The Du move attorney took over the case of Zhang Huiyang: a sincere and gentle trial of criminal arguments

Zhang Huiyang, male, Han, from February 1969, graduate degree, Master ' s degree, Civil Construction Commissioner, former Director and General Manager of the City of Huai An Transport Holdings Ltd., Chairman of the Huai An City Chamber of Commerce and Industry, President of the City of Huai An General Chamber of Commerce and Vice-President of the City of Huai An. In July 2024, following an investigation by the Supervisory Commission on suspicion of having committed an offence, the Intermediate People ' s Court of Liangyun City handed down a first instance judgement, which was accompanied by a number of offences, and decided to execute a prison sentence of 13 years and six months.

Zhang Huiyang appealed the first instance judgement and the case is currently being heard by the Jiangsu Provincial High People ' s Court.

Last year's case of Zhang Huiyang should be one of the most influential cases in the national bar and family circles. In this case, the close friend Song Jiujiang and the lawyer from Ma Far East sat in the town of Yundong, where they had been sitting for over 30 days. Counsel for the prosecution of the friend, Yuji Yue-Maodong, has been acting as a lawyer and has been in many directions. Many of the lawyers who were indifferent to each other, and who arrived thousands of miles to attend Yundong, also considered Zhang Huiyang to be a very good official and highly appreciated the professional and professional work of the Song Jiujiang and Ma Far East lawyers. In late July, the Intermediate People ' s Court of Liangzhou City handed down a first instance judgement, which resulted in a number of offences and a decision to execute Zhang Huiyang ' s 13 years and six months ' imprisonment. I have no intention of criticizing today, but I would like to say that this decision is too intransigent to be indifferent to the facts.

After the first trial judgement, the lawyer Song Jiujiang and Ma Far East contacted me to ask me if I could represent the second trial in the case, and frankly, I was very obscurant, because at the first trial, they all did the best in the defence — not the kind of charade of friends. In August, I was joined by Zhou Loobao, Lanzhou, who was the same lawyer as Zhiyuki, and who repeatedly said that he was the rare official who took Zhang Huiyang's case. He also hopes that I can come up with a new idea. So, after a few moments, I finally decided to take over.

My “severally measured” is not a gesture. Although the defence has been effective in several cases of criminal duty that I have taken over before, I frankly have not been interested in such cases at all, not least in the second instance — and by mid-year I have become more inclined to take on cases where fees are higher, the case is clearer, the defence space is more adequate and the defence is more likely to be effective. So I have dropped a number of cases over the years that I consider to be “lower value” — please forgive me for my merits.

Although I took over, I was delayed in finalizing the defence programme. I also expressed my hesitation in a true manner in the first meeting with the second instance judge shortly before. Frankly, if I had only planned a dead-end solution before, I would probably not have taken it, and my taking over must have included a very deep-rooted element, namely, that I might have conducted a sincere and gentle defence experiment with this case. I would like to see from this, whether the defence of crimes committed in the workplace, the clarification of facts, good-faith communication can be strong and can still achieve a little success, and this is not irrelevant to the transformation of my defence and even social attitudes over the past two years.

I have become increasingly inclined to achieve better defence without creating social antagonisms or exacerbating social tearing, which should be feasible in ordinary criminal cases — two years after I have been able to achieve a relatively just result for many of the parties by clarifying the facts and communicating in good faith over and over again. But the problem is that the case of Zhang Huiyang is, after all, a case of official crime, which is extremely difficult in itself to achieve in its own right, and therefore friends have stated, “Your idealism will not yield any substantive response except to the appearance of hypocrisy! You're gonna miss your client's life! "How's reality, you don't know? “Treasure is the grave of the idealist.” Nevertheless, I would like to make this clumsy and uncertain attempt with my idealism, and my only concern is that Zhang Huiyang may be pushed into an unpredictable abyss by my experiment, and that future criminal defenses will become more extreme.

