13-Day Countdown: The Judge’s Refusal Was Within My Expectations

Immediately after taking on the case, I contacted the presiding judge.

The purpose was to ascertain the judge’s true stance on the case while submitting the engagement documents.

The judge’s response was straightforward: “There will be no further hearings. A judgment is imminent.”

As soon as he finished speaking, he glanced at his watch and said, “I have another meeting shortly; let’s communicate by phone if there are any issues.” He then turned and left.

—The entire interaction lasted less than two minutes.

An inexperienced lawyer might have been discouraged by this attitude. However, I was well aware that:At this stage, the judge’s reaction was entirely predictable:

On the one hand, the two-month statutory time limit for trial was about to expire, creating inherent time pressure;

On the other hand, the trial in this case had already lasted an entire day. For a judge with decades of adjudicatory experience, a systematic assessment of the case had long since taken shape.

Thus, the judge’s refusalwas not directed at me personally, but rather constituted an inevitable response at that particular juncture.

The true purpose of the initial communication was never to “persuade,” but to “assess.” Based on the judge’s feedback, I confirmed one thing:

Procedural avenues for communication had reached an impasse. Therefore, the only viable breakthrough lay in seeking it from substantive evidence.

Substantive evidence always leaves room for maneuver.

Countdown: 12–10 Days: He Said the Case File Did Not Reflect the Facts

Over the next three days, I immersed myself in thousands of pages of case files.

Time was tight and the workload heavy—I had to rapidly master every detail of this case.

The more I reviewed, the more I realized that this case was far more complex than it appeared on the surface:

First, key individuals had not yet been brought to justice—meaning that the determination of certain core facts inherently suffered from fundamental deficiencies.

Second, the flow of funds was exceptionally complex—involving tens of millions in transaction volumes, multi-layered instructions, and multiple parties, with many links lacking support from objective evidence.

Third, certain electronic data and communication records are missing—meaning that the determination of the defendant’s division of labor and level of participation heavily relies on confessions.

—But the most critical discovery came from the first meeting with the client.

In the consultation room, he remained silent for a long time.

Then he said one sentence:

“Attorney Shao, what I stated in the case file... is mostly not factual.”

At that moment, I realized that the actual circumstances of this case had not been genuinely verified.

And what I needed to do was to push for a retrial, so that the judge could hear it.

Countdown9 Days: Finding the Only Possibility Within the “Impossible”

It is a fact that there are significant discrepancies between the client’s statements and the case file.

Based on my practical experience handling hundreds of cases, I can actually understand the psychology of defendants in such cases.

In cases with complex facts and missing evidence, defendants often, during interrogations, Complex psychological states such as fear, pressure, or wishful thinkingmay lead individuals to present relevant facts in a manner more favorable to themselves, even if such presentations do not reflect the true circumstances.

From the perspective of judicial practice, however, where interrogation records have already been formed, if the party has made consistent statements over an extended period and across multiple interrogations, and has personally confirmed the accuracy of such content, then absent new objective evidence, merely changing one’s statement at a later stage to overturn the original records and seek exclusion of illegal evidence is, in practice,often extremely difficult.

In particular, I am a lawyer whojoined the case only after the court hearing had concludedattorneys.

Therefore, although both the family members and the client hope for a retrial and a renewed ascertainment of the facts, objectively speaking, the difficulty is substantial. I am also fully aware that:

if I were to engage in a direct and uncompromising confrontation with the judge on this issue,the only outcome would be the issuance of a written judgment.

So, where is the breakthrough point?

Throughout the review of the case file, I have been systematically narrowing down the issues:

Procedurally, the judge’s stance is clear; this avenue is not viable.

Factually, there are discrepancies between the client’s statements and the case file, but under the existing confession evidence, it is difficult to advance the case.

Thus, the only remaining option—and the one most likely to shake the judge’s existing assessment—is—the funds.

Tens of millions in transaction flows, a complex network of individuals, and a lack of objective evidence at key links—such fund flows in economic crime casesinevitably present room for dispute.

This is not a flash of inspiration, but rather a fundamental methodology for defending complex and difficult cases: when factual disputes are significant and procedural avenues are blocked, the fund trail becomes the last line of defense.

Countdown: 8–7 Days Before Trial — The First Confrontation: “It Will Not Affect the Judgment”

Following this line of reasoning, I promptly completed the first round of fund analysis and submitted it to the judge.

The judge’s feedback after reviewing it was not encouraging.

He stated that this line of reasoning is logically understandable. However, if one were to genuinely pursue further verification along this direction, it would be akin to “searching for a needle in a haystack” within a complex network of fund flows.

More importantly, he raised a practical question:

Even if the case were remanded for further investigation, what new conclusions could possibly be reached? The discrepancies appearing in the existing statistics may merely constitute normal deviations attributable to the complexity of the case.

The underlying implication of this statement is clear: even if there are doubts, they do not affect his ability to render a judgment.

—Upon hearing this response, I became even more clear-headed.

Based on my in-depth review of the case file and the circumstances ascertained through meetings with the client, I believe that there are numerous key facts of the case that remain unverified. However, due to the excessive scale and complexity of the capital chain, the judge has intentionally adopted an evasive stance in this regard.

The judge’s reaction conveyed two messages to me:

First, mere “doubt” is insufficient; what is required is a “verifiable loophole”;

Second, relying solely on the judicial route is not viable.

I need another pivot point.

Countdown: 6–4 Days: Dual-Track Strategy

Over the next three days, my team and I pored over hundreds of pages of fund flow records countless times.

