[4] Our firm's lawyer defended Li in a drug trafficking case, resulting in an exceptionally lenient sentence

[Lead Attorney: Zhiming Law Firm]In the case of Li, who was suspected of drug trafficking, the court sentenced him to five months of criminal detention and a fine of 1,000 yuan. Given the strict crackdown on drug-related cases by Chinese courts, achieving such an outcome is clearly a significant victory. Chinese law has always imposed severe and stringent penalties on drug-related crimes. When lawyers take on drug crime cases, it is relatively difficult to secure an acquittal or a reduction or leniency in punishment for the defendant.

In the case of Li某某, when the family came to Zhiming Law Firm to retain a lawyer, the case had already reached the court trial stage. However, because they were unaware of which stage the case was actually in, or even the names of the specific case handlers, our lawyers ended up going on quite a few unnecessary trips. We went to both the public security bureau and the court, and after tracing the case step by step, it turned out it had already reached the court trial stage, leaving us with a tight schedule. Upon accepting the retainer, we immediately rushed to the detention center to meet with the defendant, then went to the court to review the case files and prepare for trial. After reviewing the court's indictment, we proactively contacted the prosecutor and judge handling the case to communicate, highlighting the defendant's positive attitude toward admitting guilt, and also put forward the lawyer's legal recommendations and defense strategy for the case, which played a significant role in the proceedings.

The basic facts of this case are as follows: the witness Yang voluntarily reported to the public security authorities that Li was selling drugs and expressed willingness to cooperate with the authorities in apprehending Li. Accordingly, under the guidance and arrangement of the public security authorities, Yang proactively called Li to purchase drugs, thereby facilitating the transaction. Therefore, the defense counsel primarily raised the following arguments:

I. This case involves the circumstance of "informant enticement" (commonly known as "sting operation"). The so-called "informant enticement" refers to a special investigative technique in which investigative authorities use the sale or purchase of drugs as bait to hint at or induce a suspect to commit a crime, and then arrest the suspect after the criminal act is carried out or the criminal result occurs. After Yang reported Li, Yang conducted a drug transaction with Li under the arrangement and guidance of the public security authorities. Yang, acting under the arrangement of the public security authorities, proactively called Li to express his intention to purchase drugs. At that time, Li did not have drugs in his possession; it was only after Yang called him that Li went to purchase drugs from others and then sold them to Yang. Moreover, the mobile phone Yang used to contact Li and the 300 RMB used to purchase the drugs were both provided by the public security authorities, and even the transaction location was selected by Li under the guidance of the public security authorities. After Li and Yang completed the transaction, the public security authorities immediately arrested them on the spot. This transaction occurred only as a result of the enticement by Yang, who was arranged by the public security authorities, and the entire process was conducted under the guidance and control of the public security authorities. Although Yang was not a member of the public security authorities, "informant enticement" does not necessarily require that the person doing the enticing must be a member of the public security authorities. In reality, the vast majority of "informant enticement" cases are not carried out personally by public security personnel, but rather depend on whether the entire transaction process is under the arrangement and control of the public security authorities. According to the "Minutes of the National Symposium on the Trial of Drug Crime Cases by Courts Nationwide" issued by the Supreme People's Court, Fa [2000] No. 42, drug crimes committed under "informant enticement," whether involving "inducement of criminal intent" or "inducement of quantity," should be given lighter punishment. "Due to the involvement of informants, the criminal conduct is generally under the control of the public security authorities, and the drugs are generally unlikely to flow into society, greatly reducing the degree of social harm, which should be taken into consideration at sentencing."

II. Li did not profit from the transaction; his sole purpose in carrying out this act was to conveniently purchase some for his own consumption. The defendant paid 500 RMB to his upstream supplier for 0.73 grams of "ice" (methamphetamine) and sold 0.42 grams to the undercover officer for 300 RMB. Proportionally, there was no profit. Since the defendant is a drug user himself, he was merely helping others purchase drugs as a secondary motive while buying for his own use. Although Article 347 of the Criminal Law does not stipulate that the crime of "trafficking in drugs" must require profit as a constitutive element, from the perspective of subjective malice, the defendant did not intend to seek exorbitant profits through drug trafficking, and the harm to society is relatively minor. According to the "Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing the Minutes of the National Symposium on Trial of Drug Crime Cases by Courts Nationwide" (Fa [2000] No. 42), "for drug crimes committed by users, caution must be exercised in determining the facts of the crime and the charge." Additionally, it stipulates that "for defendants who support their own drug use through trafficking — when sentencing, the circumstances of the defendant's drug use should be taken into consideration."

Third, there is also objection to the quantity of drugs the defendant is accused of trafficking by the court. Li purchased 0.73 grams, sold 0.42 grams to Yang, and the remaining 0.31 grams was for his own consumption. Therefore, the quantity should be 0.42 grams, not 0.73 grams.

Given the severe harm drug crimes cause to society and the consistent crackdown on them under our laws, we were prepared for the worst. According to Article 347 of the Criminal Law, a sentence of up to three years in prison and a fine could be imposed. However, during the court hearing, the lawyer argued for a lighter sentence for the defendant from legal, rational, and humanistic perspectives. The court ruled in the session that the defendant would serve five months of criminal detention and pay a fine of 1,000 yuan.

This case was a significant victory, and both the defendant and their family were extremely satisfied with the verdict. Seeing the smiles on their faces and hearing the grateful words from the defendant's family, all the hardships and exhaustion felt worthwhile.