I hope that this attempt will bring the criminal case back to the most modest and appropriate defence; I hope that this option will give some strength to bring about a change in the case, seek justice for its success and change the stereotypes of the civil “Boards case, if wrong”, which is never changed; I hope that this attempt will change the current popular “no death, no argument” discourse, which has been growing in recent years in the circles of clients and lawyers, especially in cases of official crimes, which is, of course, much related to their personal encounter. But in any case, this phenomenon should be improved, not by the common efforts of civil society and the official — by a greater degree of trust, by a greater degree of good faith and by a better functioning society.

The Zhang Huiyang case is the most appropriate and ideal sample of this defence experiment — a case without space for defence, without the attributes of the experiment, and a case with space for objectivity, logic and social significance.

That is why this trial of the idealist ideologue of sincerity, moderation and reason deserves to be carried out with all due respect.

And for that reason, I will do my best in the coming months, with the joint attention of lawyers and family. I hope that my experiment will make the voices of the people heard and the people will see the official sincerity. I also hope that my experiment will improve the ecological aspects of the next defence, provide a new climate for future cases of crimes committed in the workplace, and have a more moderate and rational voice, which in turn can be met with an effective official response.

This is one of the important reasons why I took over Zhang Huiyang.

1

As already stated, the case of Zhang Huiyang is the ideal sample of this defence experiment, as it is too much space for defence, whether it is objective evidence, reasoned logic or the social significance of the case.

We, as a group, probably the most agitated of corrupt officials, so believe me, I have no intention of calling out to a corrupt official, and the premise that I take over the case of Zhang Huiyang must include my conviction that Zhang Huiyang was innocent — I spoke with friends like Song Jiujiang, Ma Far East, Ho Ji-dong and Ma Yodong before taking over — all of whom said that Zhang Huiyang was a rare official. I have also spoken with my friends who have come thousands of miles to the court, and they share this view. I also spoke with my friends in the courtyard who were convinced that Zhang Huiyang was innocent. I am not short of a case, and I need not take it up for a little fee, which is not my usual rate. Therefore, you can all be quite confident that the restoration of the truth and the search for justice for an official whom I firmly believe to be wronged must be the inner preponderance of all my actions in this case.

On that basis, I had to go back to the case itself. I have tried to simplify the reading of the article, to extract some of the facts from hundreds of volumes, and to keep the text light in the complex factual narratives.

Start with the Lee Cai-Bou case

Let's start with the Lee Cai-Bou case.

The first instance judgement found that, between 2019 and 2021, the accused Zhang Huiyang, using the services of director and general manager of the Huai An City Traffic Holdings Group Limited, had provided assistance to Lee and his company, Jiang Suk-jin Construction Group Limited, in the acquisition of equity, asset assessment, loan guarantees, engineering undertaking. Between the end of 2019 and the beginning of 2021, it received $1.5 million in cash on three occasions, while an additional $3.2 million was not actually obtained. In July 2022, in order to cover up the crime, it returned the received cash of $1.5 million to Li Obao for safekeeping. Specifically, it is described as follows:

At the end of the year, 2019 and the beginning of 2020, the accused Zhang Huiyang received $100,000 in cash from Lee ' s Bao office.

In the second half of 2020, the accused Zhang Huiyang received $600,000 in cash from Lee's Cheong-Chou district, which he lived in.

In August 2020, Lee Cai-Bou offered to the accused Zhang Hui-Jian a “thank you” of $4 million, which he acquiesced in. Of these, Zhang Huiyang received $800,000 in cash from Lee's Cheong-Chou-Chou district, where he lived, and acquiesced in the remaining $3.2 million being cashed after the red-red version of Jiang Suk-jin Construction Group Limited, which was not actually obtained.

First, on the issue of loan guarantees: Borrowing guarantees are “in the first half of 2021, Tianjin applied to the Transport Holdings for a $47 million loan and a $450 million bank loan guarantee, which did not provide a guarantee and the Transport Holdings also waived the guarantee costs”, according to which Zhang was found to have made an interest in Lee Kobao.

But there is an inescapable context: at this point, traffic holding companies have acquired 60 per cent of their shares, while the remaining 40 per cent have been pledged to traffic holding companies.

