[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, the acquittal rate has long been low, which is the result of multiple institutional factors rather than a single cause: the investigation stage primarily advances based on evidence of guilt, the procuratorial organs have already completed a round of screening during the review and prosecution stage, non-prosecution and withdrawal of prosecution have diverted a large number of cases, and the lenient sentencing system for guilty pleas and confessions covers the vast majority of defendants. Courts often handle cases with doubts by imposing light penalties, changing the charges, or exempting them from criminal punishment, so the number of cases that actually lead to an acquittal is very small, and the proportion in public judicial statistics has long been at a low level of a few thousandths of a percent. According to Article 16 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (adopted on July 1, 1979 and amended for the third time on October 26, 2018), if the circumstances are obviously minor and the harm is not great, and the case is not considered a crime, the case that has been prosecuted shall be withdrawn, not prosecuted, terminated, or declared not guilty; Article 15 stipulates that guilty pleas and confessions may be leniently dealt with according to law; Article 177 stipulates that if the circumstances of the crime are minor and no criminal punishment is required according to the Criminal Law, a decision not to prosecute may be made. A low acquittal rate does not mean that defense is worthless: non-prosecution, withdrawal of prosecution, changing the charges, exempting from criminal punishment, and probation are all effective results in a substantive sense. The focus of action should be to shift the emphasis of defense to the investigation and review and prosecution stages, rather than raising the claim of acquittal for the first time during the trial.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

"Can they be acquitted?" is the most frequently asked question by family members during consultations, and it is also the issue with the greatest gap between expectations and reality. There are three typical scenarios: First, the defendant insists that he or she did not commit the alleged acts, and the family members therefore believe that acquittal is inevitable; Second, the facts of the case exist, but the defendant believes that the legal qualification is wrong, such as economic disputes being accused of contract fraud; Third, there are gaps in the evidence chain, such as only verbal evidence and a lack of objective evidence to corroborate it. The handling paths corresponding to these three situations are not the same: The first type may be terminated by non-prosecution, the second type often involves disputes over the charge and the amount, and the third type is a typical "doubtful guilt" issue. The business community pays more attention to front-end exit paths such as compliant non-prosecution, which also do not result in acquittal, but may achieve the substantive effect of not pursuing prosecution.

II. Key points of contention

First, pre-trial diversion. Review of arrests, review of prosecutions, pre-trial conferences, and other procedures filter out many cases before they enter the trial stage. Many cases are dismissed without approval of arrest, withdrawn from prosecution, or withdrawn from charges before trial, so there's no chance to form a statistic of acquittals. Second, the application of leniency for guilty pleas and admissions of guilt. Most defendants choose to plead guilty and accept lenient treatment in exchange for a guilty verdict, so the number of acquittal claims naturally decreases. Third, the handling of cases with insufficient evidence. In practice, the paths include withdrawing the case after supplementary investigation, withdrawing charges, and handling cases with doubts, rather than declaring acquittal unconditionally. Fourth, the practical impact of trial management. Case quality evaluation and the mechanism of reporting and collective discussion of acquittal cases objectively raise the threshold for declaring acquittal. Fifth, setting defense goals. Setting "acquittal" as the only goal may easily overlook more achievable substantive results such as non-prosecution, charge modification, and lenient sentencing, which is also the most common pitfall for clients.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

From the practical observation of criminal cases handled by our firm, the success or failure of a defense of innocence is often largely determined before the trial begins. There are three common patterns: First, the defense points are confused with the "innocence points", and the sentencing circumstances and procedural flaws are directly regarded as grounds for innocence, resulting in a lack of targeted opinions; Second, the review of the admissibility of evidence is ignored, and only the probative force of the evidence is focused on, without questioning the acquisition process of key evidence and applying for the exclusion of illegal evidence according to law; Third, if the defendant suddenly retracts his confession and plea after the application of the guilty plea and plea bargain system, he not only loses the basis for leniency but also finds it difficult to form an effective defense of innocence. In judicial practice, when judges deal with cases of doubt, they usually first consider whether the evidence can be supplemented, and then whether a balance can be achieved by changing the charge or imposing a light punishment. Therefore, the defense strategy should be "layered presentation": putting forward the claim of innocence due to unclear facts and insufficient evidence as the first layer, and changing the charge, distinguishing the principal and accomplice, and seeking lenient sentencing as the second layer, and preparing sufficient materials and data to support the second layer. The defense at the investigation and review and prosecution stages is particularly crucial, because these two procedures are themselves filters for the outcome of innocence. Submitting a legal opinion of non-prosecution to the procuratorial organ and applying for a review of the necessity of detention are often more effective than repeatedly emphasizing "insufficient evidence" in the courtroom.Criminal defense and criminal case filingThe degree of professionalism directly affects whether these actions can be carried out at the right moment.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

