How can we better understand the psychology of case handlers?

Written by: Shao Shiwei, Mankun

Successful Cases

In criminal cases, many parties involved and their families believe that a lawyer's job is to "argue based on reason and be eloquent." However, in some cases where the nature of the crime is clear and the sentencing range is limited, truly effective defense work often does not involve simply opposing the judicial authorities, but rather tests the lawyer's communication skills.

Especially in the current context of the guilty plea system, the sentencing recommendations from the prosecutor's office often play a crucial role in the final outcome of the case. At this stage, whether the lawyer can understand the psychology of the case handlers and grasp the issues they genuinely care about in specific cases, and then engage in professional communication based on common ground while respecting differences, often determines the direction of the case.

In other words, a lawyer's expertise is not only reflected in their grasp of legal principles but also in their ability to gain the trust of case handlers. When a lawyer's opinions are recognized by the case handlers, it often means that there is room to negotiate for more lenient treatment for the client.

So, how can we better understand the psychology of case handlers? There is no standard answer; it relies more on the accumulation of long-term case experience, but there are also some guidelines to follow. This article will illustrate how to advance through specific strategies to achieve the ideal result of effective defense, based on a case handled by lawyer Shao Shiwei involving virtual currency settlement and the charge of operating a gambling house.

A Programmer Suspected of Operating a Gambling House Using "Virtual Currency Payment Settlement"

Months ago, I took over a case involving the operation of a gambling house: the client was a programmer accused of providing virtual currency payment settlement services for multiple overseas gambling websites, suspected of constituting the crime of operating a gambling house.

According to the police's accusations, this programmer had helped several gambling platforms complete a total of over 400 million USDT in gambling fund settlements over the past two years, equivalent to about 2.7 billion RMB; his personal illegal profits exceeded 900,000 USDT, approximately 6 million RMB.

According to Article 303 of the Criminal Law regarding the crime of operating a gambling house, if the total amount of gambling funds reaches 300,000 RMB or the illegal income exceeds 30,000 RMB, it constitutes "serious circumstances," and is usually punishable by imprisonment of more than five years but less than ten years.

Faced with such a clearly defined case with clear data and a huge amount, what can the lawyer do? Where is the space for defense?

A "Dead-End" Evidence Dilemma

When I took over this case, the police investigation phase had already concluded, evidence had been collected, and the case had been transferred to the prosecutor's office for review and prosecution.

This article focuses on the communication work of lawyers at the prosecutor's stage, as since the implementation of the guilty plea system, the sentencing recommendations given by prosecutors play a crucial role in the final sentence imposed by the court.

After initial communication with the family, I learned that there were actually two other partners involved in this case; the three of them contacted gambling platforms as a studio and independently undertook business. However, one partner had already passed away, and the other had vanished after the incident. The client was arrested on the spot by police who had been waiting at the airport upon his return.

From the perspective of the lawyer's defense, what were the roles of the three individuals? How was the profit distribution of the over 900,000 USDT agreed upon? — This fact is crucial. The reason is that the client was arrested at the airport without any warning, so he could not claim to have surrendered. Besides the conventional defense points regarding the amount of gambling funds and profits, only by striving for recognition of a secondary role could we potentially reduce his sentence to below five years.

But this is a "dead-end" case, as the case handler once told the client during questioning, "Who knows if what you said is true? We only know that the contract logic was set up by you, and you were the one communicating with the gambling platform in the TG group. You say you have two partners, but A has not been seen at all, and B has been dead for a long time. So, is it not you who did it? No matter how we investigate, it’s only you!"

To be honest, even now, I do not know if the other two partners really existed. But for the lawyer's defense work, what the truth is does not matter; what matters is how to use the existing evidence to strive for a lighter sentence for the client.

Assessing Whether Local Precedents Can Help This Case

In addition to the legal provisions themselves, local past judgment practices are also an important reference for constructing defense strategies. As I mentioned in my previous article "Different Judgments for the Same Case? A Study on 'Jurisdiction' Issues in Criminal Cases" (see the image below) — even for the same crime, it is not uncommon for "different judgments for the same case" to occur in different regions.