Under the “equity transfer agreement” between the two parties, traffic holding companies need to become big and big, which is both their contractual obligations and the original purpose of the cooperation between the two parties, and we cannot judge ourselves from this equity relationship and the contractual context.

Revisit specific funding arrangements: While the traffic holding company exempts the guarantee costs, the interest rate it applies to the loan to Tianjin is much higher than in the market, for example, Tianjin loaned $30 million to the People's Bank, 4.35 per cent per annum, Tianjin loaned to the traffic holding company, which is 6.5 per cent per annum, and Transport Holdings loaned to Youngchan at 0.5 per cent more than other subsidiaries.

The defence at first instance had made detailed statistics that the overcharge of interest was greater than the underpayment of the guarantee. At the same time, the arrangement also saved the funds of the traffic holding company, resolving the liquidity problems of Tianjin, facilitating the continuation of the company ' s operations and generating more profits for the group.

Therefore, even if it existed, would Zhang Huiyang be profiting from the traffic holding company or from Tianjin or Lee Chibao? Such a decision that is entirely conducive to corporate development can also be a basis for “helping others”!

Most crucially, the decision to exempt the security fee was made entirely collectively. At first instance, the defence submitted a handwritten minutes of the meeting, which showed that, at the time of the vote on the subject, the Deputy Secretary and Deputy General Manager of the Company, Suh Ai-Jian, had made the first statement, saying that the charge of five per 1,000 (guaranteed) was excessive and that the equity pledge was equal to the full-fledged subsidiary; The second statement by Kang Xiaowang, Deputy Director-General of the company, said, “Are the systems modified? Is that reasonable? “It is clear that it considers the previous provision to be unreasonable in the case; Finally, Zhang Huiyang stated that “as shares have been pledged, they can be considered as full-capital subsidiaries, and no guarantee fees are charged”. Zhang Huiyang added that at a meeting of the company in August 2021, in which the party secretary of the company, Zhang Huiyan, the general manager, Zhang Huiyan, the deputy general manager, Zhu, Kang Xiaowang, Shen Yi and Zhang Yi were all present, the financial director appointed by the National Council, Zhang Zhou, and Zhou Zheng, who was assigned to the disciplinary team, the record of the meeting clearly stated that “the principle of the meeting was to agree to guarantee a $450 million liquid loan from Tianjin”, the collective decision had become a matter for one person.

More notably, the system has been retained to date — and to this day, they have also considered it reasonable and beneficial to the development of a company, not to the benefit of one party. But in the case of Huiyang, it became a strong argument for Huiyang to profit others!

If an operational decision is based on a well-established system, discussed collectively and is in the general interest of the group, it must be answered that it constitutes aiding and benefiting from the passive bribery offence, and what evidence is there to prove that this is not a normal corporate business, but rather that it is the use of the position to facilitate the undue advantage of a particular target?

Further to the question of “engineering” As determined by the first instance judgement, “When Tianjin was acquired, Lee called on Zhang Huiyang to help him in order to carry out the project of the Transport Holding Company and its subsidiaries. Thereafter, the Traffic Holdings Company issued an internal document allowing the Consortium and its subsidiaries to directly contract projects of less than $4 million”. The judgement accordingly found that “Zhang Huiyang was able to take over the work of the traffic holding company and its subsidiaries without a call for tender, and thus to take advantage of Lee's and Tianjin's interests. The blogger adds:

However, this determination is equally to be examined in the context of the group ' s equity structure, internal management system and actual economic performance.

It should be noted, first of all, that this internal document is not dedicated to Tianjin, and the testimony of the employees of the traffic holding company made it clear that this “internal circulation” system predates the allegation that the “presentation” of the alleged company was simply adding to the list of Tianjin and Man Sung.

As stated earlier, Tianjin is held by the Transport Holdings Company, which holds 60 per cent of its shares. The fact that Tianjin carried out the inside of the group does not mean that all the profits went to Lee Caibao, whereas, on the contrary, a greater part of the profits generated by Tianjin ultimately belonged to the traffic holding company.

