Corruption And Embezzlement Ultimately Landed Him In Prison.

Brief News:

Recently, a breakthrough was achieved in a case I handled on behalf of a well-known international company involving a former employee who had improperly profited. The court ruled that the employee was the principal offender and, together with other participants in the case, was guilty of contract fraud. They were sentenced to imprisonment and fined, and ordered to compensate the victims for their huge losses.

This case originated from a whistleblower incident during a compliance investigation conducted during the pandemic. It is well known that compliance is the foundation of a company, especially for internationally renowned enterprises that place great importance on whistleblower reports. In this case, from the perspective of collecting clues and evidence, an internal compliance investigation should have been more convenient. However, due to the employee's familiarity with internal rules and procedures and meticulous planning, the internal team's investigation stalled after more than six months. Even worse, despite the employee's apparent intent to defraud for profit, their meticulous planning and strong awareness of evidence led to a civil dispute between them and the whistleblower where both the first and second instance courts ruled that the whistleblower should pay them a service fee (actually fraudulent money).

When the client was at a loss, our firm was tasked with a critical mission. Given that the accused employee had already left the company, a significant amount of existing evidence was missing, and the investigation was hampered by the pandemic, we first gathered initial materials from the client's internal investigation. We then meticulously analyzed and refined the evidence, verifying the whistleblower's extensive oral accounts. We presented a bilingual report outlining the basic approach and preliminary action recommendations with clear analysis, comparisons, and categorization. This report concisely illustrated complex relationships, laid out a timeline of key events, clearly presented the core issues of the report through visual comparisons, exhaustively analyzed legal responsibilities, and meticulously analyzed feasibility, risks, and action recommendations. Based on this analysis report, the client ultimately decided to pursue criminal charges. Thus began our long journey of evidence gathering, multi-party mediation, and filing reports in multiple locations. This included the predicament of parties failing to provide complete evidence, multiple changes in contact persons resulting in a lack of understanding of the full case, and the frustration of vague and repetitive requests, as well as the loss or neglect of submitted materials.

However, through everyone's tireless efforts and based on our practical experience, we found two new possible breakthroughs and investigative paths, further obtaining key evidence and breakthroughs favorable to the investigation. New investigative methods opened up a new chapter in the case, finally bringing hope to the client's internal compliance team despite frequent personnel changes. Simultaneously, we exhausted legal and case searches and analyses, discussed with experts multiple times, and ultimately addressed the legal vacuum in the legislative framework, which could not fully meet the realities of the business world. We also developed a legally sound and up-to-date legal analysis report on the criminal nature of the acts involved in this case. After the criminal case was successfully filed, the procuratorate initially only prosecuted two suspects for forgery of official seals, deciding not to prosecute another accomplice. Faced with the suspects' refusal to admit guilt and their stubborn resistance, the unprecedented involvement and overly conservative approach of lower-level departments, and the covetousness and attempts to profit from third parties, we repeatedly upheld our legal stance, striving to maximize the client's legitimate interests. Given the meticulous logic and comprehensive evidence, the court finally ordered the procuratorate to re-prosecute all three suspects for contract fraud, ultimately resulting in a guilty verdict. The final victory was hard-won! This belated justice serves as a long-awaited wake-up call for the industry and a profound reminder to those who have lost their way in the lure of profit, constantly reminding them that " greed and corruption will ultimately lead to imprisonment ."

Basic facts of the case:

During a compliance investigation, our client, a renowned international company, Company A, received a report from Company B's actual controller, Mr. B, alleging that a former employee of Company A, Mr. A, colluded with Mr. B and a third party, Mr. C, through intermediary Company B to forge the official seal and signature of the actual buyer, Company C, and fabricate contracts to defraud both Company A and Company C. They allegedly bought low and sold high, profiting from the price difference, and then transferred the profits through fraudulent contracts with Company C. Later, due to a dispute over the division of the spoils, Mr. A instructed Company C to file multiple lawsuits against Mr. B to recover the money. After the two fell out, Mr. B filed the report. The investigation confirmed that the allegations were largely true.

After the incident came to light, I, representing Company A, together with Company C, reported the case to public security organs in multiple locations, including the place where the crime occurred. We emphasized that the case involved the intent of illegal possession, fabricating facts, concealing the truth, and using forged seals and false contracts to mislead Company A and Company C, ultimately defrauding them of a large price difference. We successfully persuaded the procuratorate to change the charge to contract fraud, and even prosecuted C, who had previously been decided not to be prosecuted, in a separate case, resulting in a fair first-instance judgment.

Key points of the judgment: (First instance judgment)

Contract fraud refers to the act of illegally obtaining a substantial amount of money or property from the other party by fabricating facts and concealing the truth during the signing and performance of a contract, with the intent of illegal possession. In this case, the suspects, A and others, intended to illegally seize the payment for goods by creating a price difference in the contract for Project C. From the outset, A recruited B and C to divide the tasks. During the signing and performance of the contract, A and others engaged in a series of acts of fabricating facts and concealing the truth, causing the victim to fall into a mistaken understanding and ultimately defrauding them of a large price difference. Furthermore, to prevent B from monopolizing the proceeds, they also devised a plan to sign a related service agreement with Company B as a form of control. In conclusion, the actions of A and others meet the elements of the crime of contract fraud.

A and others, with the intent of illegal possession, fabricated facts and concealed the truth during the signing and performance of contracts to defraud others of a high price difference, the amount of which was particularly large. They should be held criminally liable for the crime of contract fraud.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.