I conducted an in-depth search of "operating a gambling house" + "virtual currency settlement" cases in this region in recent years, but the results were not optimistic. For example:

In the case of Chen and others, the defendants provided fund settlement for gambling platforms, with a total gambling fund exceeding 90 million RMB, and all were sentenced to actual imprisonment;

In the case of Fang and others who operated a gambling house using an online gambling platform, although the defendants had withdrawn illegal income of 10 million RMB, they were still sentenced to more than five years in prison;

Additionally, based on related cases handled by our team, some case handlers believe that using virtual currency transactions should be considered an aggravating circumstance that the court will reference for heavier punishment.

After conducting thorough research on local related cases, I became more aware that in this region's judicial practice, cases of operating a gambling house generally "cannot escape actual imprisonment." Even more pessimistically, under the existing evidence, this case could not be defended from the perspective of "aiding and abetting" — because the client was not an employee, and both subjective knowledge and cooperative intent were evident, lacking the "auxiliary and subordinate" status.

With time tight and tasks heavy, when I received the case files, the review and prosecution period had already passed more than half. There was no time to think too much; I started working from the first step of reviewing the files!

The Two Core Difficulties of the Case

With nearly a thousand pages of documents and dozens of gigabytes of electronic data, I spent a full five days conducting a preliminary review.

I considered that the tricky aspects of this case were twofold:

One is the aforementioned issue of the other involved parties being "dead with no evidence." How can we determine the client's role within his group? Moreover, according to the police's description of the case in the files, there was no mention of principal or accomplice; all actions related to the case were directed at him alone: connecting with the gambling platform, setting up the contract logic, using TG for communication, and controlling the wallet address were all completed by the client. Even the gambling website had no staff present. This further intensified the perception of the client as "acting alone."

The other is the on-chain transaction data. This type of data inherently possesses openness and objectivity. Even if the police made some omissions during the statistics, how much can the total gambling fund of 2.7 billion and the profit amount of over 6 million be reduced?

Could we suggest continuing to capture the other partners or platform personnel? Of course, we could suggest that. But these individuals have strong anti-investigation capabilities and are likely not in the country. Given the current criminal investigation mechanism, similar suggestions involving cross-border evidence collection and arrests have almost no practical operability. The police generally would not go through complex international cooperation procedures for this.

So I needed to carefully consider my communication strategy. When communicating with the prosecutor, what should I say, and how should I say it? How can I negotiate to reduce the client's sentence?

How to Communicate? Is "Stubbornness" Useful?

In practice, there is a type of lawyer's approach to cases that we in the industry refer to as "stubborn lawyers." These lawyers often display strong antagonism when defending their clients. They typically argue legal issues with a "confrontational, competitive, uncompromising, unyielding, and relentless" approach, directly opposing case handlers during communication, and even exposing issues in the case online to leverage social pressure to shift the case's direction.

This style can indeed have some effect in high-profile acquittal cases with significant social impact and room for controversy. However, in cases like this one, where the nature of the case is already clear and the focus of contention is on the sentencing range, "stubbornness" often proves not only ineffective but may even backfire — in the eyes of the judicial authorities, an improper attitude towards pleading guilty and poor communication can ultimately lead to a heavier sentencing result, a situation we often encounter in case handling.

Does this mean that in clearly defined cases like this one, we can only "lie flat and go through the motions, pleading guilty"? Of course not. In clearly defined cases, we can still adopt effective strategies for a lighter defense to strive for a more lenient outcome for the client.

Of course, how to develop a defense strategy for a lighter sentence depends on the specifics of each case and requires specific analysis. In addition to examining the evidence itself, it is also necessary to comprehensively consider the stage of the case, the individual personality and working style of the case handler, and their understanding of legal provisions and overall judgment of the case facts. Sometimes, the same case may present completely different outcomes in the hands of different case handlers.

Initial Confrontation with the Prosecutor

One morning, I arranged a communication meeting with the handling prosecutor. I arrived early at the prosecutor's office to wait, but when I walked into his office, I was immediately struck by the heavy stack of case files on his desk.

He appeared exceptionally busy, with the desk phone ringing off the hook, hanging up only to ring again. I sat silently in the chair across from him, waiting for an appropriate "interjection point."

Finally, the ringing quieted down, and he looked up at me, speaking bluntly: "This case is not controversial; you should plead guilty as soon as possible; the time is about right. We have many cases, and the court wants to expedite the prosecution."

I took the opportunity to ask my first question: "What are your current thoughts on sentencing?"