Moreover, according to the minutes of the General Manager ' s Office Meeting No. 8 of 2021 of the Transport Holdings Company, the inside works of the Company are to be carried out on a full-scale downward basis on the basis of market prices; Building materials used in the construction process, which could be provided within the group company, should also be used as a priority.

This means that the Consortium maximizes the overall benefits by keeping the profits of the works within the Consortium to the extent possible through arrangements such as internal engineering contracting, price constraints and the supply of internal construction materials.

This case is a case in point: when the millennia complex was dismantled, the original construction unit offered $5 million, and the traffic holding company subsequently handed over the project to Tianjin, resulting in a total of $1455,000, a difference of $3.545 million!

Moreover, in the profits realized by Skycorp, traffic holding companies could also share the corresponding earnings in proportion to their 60 per cent shareholding.

So who is the undue benefit of Zhang Huiyang's promotion of Zhang's internal work in the context of group holding companies, price constraints on internal works, preferential use of internal construction materials and the group's ability to share profits?

If a decision is based on an internal system and reduces group costs and increases group returns as a whole, it is directly interpreted as Zhang Huiyang's interest in Lee's or Tianjin's company, and thus the presumption of a right-of-power transaction, undoubtedly based on the most malicious assumption.

Moreover, it is not natural that Tianjin, as a subsidiary of the traffic holding company, should pass through the internal system to benefit them?

The verdict that Zhang Huiyang illegally received 1.5 million yuan in property from Lee Xiaobao

Zhang Huiyang's claim to be illegally receiving $1.5 million from Lee's Cheibao

The first testimony by Lee Caibao states that “in early 2020, in order to thank Zhang Huiyang for agreeing to purchase Zheng Sung and for allowing him to continue to assist in the process, he took $100,000 in cash and two cigarettes from his office and put them in a handbag, which he put on the desk at Zhang Huiyang's office. The blogger adds:

But the question is, will the front desk notice Lee's handbags when she starts to pick up her bag and enter Zhang's office?

Similarly, according to Lee, after he had visited Zhang Huiyang ' s office, where he saw Zhang Huiyang working, he said a few words of thanks and left his bag. According to the site of the defence lawyer at first instance, the process described by Lee Ciebao could have been used for about three or five minutes if it had been genuine.

In a controlled office environment with front-office registrations and visitors, Lee has been given a handbag to bribe Zhang Huiyang's office. Should they not consider the risk of being found? You know, there are many people in the company who are not friendly with Zhang Huiyang.

Lee has been doing business for years, and he's got a real intelligence and intelligence on the line. Even if he had no concerns, would he have to think in a different direction? This is a blatant bribe! Or was the corruption in the court of the Young An so unbridled?

The second and third tranches of $600,000 and $0.8 million are beyond the means of verification: we have taken stock of the evidence of the funds involved in the case file, based on the “facts” presented in the case file, and Lee Cie-Bau has spent more than tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars per year since 2016, and it is impossible to get 1.4 million in cash by 2020.

The verdict found that 600,000 and 800,000 dollars of cash were in a national wine case, and that Zhang Huiyang had to take the box down and count how much each time he was carried home, and then put it in tape, but the question was, why not put it together in a space where four bottles of national wine cases could easily contain $1.5 million in cash? It is important to know that the judgement found that the lockers where the money was hidden were not large in space and that there was a need to store all kinds of living items and to consider not being discovered by family members.

The judgement found that the $1.5 million in cash had been lying at the bottom of Zhang's northern balcony for more than a year without being discovered by Zhang's lover, knowing that there were other groceries in the cabinet, such as spices, which Wu had often taken from the cabinet.

In addition, Zhang Huiyang ' s house is on the first floor, with a northern balcony with glass-enclosed windows and a southern balcony that is accessible through the glass door. With all that money hidden, how long has the north balcony been unlocked and the glass doors connected to the south balcony sometimes pass off — Zhang Huiyang forgot to put 1.5 million dollars in the closet?

