Fang is suspected of covering up a criminal case.

Keywords: Abuse of protection for criminals; presumption of innocence in cases of doubt; defense of innocence

Handling Attorney: Yang Xingquan

Basic Facts of the Case:

The nature of this case is organized crime with triad-like characteristics, and the case is highly complex, involving a total of 74 defendants and two corporate defendants. The defendant Fang, whom lawyer Yang Xingquan represents in the second-instance proceedings, is the deputy team leader of the Public Security Brigade of the Benxi Municipal Public Security Bureau.

In the first-instance trial, the prosecution’s indictment charged the defendant, Fang, with the crime of conniving at and sheltering an organization of a triad-like nature. After trial, the Yingkou Intermediate People’s Court found that: “In the brawl case at the Jinding Hotel in Benxi City, the defendant Fang assisted Yuan in gathering intelligence; in the case involving Yuan’s illegal possession of firearms, Fang helped relay messages, enabling Yuan to evade law enforcement; and when Wang was placed on an online wanted list by public security authorities, Fang not only failed to carry out his arrest but actively worked to have Wang removed from the wanted list. In addition to leveraging their familial relationship to maintain their connection, Yuan also provided Fang with substantial financial benefits in return—purchasing for him two high-end cars and one residential property, and covering his daily expenses of 30,000 to 50,000 yuan on numerous occasions.” The court therefore convicted the defendant Fang of the crime of harboring and exempted him from criminal punishment.

After the verdict was announced, Fang appealed to the Liaoning Provincial Higher People’s Court, dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment. After accepting the commission, attorney Yang Xingquan lawfully reviewed all case files related to the defendant Fang and met with the defendant in accordance with the law. Based on the evidence in the case, he filed an appeal requesting that “the first-instance court’s finding that Fang harbored the criminal act was unclear and lacked sufficient evidence, and therefore the defendant should be acquitted,” and duly applied to the Liaoning Provincial Higher People’s Court for a trial hearing of this case.

Case Highlights:

In the second-instance proceedings of this case, attorney Yang Xingquan presented the following key defense arguments:

(1) The first-instance judgment found that Fang assisted Yuan in “gathering information” during the group brawl at the Jinding Hotel; however, the relevant evidence does not sufficiently establish this fact.

Regarding this fact, the direct party, Yuan, did not provide any evidence of being assigned, and Fang did not admit to having been assigned. Du’s “hearsay” constitutes secondary evidence, while Yang’s “should” is evidence of a speculative and conjectural nature. Moreover, the testimonies of these two individuals are not supported by any other corroborating evidence, and thus fail to meet the standards and requirements for admissible evidence under the Criminal Procedure Law.

(2) The first-instance judgment found that Fang had “helped transmit messages, enabling Yuan to evade prosecution” in the case involving Yuan’s illegal possession of firearms; however, there is no solid and sufficient evidence to substantiate this finding.

At the Yongfeng Police Station, Yuan has already been placed under restriction of personal freedom. His testimony alleging that Fang had been “constantly going in and out” is not credible. Moreover, during the trial, the station chief, Zhang, denied this claim and testified that he did not know Fang at all. The case file does not contain any testimony from Liang, who was supposed to serve as a mitigating witness for Yuan; thus, it is impossible to prove that Fang played any role in this crucial stage of the case. Furthermore, there is evidence indicating that Hong was the primary figure responsible for helping someone evade prosecution in this case.

(3) The evidence cited in the first-instance judgment—that Fang “not only failed to apprehend Wang when Wang was placed on the public wanted list by the public security authorities, but instead actively helped him have the online pursuit lifted”—is not substantiated.

Regarding the matter of “Yuan asking Fang to remove the case from the internet,” Wang emphasized that he did not directly hear the conversation between the two individuals. Moreover, Yuan explicitly denied ever having made such a request, and Fang has consistently denied ever having done so as well. Zhou’s statement only confirms that Fang once asked him whether surrendering voluntarily could lead to the removal of the case from the internet—but Zhou rejected the request. This statement does not prove that Fang actually took any action or played any role in removing the case from the internet. Furthermore, the procedure for removing a case from the internet is highly stringent, and no staff member involved in the process has confirmed that Fang ever contacted them regarding this matter.

In summary: In this case, the evidence supporting the conviction of the defendant, Fang, for the crime of harboring is insufficient. In accordance with the fundamental criminal law principle of "in dubio pro reo," Fang should be acquitted in accordance with the law.

Typical significance:

This case has lasted five years and has been fraught with twists and turns.

Fang was criminally detained on December 18, 2010, in connection with this case, and on November 24, 2015, the Liaoning Provincial Higher People's Court issued a final judgment acquitting him. Throughout the arduous journey toward obtaining an acquittal, both the defendant and his defense counsel never gave up their efforts and ultimately secured a fair verdict from the court.

Achieve the unity of legal effect and social effect.

After the first-instance verdict in this case was handed down, 23 defendants filed appeals. Ultimately, four defendants had their sentences overturned. Among them, Fang was acquitted on appeal, not only clearing his name but also enabling him to continue pursuing his beloved career as a police officer with integrity and openness. Attorney Yang Xingquan, the defense counsel, leveraged his solid legal expertise and conscientious, responsible work ethic to ensure that Fang was spared from wrongful conviction and to help reduce a source of social instability. Thus, the final judgment rendered by the Liaoning Provincial Higher People’s Court not only fully embodies judicial fairness but also makes a remarkable contribution to maintaining social harmony and stability, truly achieving the unity of legal effect and social impact. This judgment has not only brought a new lease on life to Fang but has also set an exemplary standard for social justice, demonstrating both the power and the human warmth of the law.