He flipped through the case files, somewhat impatiently saying, "He says the code was written by two partners? B has been dead for how many years, and he still claims B wrote it? You’ve seen the files; A has no trace in this case at all, we don’t even know if this person exists; he’s probably just making it up! With such a large amount, based on other cases we’ve handled, he should be sentenced to at least 7 to 8 years."

At that moment, I could sense his clear inclination towards a specific conclusion — his view of the case was basically in line with that of the police.

To be frank, from the case files alone, it indeed appears so: he was the one connecting with the gambling platform; he was the one setting up the contract logic; he was the one controlling the wallet address (and it wasn’t a multi-signature wallet); in the TG chat records, he was the only one communicating with the platform. Although he claimed to only receive a fixed salary, he also said he hadn’t shared profits for so many years and couldn’t clarify who took how much; moreover, in the initial few records, he didn’t even mention the so-called partners.

In this situation — not to mention the prosecutor, even any ordinary person would likely have a preconceived notion.

How to Achieve Effective Communication?

In fact, before meeting with the prosecutor, I had repeatedly reviewed all the key evidence points of the case — I can say I went in with clear communication goals and prepared content. His initial response did not surprise me.

Next, I began to ask about his views on the case. At first, the prosecutor did not pay much attention to my opinions, as in cases like this with a guilty plea + clear data, case handlers usually instinctively follow the process.

But immediately, I said, if the prosecutor's office does not withdraw the investigation and simply prosecutes the case, do you think the judge will ask the prosecutor to continue supplementing the evidence? Just this one sentence made him visibly pause, and then he put down his work and took out his notebook to start taking notes.

In fact, although it seems that there is no dispute over the nature of this case, there are quite a few bugs both substantively and procedurally, such as the judicial disposal process for virtual currency, the calculation methods for the amounts involved, and the identification methods. Moreover, if the defendant is easily classified as the principal offender, there could be some aftereffects. If the defense insists on requesting a withdrawal of the investigation, it would also give the prosecutor, who is handling a case involving currency for the first time, a headache because the evidence that can be retrieved has already been collected. Even if the case is sent back to the police, it would be difficult to supplement any stronger evidence for this case.

In short, I saw the prosecutor's expression grow more serious as he took notes, which indicated that my opinions were being taken seriously. After communicating for two or three hours in the morning, he finally said, "Okay, your points do have some merit. I've noted them down. I need to discuss this with my superiors, and some content also needs to be confirmed with the police before I can respond to you." I knew that I had achieved the purpose of this communication.

In the following days, I did not stop pushing forward. I continued to maintain online communication with the prosecutor, repeatedly discussing and addressing key issues in the case.

As Desired

Ultimately, the sentencing recommendation for this case — which initially came from the prosecutor as at least seven or eight years — was gradually lowered.

First, we persuaded them to reduce the sentencing recommendation to below five years, then further discussed a three-year actual sentence, followed by a sentence of three years with a five-year suspension, and finally, we landed on a result that truly satisfied both me and the client: a sentence of two years in prison, with a three-year probation.

To outsiders, this might seem like a miracle.

But for me, every adjustment, every persuasion, and every control of the communication rhythm was steadily advancing according to my work plan. Due to space limitations, I will share my case handling thoughts and details of communication with the prosecutor another time.

When I finally confirmed this result over the phone with the prosecutor, he said:

"The fact that the leadership in the court ultimately agreed to this result is indeed due to your lawyers' efforts. The work of the defense attorney was indeed very thorough, and we acknowledge that your viewpoints are quite reasonable."

To be honest, hearing this from the prosecutor was the first time in my eight years of practice. After all, people in the field know that while it is called a "professional community," how many cases truly reflect mutual respect and recognition between the case handlers and lawyers?

The client was also very satisfied with the final result, so the guilty plea and sentencing were smoothly signed, and the case was transferred to the court. However, the court phase was not without its challenges.

Not long after the case entered the court, my partner, Lawyer Ding, received a call from the judge —

"How did the prosecutor come up with this sentencing recommendation? At most, it should be below five years; how could probation be applicable?"

Hearing this, we felt a tightness in our chests, as the prosecutor's sentencing recommendation was merely a suggestion, and the final decision still rested with the judge.

The twists and turns in this process need not be elaborated upon; in short, it was a close call, but ultimately, the court adopted the prosecutor's sentencing recommendation, and the judgment result was officially finalized: a sentence of two years in prison, with a three-year probation.