So-called “return to custody”, even less logical

The so-called “return to custody” is even more unreasonable

The judgement found that, when Zhang Huiyang returned $1.5 million to Lee Caibao, he sent two boxes to the garage, but the question was, 1.5 million dollars, plus a cardboard box, was only 35 pounds, a four-packed wine tank, of sufficient capacity and medium weight, and why was he still in two boxes? You know, even the neighbour of his building, who knows his officials, is not a few, and he is already nervous, according to the verdict, and he will be so careless?

After a refund of $1.5 million, no verifiable trace was left at Lee's place, which is completely inconsistent with the normal logic of receiving the large amount of cash.

The judgement found that it was even more unreasonable for Zhang to return $1.5 million of cash to Lee Chou-Bou for fear of his being checked by the Monitoring Board, and that after that time he would be “safe” and that he would return it.

Zhang Huiyang is not going to find a safer place than Lee's place? Zhang Huiyang won't worry that Lee will not return it? You know, at this point, Li's illegal interests have been realized. And since it's for safekeeping, why did Lee's Bao pay off soon? And there's no trace of "use".

According to Lee, the above-mentioned statement was made by Zhang Huiyang, who asked him to eat before spring

1. It also states that in the second half of 2023, it again invited Zhang Huiyang to eat alone, and that Zhang Huiyang again made it clear that he was merely “sustained”. In the court of first instance, Zhang Hui-yang vowed that he would not be called for 100 years if the court could call a record of a two-person call in their time.

This is certainly an emotional expression, but the claim behind it is clear — and he wants to tell the court in this way that Lee Cie-Boo is lying, and that lies are easily poked.

The court refused to find out the truth.

His modest request, the Court's refusal to accept — whether it be a telephone record during the bribe or a telephone record during the refund, or a telephone record before spring 2023 and before dinner in the second half of the year — the Court does not agree to the call!

And before spring 2023, when Zhang Huiyang's family was “showed” and Zhang Huiyang's family was busy at a meeting, and Zhang Huiyang's wife, U Gang's father, died shortly after being hospitalized, and according to Lee, the meal was nothing but a clear return of $1.5 million was simply for their “sustain” — they were idle and met only because of the disease and family were “staken”?

Not only did the court not agree to access the call record, but it also rejected the application of the briber Lee Sibao to appear before the court — Zhang Huiyang and his defence repeatedly — and the court repeatedly refused. It is important to know that Lee is both the perpetrator of the alleged bribery and a significant witness to the fact that Zhang Huixiang received the relevant money for the benefit of others and returned the cash afterwards.

Not only did the court not accept the appearance of the bribe-payer Lee Sibao, but also of his lover, Wu, who was also a witness in the case. At the hearing, Wu was in Yundong almost daily, but the court refused to do so regardless of how he and his defence applied. U.N. just lived with Zhang Huiyang, who was an important witness in the case in relation to the facts of the place of deposit, family life, etc.

We do not have to be able to restore the truth, but we must have a heart for the truth, and the courts of first instance are trying to avoid it.

With regard to the $3.2 million in unpaid bribes, the first instance decision means that Lee Siubao was conditional on the payment of the bonus by Tianjin, but that the delay in the award was due to Zhang Huiyang.

Other bribery charges, equally serious,

Other bribery charges, equally serious,

New case: The so-called " new " advantage is in fact nothing more than a normal management act that harms the company, precisely because Zhang has maximized the company ' s benefit, in which the acquired 10,000-sung company has not taken advantage of any.

With regard to the source of the bribe, the judgement states that one million of the dollars was the sum of around 800,000 yuan which Li had received from the first-instance defender by carefully examining the subcontract and the supporting documentation for the payment of the sub-contracts, while one of the dollars was due to the new party for its gratitude. It is obviously difficult to put an end to the 800,000 dollars paid in exchange for 200,000 dollars. It is also difficult to argue that a new party, which only accounts for 45 per cent of the shares of Jedda, uses its personal funds of $2 million to bribe all shareholders.

