Case Brief

In March 2021, drug user Z was arrested while "picking up" a package of drugs at a bus stop in Beijing. After interrogation, Z confessed that he bought the drugs from a foreign national S at the price of 2,000 RMB per package via WeChat (a Chinese instant messaging, social media, and mobile payment app). After Z transferred the money via WeChat, S then informed him via WeChat the hiding location of the drugs. Based on this clue, officers of the Public Security Bureau arrested S in a residential compound. S argued that he was only helping T, a compatriot who did not understand Chinese, to forward WeChat messages. He did not know that T was selling drugs, although he did suspect such. He also did not profit from T’s transactions.

Investigation Results

By recovering the data from the two mobile phones confiscated from S, officers of the Public Security Bureau discovered that there were many chat records between S and Z on S’s WeChat. Although the word "drugs" was not mentioned in the chat records, Z did ask S for information such as, "Are there any goods?" "How much is a pack?" “When will the goods be delivered?”, and S responded to all his inquiries in time. In addition, the transfer records of S’s WeChat also showed that Z transferred 2,000 RMB to S that day. Although on the day that Z was arrested in Beijing, S was indeed out of town and therefore could not have placed the drugs at the bus stop, considering the chat records between S and T, the police believed that this was a crime jointly committed by S and T: S was responsible for negotiating with the buyer of the drugs. Once the price had been agreed upon, T would transport the drugs to the hiding place, and then inform the buyer of the hiding place through S.

Handling Process

After accepting S’s entrustment, two attorneys from our team immediately went to the detention center to meet with S and learned about his demands as well as the case in detail through communication with the police officer and the prosecutor. After the initial meeting, our attorneys met with S six more times in total. Through these meetings, they grasped the ins and outs of the case, conducted internal discussions on the case, and formulated a specific plan. They believed that there were two main tasks at hand: 1. retrieving relevant cases and finding out the approximate terms of imprisonment in similar drug trafficking cases; 2. contacting the prosecution to review the files, check the evidence held by the prosecutor and the police, and analyze whether there was a complete chain of evidence to determine the facts of the crime.

Through retrieving a large number of similar cases and analysis of the prosecution's files, our attorneys found out that, according to the recent judicial practice of Chinese courts, in similar drug crimes, even when the perpetrators just suspected but did not know for certain that the items that they were helping others to sell were in fact drugs, they would still be found of having subjective intent, which could lead to convictions for drug trafficking. However, by analyzing the files, our attorneys found that the evidence held by the prosecution and the police was flawed. They also did not have sufficient direct evidence to form a perfect chain of evidence. The police would still need to conduct additional investigations. Therefore, our attorneys believed that if the police could obtain key evidence in the future, S would likely be convicted of a felony (ten years imprisonment or life imprisonment), and it would be rather risky to mount an innocence defense then. However, at this stage, it was still possible to negotiate with the prosecution on terms of imprisonment. So, they took the initiative to have several rounds of effective written and oral communication with the prosecution.

Case Result

In the end, with our attorneys’ persistent efforts, the prosecution and the court accepted their defense. Our client was only sentenced to nine months in prison by the court.

（Lead Lawyers: Matthew King）