Translator：Zhang Xiaotong

In 2021, individuals associated with a financial education and training company were suspected of illegally providing securities investment analysis, advice, forecasts, and other consulting services to clients without approval from the national securities regulatory authority, both offline and online, and profiting from it. They were investigated and prosecuted for the crime of illegal business operations. Some executives were approved for arrest. The case involved an illegal business operation totaling more than 100 million RMB, which was deemed particularly serious and could potentially result in sentences of more than five years' imprisonment. The executives represented by Lawyer Zhou Wenjia's team from Landing were directly identified by the prosecution as playing a leading role in the joint crime and being the principal offenders.

After receiving the commission, Lawyer Zhou Wenjia's team quickly organized and initiated defense work on the case:

(1) They met with the parties several times to listen to their opinions and summarize the focal points of the dispute.

(2) They applied to review the case files and formed a record of the review, searching for case details and breakthrough points.

(3) Team members spent over 80 hours compiling a report on video verification, sorting through more than 120 enterprise course videos provided by the parties, totaling 40GB, to delineate risk types, define risk points, establish video verification standards, and formulate a "Video Verification Report" and defense points.

(4) They compiled and organized multiple defense materials, such as opinions for cross-examination and defense, submitted them to the court, and engaged in multiple rounds of communication with the presiding judge, repeatedly emphasizing our opinions.

(5) They drafted questioning outlines and participated in court sessions, focusing closely on the defense point that "our clients were accessories rather than principal offenders." They argued from the perspectives of course content design and review, lecturer recruitment, and the scope of duties of our clients. They provided extensive evidence: although our clients were responsible for the administration and finance of the education center, their work did not involve the design and teaching of investment consulting courses or the recruitment, training, and management of course lecturers. Compared to other co-defendants, our clients played a smaller role in the joint crime of illegal business operations and should be considered accessories.

Some of the work results displayed:

The case went through three court hearings, and the court ultimately adopted the defense opinions of the team of lawyers, determining that the parties were accessories. As a result, the original sentence of more than five years' imprisonment was reduced to three years of imprisonment, with a suspended sentence.