison, with three years probation.

Conclusion

The work of a criminal defense lawyer often involves finding hope in tight spots. Even in cases that seem to have "no room at all," as long as there is no final judgment, there will always be room for communication and adjustment. The key is to find a breakthrough point and push the prosecuting agency to make a judgment that is more favorable to the parties involved within the existing evidence structure.

By accurately grasping the concerns of the case handlers and adopting appropriate communication strategies, even in clearly defined cases, it is possible to achieve relatively favorable results for the parties involved. This is precisely the value of criminal defense.