It is not a vague sense that “something is wrong,” but rather a transaction-by-transaction review, comparison, and annotation: identifying the source and destination of each fund transfer, who issued the instructions, who handled the transactions, and whether the existing evidence can corroborate these details.

Ultimately, we compiled all transactions whose legal characterization remained in doubt, together with the corresponding reasoning.

But this time, I did not submit them only to the judge.

I simultaneously sent them to the prosecuting attorney handling the case.

Why?

Because in this case, the amounts were tallied by the prosecutors from scratch. They are naturally more sensitive to issues concerning the amounts. Once they develop reasonable doubts about the determination, they will inevitably initiate internal verification procedures—and this, in turn, will compel the court to postpone the trial.

This was not an impromptu litigation strategy, but rather thestandard operating procedurefor lawyers handling difficult and complex cases: when one avenue may prove unworkable, another must be pursued concurrently.

During our first phone call with the prosecutor, we engaged in an in-depth discussion of the disputed issues in the case. It became evident that my assessment was correct, and he attached great importance to my views.

Three Days to Go: The Final Line of Defense

Only three days remain until the expiration of the originally scheduled time limit for adjudication.

Two sets of materials have been submitted. Two lines of action have been initiated.

At this stage, the only course of action is to await feedback from the judge and the prosecutor.

However, waiting does not mean inaction. During those days, I repeatedly simulated every possible scenario:

If the judge adheres to the original judgment, is there still room for appeal in the second instance?

If the prosecutor initiates an investigation, how long will it take?

If the case is postponed, how can this period be utilized to make more thorough preparations?

All these considerations were already contemplated when I accepted this case.

Countdown Day 0: The Judgment That Never Arrived

Countdown Day 0.

The final day of the two-month statutory time limit for adjudication.

No judgment was issued.

On the originally scheduled date for pronouncement of judgment, we received notice of the case’sfirst postponement, for 30 days.

This outcome confirmed that my assessment was correct.

The prosecutors took the matter seriously. They developed reasonable doubts regarding the determination of the amount in dispute and initiated a verification procedure. As a result, the court had no choice but to defer its judgment.

For a case with only 14 days remaining before the scheduled pronouncement of judgment, a 30-day postponement effectivelybought us crucial time。

Countdown: 30 days – Another postponement

During the following month, we did not cease our work.

(Figure: Results of the review and organization of transaction records related to the amounts in dispute in this case)

We continued to review, refine, and cross-verify hundreds of pages of transaction records. My objective was to ensure that, should the case indeed present an opportunity for a renewed hearing, I would be able to present irrefutable arguments.

Countdown: 30 days(the 30 days following the expiration of the originally scheduled two-month trial time limit).

The 30-day extension period has expired, and no judgment has been issued.

When I contacted the judge, he offered only a single statement: “The trial of the case has been postponed.” He was unwilling to elaborate.

However, when I contacted the prosecutor, I received clear feedback:

The dispute I raised concerning the amount involved in the caseis indeed reasonable, and the public security organs have initiated verification.

This is precisely the reason for the further postponement of the case.

Seizing this opportunity, I made a request: given that the case has been postponed, could the defendant be questioned again to further verify the relevant facts and reassess his status and role in the case?

The prosecutor replied, “It will be done.”

The significance of these words is beyond description.

This means that my client—the person who, filled with remorse during the detention center visit, asked, “Is there any possibility that the judge could give me another opportunity to present the facts?”—has finally had his voice heard by the court.

Looking back: Where did the turning point come from?

This case has not yet reached a final outcome.

Yet it has achieved an “impossible” turnaround: from being just 14 days away from sentencing, with everyone saying “we can only wait for the second-instance proceedings,” to the case being postponed twice, the public security organs conducting renewed verification, and the prospect of a reassessment of the party’s legal status.

In multiple communications with the judge, his stance remained resolute: “This case will neither be returned for supplementary investigation nor will its trial be postponed.” Statistically, this is indeed the norm—most cases are concluded within two months (at most three months). Nevertheless, I did not abandon my assessment. After taking on the case, drawing on many years of experience in criminal defense, I keenly perceived that there was an opportunity in this case.

Looking back, what truly changed the trajectory of the case was not some sudden flash of insight, but three factors:

First, an accurate assessment of the situation.

The judge’s refusal was within my expectations, so I did not dwell on it and instead shifted directly to the substantive evidence.

Second, a systematic deconstruction of the evidentiary structure.

We peeled back layer upon layer of tens of millions in transaction flows to identify verifiable weaknesses—not merely “I feel there is a problem,” but rather “the factual findings cannot form a complete chain of evidence.”

Third, a strategic layout involving dual-track communications.

When the route through the judge proved unavailing, we engaged the prosecutor; pursuing both tracks in parallel created mutual pressure.

This article is addressed to those family members who are still awaiting judgment.

Many family members harbor an inherent "assumption of authority" regarding case-handling personnel. It often seems that once a case reaches a certain stage, there is no possibility of changing the outcome.

However, based on my experience in handling cases, this is precisely not the case.

Case-handling personnel are, first and foremost, human beings. They can be persuaded by facts and may reconsider their judgments in light of new information. The prerequisite is—whether you can communicate with them in a manner they can understand.

If your family member is also undergoing a lawsuit that appears hopeless, and if you have been told by many people that you "can only wait for the second-instance trial," please keep this case in mind:

With only 14 days remaining before the judgment, a lawyer once secured an opportunity for re-examination on behalf of her client.

Some hopes do not cease to exist; rather, they may not yet have been discovered.