Similarly, with regard to the recording of calls before and after the delivery of the funds, Zhang Huiyang repeatedly applied for a call and stated that he had recognized a call for 100 years, but the Tribunal refused to accept — why did it not even give a chance to verify?

“When Zhang Huiyang received cash, he placed 2 million dollars in a black lifting box and put the lifting box in the main bedroom in the dresser”, but neither Zhang Huiyang's son nor Zhang Huiyang's lover found out that the closet was shared by the couple and that all their clothes were stored here — Zhang Huiyang's lover was 50 years old and had not reached the point of being blind.

With regard to the return of cash to a new safekeeping facility for the briber, is Zhang Huiyang unable to find a safe haven? Moreover, at this time when so-called profit-making has been achieved, how can Zhang Huiyang trust that the new custody of the Qing Dynasty will be returned?

Since the deal was to be returned, why did one of the new ones quickly use all the money after receiving the large amounts of cash? Also, with regard to the whereabouts of the funds, which is not in any case possible, the Board has not conducted any verification (e.g., the new claim that approximately $200,000 of which was cashed for the sauna wine, which is easy to verify and should be verified, but no evidence of verification is found in the case file).

The two men agreed to a place of contact at the northern gate of Zhang Hue-yang's family, where Zhang took a two-million dollar-dollar-cash-in-aid pole lift to the northern gate, to which they had to deal with the bribe-paying man, but how many local officials were there in the district? How many of them may not be friendly with Zhang Huiyang? And why was there no new Zeros being monitored in front of the district? Zhang Huiyang said, but he won't say anything for 100 years if he gets the surveillance footage!

And in the process, which involved the same two individuals in multiple telephone calls, Zhang Huiyang also repeatedly applied to the court to call the call records, and Zhang said so, but the court has repeatedly refused — why has the court not even given a chance to verify the truth and to speak out when it has been able to obtain a call record and sentence him for a hundred years?

Light of the Left: I will say only two points for the time being, the first being that the light of the Left said to counsel expressly: “I have evidence in favour of Zhang Huiyang, and I will take it out as soon as the court informs me of my appearance. “But Zhang Huiyang and his defence repeatedly applied for a left light and the court repeatedly refused; The case involved an assessment that the so-called “house” of the house of Zhang Huiyang was a framework structure, but was a solid brick structure based on the testimony of the house's architect and the physical impact of the first-instance defence, and that the evidence was presented to the court without any adjustment to the judgement — all factual findings were based on what the Board had stated, even if it had been falsely shown.

In the Xue case: The case is completely unfounded. The transport company and the KwC loan, which fell from 10.9 to about 6.5 per cent, reduced interest expenditure by about 180 million yuan over the next five years. Eventually, the bank “thanks” the lenders for the loss of their interest, and the bank staff bribes themselves for 300,000 yuan.

And Xue's annual salary in 2017 was about $700,000, and he offered half to bribe the people who cost his bank tens of millions of dollars in interest.

At first instance, the defence applied for the transfer of the original payroll of the insigniar bank, which ended up not only not taking it but also using Xhou ' s colleagues to testify on memory from a few decades ago, which was simply an avoidance of objective evidence.

The same is true of the offence of negligence of the personnel of the State-owned company, which is not covered in this paper, based on the length of the articles.

In the above, it must be concluded, as long as we do not raise the issue, that the trial at first instance was not about establishing the facts but about fulfilling the task of convicting Zhang Huiyang. The fact of the matter is not difficult to establish in many cases, such as our case, where it is easy to access the records of the call, where it is easy to notify the briber, where it is easy to notify the witness concerned, where it is easy to access the itinerary, where it is easy to retrieve the simultaneous audio recordings of the period of detention by the Monitoring and Monitoring Board, but where the first instance defence repeatedly applied and the court repeatedly refused.

Moreover, since the first instance court found so many bribe-paying persons, who had a large amount of money, and who had all earned an unlawful benefit, why had none been transferred to review and prosecute? Or is the board actually concerned?

