The matter of illicit money and legal fees

The character "赃" (illicit money) shares the same pronunciation as "脏" (dirty). From its pronunciation alone, it carries no positive connotation. In ancient times, "赃" generally referred to property obtained by officials through corruption or bribery. According to the "Guangyun" dictionary, it means: accepting bribes is called "赃." In short, "赃" refers to unclean property. Obtained through greed, it often leaves one's hands dirty. Article 64 of China's Criminal Law stipulates: "All property illegally obtained by a criminal shall be recovered or ordered to be returned; contraband and property owned by the criminal used for the crime shall be confiscated. Confiscated property and fines shall be turned over to the state treasury." How should we view a client using illegal gains to pay attorney fees? This is actually not a simple issue. It is estimated that since the advent of the legal profession, the phenomenon of clients using unclean money to hire lawyers has existed. After all, most people entangled in legal troubles, especially those involved in financial crimes, or their family members, likely use so-called illegal gains, or at least a large portion of them, to pay lawyers. This situation is most common in defense services for corruption and bribery crimes. Nowadays, corrupt officials often embezzle or accept bribes in staggering amounts. Even a minor official can be found to have taken hundreds of millions or tens of millions. This is only the amount verified; the sums already transferred or squandered are countless. Thus, defending corrupt officials is a lucrative business for lawyers. It is rumored that in such cases, attorney fees start at least in the hundreds of thousands, and collecting millions is not unusual. There are even rumors of fees exceeding ten million. In short, lawyers handling such cases generally rake in substantial profits. Lawyers providing professional services to exonerate or reduce charges for clients in exchange for agreed-upon fees constitutes a civil agreement between the client and the lawyer, which does not violate mandatory legal regulations. However, if the client indeed uses illegal gains to pay attorney fees, the matter becomes quite complex. Although gold, silver, or banknotes do not have the words "illicit money" engraved or printed on them, if the client explicitly informs the lawyer that the money comes from illegal gains, or hints at it, or if the lawyer knows full well that the client's payment comes from illegal gains, or even to earn exorbitant fees, the lawyer helps the client transfer or launder the money, then the lawyer can no longer claim innocence. After all, Article 312 of China's Criminal Law stipulates the crime of concealing or hiding criminal proceeds. Article 191 also stipulates the crime of money laundering. Moreover, if a lawyer, knowing the client's funds are ill-gotten, takes advantage of the client's predicament to demand exorbitant fees, while being pessimistic about the case outcome, merely thinking, "Since you gained ill-gotten wealth, you might as well share some with me," this, though not legally defined as a crime, is undoubtedly a violation of professional ethics. After all, the basic standards of lawyer ethics state that lawyers should be dedicated to their duties, uphold principles, maintain national law and social justice, cherish and protect the reputation of the legal profession, exemplify social morality, and cultivate character and professional ethics.
 

As for public security organs freezing attorney fees paid by criminal suspects or their families as involved illicit money during criminal investigations, this is relatively rare. It is possible that the public security organs, seeing lawyers collect millions in fees, feel a bit envious. If the public security organs freeze such fees solely because they deem them excessively high or non-compliant, this indeed oversteps their bounds. After all, whether attorney fees are reasonable and compliant is not for the police to regulate. However, if the public security organs have sufficient evidence that the attorney fees paid by the client come from illegal or criminal gains, with a clear flow path, temporarily freezing the funds seems reasonable. This does not mean that a client receiving legal services should not pay reasonable and normal attorney fees. Currently, there are regulations on attorney fee standards across the country. Fees that meet these standards are obligations for clients to pay. Even if the attorney fees paid by the client have been frozen by the public security organs, the client can pay separately. Moreover, freezing deposits is not a final disposition of property. Only after a court judgment can it be determined whether the frozen property should be confiscated or returned as unrelated to the crime. Thus, frozen property may be unfrozen. Regardless of whether it is ultimately unfrozen, if the lawyer has provided legal services, the client should still pay attorney fees that meet the standards. Is this reasoning sound? I'm not sure.