If the defendant insists on his innocence, it is recommended to proceed in the following order: First, review the case file as soon as possible and prepare an evidence comparison table, matching the accusations with each piece of evidence and marking the missing links in the chain of evidence; Second, distinguish between the two lines of argument, namely "innocence in fact" and "insufficient evidence". The former requires counter-evidence to support it, while the latter requires pointing out the gaps in the prosecution's evidence system; Third, promptly file a motion to exclude illegal evidence. Procedural claims must be supported by evidence, and mere speculation is unlikely to gain support; Fourth, submit a legal opinion on non-prosecution at the review and prosecution stage to strive for a favorable conclusion before the trial; Fifth, prepare second-level materials in advance, such as materials on mitigating circumstances such as voluntary surrender, confession, restitution of illicit gains, and reaching a settlement, to avoid lacking sentencing grounds if the claim of innocence is not accepted. In terms of legal basis, Article 16 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (adopted on July 1, 1979 and amended for the third time on October 26, 2018) stipulates the circumstances under which criminal responsibility shall not be pursued, Article 15 stipulates that confession and plea bargaining may be given lenient treatment according to law, and Article 177 stipulates the conditions for applying non-prosecution; The Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (Law Interpretation [2021] No. 1, implemented on March 1, 2021) provides detailed rules on evidence adjudication and the exclusion of illegal evidence. For economic cases involving enterprise operations, it can also be combined with the following:Business and contract disputes in enterprisesAnd\nFinancial capital and cross-border transactions involving foreign entitiesGain experience in handling transactional evidence in business and determine the boundaries between economic disputes and criminal offenses.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

The low conviction rate precisely demonstrates that the focus of defense should be shifted forward. By the time the case enters the trial process, there are very few procedural tools available to claim innocence; while in the investigation and review and prosecution stages, non-prosecution, withdrawal of prosecution, and change of charges are all practical and achievable options. Three points need to be reminded: First, pleading not guilty and pleading guilty and accepting punishment are not a simple choice between two options. Whether to plead guilty should be based on a comprehensive review of the case file and evidence evaluation. It is crucial to avoid making irreversible choices when the information is incomplete. Second, family members should not pressure lawyers with the goal of "must be acquitted", nor should they disclose the case details or comment on the case-handling authorities online. Third, regardless of the final outcome, interim results such as bail pending trial, non-prosecution, and probation should be strived for and fixed in a timely manner. For cases involving enterprise operations, relevant information can be combined with it.Specialised legal servicesSimultaneously promote compliance rectification, and take into account the handling of criminal risks and the normal operation of the enterprise in a comprehensive manner. Specific plans can be discussed withBeijing Henglue Law FirmIt was confirmed after communication.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: With such a low acquittal rate, does it still make sense to engage in a not-guilty defense?

It's meaningful, but the goal should not be limited to "an acquittal". A large number of cases are achieved through such means as not approving arrests, not prosecuting, withdrawing charges, changing charges, and exempting from criminal punishment. These results also belong to effective defense. The practical value of defense lies in raising issues of unclear facts and insufficient evidence as early as possible and striving for the most favorable handling methods, rather than pinning all hopes on acquittal in the trial.

Q2: What evidence do I need to prepare to fight for my innocence?

First, it can refute the evidence against the accused, such as alibis, surveillance and communication records, transaction vouchers, and appraisal opinions; second, it can refute materials that imply subjective knowledge, such as job responsibilities, company regulations, and communication records; third, it can point out the gaps in the prosecution's evidence system and requires materials from the original trial files, such as interrogation transcripts and contradictions in witness testimonies; fourth, it can support lenient outcomes, such as restitution of illicit gains, apologies, and medical records.

Q3: How much does it cost to plead not guilty?

According to the "Measures for the Management of Lawyer Service Fees" (issued by the National Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of Price on December 1, 2006), the defense of criminal cases is subject to government-guided prices, with the provincial-level price authorities and the judicial administrative departments jointly determining the benchmark prices and floating ranges. The specific standards shall be subject to the currently effective regulations in Beijing. For cases requiring appraisal, the appraisal fees will be calculated separately. The workload and costs will increase correspondingly for cases involving multiple charges and defendants. It is recommended to clarify all matters in a written contract after a face-to-face consultation.

Q4: How long does it typically take for a criminal case to proceed from being registered to reaching a conclusion?

During the investigation stage, the detention period is generally no more than two months, and it can be extended according to the law if the case is complex; the review and prosecution stage usually lasts one month, and it can be extended for major and complex cases; the first-instance ordinary procedure usually takes several months. If the case ends with a non-prosecution decision during the review and prosecution stage, the overall time will be significantly shorter than if it proceeds to the judgment stage. Family members should communicate with lawyers at key stages and pay attention to changes in the timeframes.

Q5: If a family member wants to fight for acquittal, what should they do first?

The first step is to engage a lawyer as soon as possible to meet with and review the case materials, clarify the facts of the accusation, the charges, and the available evidence, then determine whether the defendant is factually innocent, the charges are disputed, or the evidence is insufficient, and based on this, determine the direction of the defense; at the same time, organize the favorable materials and hand them over to the lawyer. Do not contact the witnesses on your own, do not discuss the case with co-defendants, and do not easily believe the fee-charging promises that "they can get acquitted".

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. The adjudication guidelines in other provinces and cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situation.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Criminal defense legal services·Beijing Henglue Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and publicly available adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.