As a side note, the judge was quite interesting; afterward, he quietly asked us how we communicated with the prosecutor. "They usually don't care about us?" (The judge's exact words).

Review · Finding Hope in the Gaps

I often say that the work of a criminal defense lawyer is often about finding hope in the gaps.

The ideal outcome of the case is actually built on the meticulous analysis of the lawyer's litigation strategy and the good communication established at every step with the case handler. Every step of the work needs to be timed correctly and measured appropriately.

The case itself was clearly defined, involved a high amount, and the client voluntarily pleaded guilty, expressing no disagreement with the facts or the amounts calculated by the investigating unit. It seemed like a case with no room for maneuver. However, I always believe that no matter how difficult or complex a case is, as long as there is no final judgment, there is always room for communication and adjustment. The issue is not about denying anything, but rather: how to find a breakthrough point to promote a more favorable judgment for the client within the existing evidence structure.

The breakthrough point in this case was not to question the clearly defined factual basis of the case, but to accurately identify the possible concerns of the case handlers, find the "risks they cannot accept," and then use these risks to promote adjustments in the handling of the case.

Throughout the defense process, we did not shy away from the severity of the case, nor did we blindly challenge the classification; instead, we designed strategies from the perspective of "allowing the case to smoothly complete the process while also bringing the punishment into a reasonable range." In short, standing in the position of the case handlers and fully considering their perspectives to propose corresponding defense viewpoints was a key factor in achieving a favorable result for the client.

Gratitude for the Trust of Colleagues

This case was actually referred to me by Lawyer Ding Yue from Shanghai Shuke Law Firm, who introduced the family to me.

To be honest, after many years of being a lawyer, I have had quite a few cases referred by colleagues. However, this kind of trust between colleagues is not easy to come by, as such recommendations are a form of professional endorsement. If the referred lawyer messes up the case, the introducer's own reputation is also at stake. Especially in a case like this, which is new and complex with a high amount involved, it appears to be a very tricky case for any lawyer.

But Lawyer Ding did not hesitate at all and immediately recommended me to the family. She told the family: "Lawyer Shao has handled many virtual currency and gambling-related cases and has relatively rich experience. I hope he can join this case."

I was quite touched after hearing this. We did not know each other before, but she was willing to sincerely recommend me to the family without any prior relationship. This kind of trust essentially places the interests of the client first.

Throughout the case handling process, our cooperation was also very smooth. Whether it was discussing case strategies, communicating with the family, or preparing materials, we were able to coordinate perfectly. At the same time, I also appreciated her professionalism demonstrated throughout the case, her sincerity, kindness, and her sense of responsibility towards the client and their family.

Postscript

After finishing this article, I still want to add a few words, perhaps unrelated to the case itself, but related to the often-repeated topic of why lawyers defend "bad people."

Some may say, what is there to defend in such cases? Gambling has harmed so many families; such people should be heavily punished! You lawyers are just helping bad people escape punishment, turning black into white!

However, through handling hundreds of criminal cases, I have seen that as criminal lawyers, we are never facing an abstract "crime," but rather specific individuals. And behind each person, there is one or even several families.

Moreover, even if a person's actions are ultimately classified as criminal, there are specific reasons from their perspective.

In this case, the client was trying to make a living and had been working abroad for many years. Having experience in trading cryptocurrencies and being a programmer skilled in coding, he was introduced to this job of "helping the platform handle fund settlements." This decision was certainly wrong, but his original intention was to earn more money to provide a better life for his family.

Although he indeed made quite a bit of money from this business over the past two years, he lived very frugally, which is why the money in his exchange account had hardly been touched. Apart from a small amount he cashed out when needed to send as living expenses to his family back home, he saved the rest for his child's future education and living expenses. He knew that he might not live to see his child go to college, so he worked hard to earn money, hoping to leave a little more for his child while he was still alive.

Yes, he did break the law, but he has already borne the corresponding consequences: he was detained for more than half a year and paid back the illegal income and fines. However, if he were to continue being detained for a long time in the future, his entire family would fall into a deeper predicament.

We never deny the harmfulness of crime. But many times, lawyers are not just defending a person who has been accused; they are also saving a family that is already on the brink of collapse. This may be one of the meanings of criminal defense.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。