Why was Lee Siu Po released from detention at night and arrived at the hospital first? Is it true that he was treated in an extreme way while he was in detention, as was the story of the factory?

Why is it that almost all the bribe-payers have been detained for months and almost always have been re-programmed? Is this the time to make up the script?

I am not denying the charges 100 per cent on the basis of the above suspicions, but with the above doubts, should the relevant bribe-payer at least be brought before a court of law, in the light of the other elements mentioned above? Shouldn't we be faced? You know, after World War II, the international community also guaranteed the right of confrontation of the Japanese and German war criminals, while the right of confrontation was also enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Why, today, do we treat our own people without guarantee?

I believe that, as long as we do not raise our voices, the above-mentioned issues must be obvious — and if we continue to deny them, that is not a dispute of opinion.

2

In recent times, a strange discourse has emerged in society, which has been listening to the grandest of ideas, but has taught people to get cold — some say that cases of job crimes have their own political significance, and that justice needs to be a general concern and to pursue political effects, so that even if there are major problems in the determination of facts and the application of the law, it is understandable.

In my view, that understanding is fundamentally wrong and inexhaustible. We must not speak of political effects that are opposite to the law, and we must fight corruption at the expense of one's legitimate rights. Who can justify the punishment of corruption, which is intended to uphold justice and to do so in a manner that violates it? Moreover, I firmly believe that the wrong of an official will not be our political quest in any way.

Therefore, no one should attempt to give any positive meaning to the false claims — in my view, the fool or the bad.

And the exercise of power must be governed by the rules of piety and by the rules — power cannot always be won by power — otherwise, while winning it will be chilling, discrediting and breaking the foundations, and this win will cast a shadow over society as a whole. Such a win, if it lasts, must lead to a loss, a loss, an old age, and a lesson of this kind.

True authority, which has never been replaced by the prohibition of questioning, suppression of sound, nor by the insubordinate arrogance of error, should be left in the sun, open to questioning, open to debate, open to doubt, answer to doubt, and ultimately, with solid facts and hard law, to be spoken for, not tacitly.

The impact of job crimes is particularly far-reaching. We must not be in contradiction, let alone in invigorating, but we must both look closely at corruption and be careful to avoid wrongs. A sound rule of law requires both the capacity to punish crime and the courage to correct mistakes and to clear people. And the one who dares to prosecute the corrupt is to take responsibility; It is also a duty to listen to the defence and to correct the wrong. In the end, realism is the very essence of justice and the first key to our political pursuit. And seek him, and there will be an infinity of evil.

Here, I want to tell a story.

At the end of the story, a woman, 18 years old, died, and spent decades alone in search of a chastity shop, surviving for life. And when he was 70 years old, he was made to be denigrated, and more than a thousand were passed on to him. The authorities were not aware of it, and believed it to be true, and made it appear in public. The people of the city were fighting for the stinking eggs, and the authorities withdrew from their positions, and they were spreading about her chastity of the past, but they were no more than a disguise. The authorities have remained silent and have refused to clear her, even though the people who know have written and made their case in writing and have become known to the Quartet.

Imagine, how painful is the day when a woman, half-life, is held in peace and true faith, and the late years are disgraced? What will be the impression of someone who knows his or her guilt and who never sees the court and gives her back her innocence?

If you've lived your life and been accused of being a slut, what good will you do?

Since then, it has been documented that a chastity girl has never been heard of since.

Of course, I have invented this story, and the consequences of it are my own, and I have used this to say only that one is committed to something, often not just for himself, but also because of the belief that a certain commitment will be judged fairly. If she has spent her whole life holding on, and is ultimately not only denied, but is subjected to the most total humiliation, then what is the basis for the subsequent belief in the meaning of holding on to her?

And from that point of view, if an innocent official cannot be cleared, then is it not a case, an official?

It may also create a dangerous perception among the group of officials that the Qingjin and the greedy may eventually be treated as corrupt officials; There is no difference in nature between integrity and probabilities. How many corrupt officials are safe and safe? Once caught in it, even if there is a single defence, it is not necessarily possible to prove itself innocent.

