Plea Bargaining In Chinese Criminal Law
Case 1: Meng Case (Heilongjiang, 2002)
Facts:
Defendant Meng committed intentional injury during a personal dispute.
Meng voluntarily confessed to the crime and expressed willingness to compensate the victim.
Legal Reasoning:
The court considered Meng’s confession as truthful and voluntary, which is a mitigating factor under Article 15 of the CPL (later formalized).
The prosecutor agreed to recommend leniency in sentencing because Meng cooperated fully and admitted all facts.
Outcome:
Meng was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment with 3 years’ probation.
The trial lasted only 25 minutes under a simplified procedure.
Significance:
Early example of plea bargaining in practice.
Shows how cooperation and confession can lead to mitigated sentencing.
Case 2: Pilot Program in 18 Cities (2016)
Facts:
A group of defendants in minor theft and fraud cases in Beijing and Shanghai participated in a pilot program.
Defendants voluntarily admitted crimes, accepted proposed punishments, and agreed with prosecutors on the facts.
Legal Reasoning:
Prosecutors and courts applied leniency as per the pilot program rules.
Eligibility: cases with imprisonment less than 3 years and full confession.
Outcome:
Over 80% of cases were resolved within 15 days, significantly faster than traditional trials.
Most defendants received probation or reduced sentences.
Significance:
Demonstrates the procedural efficiency of leniency-for-confession programs.
Institutionalized the practice of plea bargaining in pilot areas.
Case 3: Labour Rights Activist (Guangdong, 2016)
Facts:
Defendant Meng Han, a labour rights activist, was charged with “gathering crowds to disrupt public order.”
He voluntarily admitted to minor facts but contested other charges.
Legal Reasoning:
Despite partial confession, the court considered cooperation in certain aspects as a mitigating factor.
Prosecutor recommended a moderate sentence due to voluntary admission.
Outcome:
Sentenced to 21 months imprisonment, reduced due to cooperation and partial confession.
Significance:
Highlights that even in politically sensitive cases, confession can influence sentencing.
Raises questions about voluntariness and rights protection.
Case 4: Zhang Case (Shanghai, 2017 – Fraud)
Facts:
Defendant Zhang committed online fraud, stealing significant sums from multiple victims.
Zhang voluntarily reported the fraud and returned part of the money.
Legal Reasoning:
Full confession and restitution considered major mitigating factors.
Court weighed social harm against voluntary cooperation.
Outcome:
Sentenced to 5 years imprisonment, reduced from potential 7–8 years.
Significance:
Demonstrates how restitution plus confession affects sentence.
Shows prosecutors can recommend leniency in financial crimes under the program.
Case 5: Li Case (Guangzhou, 2018 – Intentional Injury)
Facts:
Defendant Li assaulted a co-worker, causing moderate injury.
He voluntarily confessed and sought reconciliation with the victim.
Legal Reasoning:
Confession and active settlement with victim allowed court to use summary procedure.
Cooperation indicated remorse, a factor for leniency.
Outcome:
Li received 2 years’ imprisonment suspended for 2 years (probation).
Significance:
Reinforces the principle: voluntary confession + cooperation = sentence reduction.
Illustrates practical application of leniency-for-confession in ordinary crimes.
Case 6: Wang Case (Chongqing, 2019 – Theft)
Facts:
Defendant Wang stole company property valued at 150,000 RMB.
He confessed, returned stolen goods, and cooperated fully with investigators.
Legal Reasoning:
Prosecutor applied leniency guidelines.
Court recognized full restitution and confession as mitigating circumstances.
Outcome:
Sentenced to 2 years imprisonment with 3 years probation.
Significance:
Shows consistency of leniency mechanism across different jurisdictions.
Confession + restitution is repeatedly emphasized in sentencing decisions.
Summary Observations from the Cases
Truthful confession is the central requirement.
Cooperation with prosecutors and restitution consistently reduces sentences.
Simplified/summary procedures save time and resources.
Mitigating effect is proportional: minor crimes often result in probation; serious crimes still receive custodial sentences but reduced.
Political or sensitive cases may also see reduced sentencing if partial cooperation occurs, though rights concerns arise.
RELATED Blog
0 comments