If so, what good would it be to be honest?

When neither law-abiding nor integrity can be fairly assessed in the system, it is invisible in the system that the reasons for people's adherence to the right path are removed. If innocence is not guaranteed, the right-minded cannot be confident that the rules will be treated fairly. In the long run, the corrupters will be more numerous, the cheaper, the more the campers, and the fewer the right-minded.

If so, how far will the fight against corruption go? How will the system be built?

That is my current great concern.

As I said earlier, taking over Zhang Huiyang is a modest and sincere attempt to try to do what I have to do.

I have chosen a path of honest, peaceful defence — not to be the complexity of reality that I do not understand, not to mention the fact that I have taken the initiative to lower the standard of defence. I am only convinced that the criminal defence is not intended to create confrontation, and that as long as there is the possibility of rational communication to resolve differences, there is no need to push each other prematurely to the opposite end.

But I should also like to be frank, honest, and not just on the one hand, as a defence lawyer. I'm willing to communicate and naturally I'm looking forward to a reciprocal and sincere response. I am prepared to speak with restraint and naturally hope that my views will be taken seriously. I do not expect the judiciary to endorse my claims in advance, nor do I believe that the defence must be accepted, but whether it is so, it should be verified in accordance with the law and the law, and reasonable doubts, and the key evidence affecting the determination of the case should be carefully investigated. The valid observations may be considered with sincerity and the past errors may be corrected.

This is not an expansive requirement, but rather the rule of law. The real and powerful response is not formal or uncognitive communication, but rather an opportunity for defence to enter into the process of fact-finding and legal judgement and to reflect in the outcome of the case the weight of evidence and rules — not the will of power alone.

Frankly, I have both expectations and concerns about this experiment.

I look forward to a fair outcome that will meet the test of fact and law through the defence of Huiyang; It is also expected that this will prove that the value of the pleas will not have to be proved by a violent confrontation.

But I am more concerned about the other result, and I started the experiment with a sincere communication, and eventually received a substantive response; I have tried to resolve differences in a moderate and rational manner, and ultimately to give my peers and parties a greater sense of faith that they are innocent, that communication is ineffective and that only a priceless confrontation, the most violent confrontation, can win a little.

If that were the case, the experiment would not only fail to improve the eccentricity of the case of a criminal offence committed in the workplace, but could instead further deepen the gap between lawyers and the judiciary, and would then lead to a more intense and opposing defence, and even to an increased “death-free and non-justiciable” defence, which is not the result I would have liked to see.

I do not want my own experiment to become another reason for my peers to give up their honest communication.

If this experiment can prove, ultimately, that good faith can be answered, that reason can contribute to the solution of the problem, and that a moderate defence can also produce substantial force, then it is not only in the case of Zhang Huiyang, but also in my own right, and it may indeed be able to open up a new climate for future job crimes, leaving a possibility that deserves to be tried.

This is my important expectation for taking over the case of Zhang Huiyang and why I have chosen to do my best even though I have been a long way ahead.

3

Zhang Huiyang's lover was a woman of outside Zhang Zhang Zhang Zhuiyang, who, two years ago, was under pressure to develop strange and biased ideas, and, on one occasion, she told me that she wanted to make it possible in the most extreme way for the people to know that China had a Zhang Hui Zhang case, which I had advised her to believe in our justice.

She asked me: "Is it worth believing?

I'm just saying, "Believe the power of faith!" The blogger adds:

Yes, I hesitated to say that, I have no strength, but I still want to believe it.

I believe in Jiangsu High Court and I believe that they will proceed in accordance with the law. I am sure the leadership of the Monitoring Board is sure that when they find out that there are problems, they do not insist on the mistakes that have been made because they are in charge of the case. I am convinced that truth remains the first norm in their conduct.

We look forward to an answer from Jiangsu High Court as to whether this belief is justified or not.

We expect that this answer will stand the test of fact and law, will give hope to a near-defeating family and will allow those who wish to believe in justice to find their reasons for believing.