Case analysis:

Cjhen XIuying and H Jing CEO and CFO of the Lambert

Lamvert Ltd showcased a patent certification for AI technology for ophtalamoc testing [but cannot
be converted for industrial tesing + knew that such technology was impossible with current
technology]

 Withdrew the cash into the personal accounts and through several transactions
 Lambert Ltd had on more fund within its account

Xu bing signed a VAM agreement and invested into Lambert Limited

 Cheng Qing  recommended Lambert Ltd

o Revenge for marrying his ex girlfriend
o Was still in lve with Zhang Ting
o Continued to see each other privately
o Xu spoke foul language towards Chen saying that he would make him bankrupt
 Cheng Qing pushed Xu down a cligg
o Self defence
o Frustration or encouraged by defendant
 Cheng flew to Anhui province
o Cheng told the lawyer that XU jumped down the cliff after scorning at him because
Xu had a long term bipolar disorder
 Fraud of the evidence
 Cheng interrogated and confessed he had pushed Xu down
 Cheng pleaded forgiveness from Zhang Ting ->-> promised to pay for all of the living
expenses for the rest of her lifetime
o Forgive Cheng
 Chen and HU had been using false identity cards, they were hiding in Li Jiang City

Parties:

1. Chen and Hu
a. Fraud of patent and commercial potential of Lambert Ltd
i. ‘Chen and Hu knew that it was impossible to produce such equipment under
the current technology’
ii. Punishment  ‘Article 266 No. 7 [2017] of the Supreme People's Court)’
1. Xu Bing investing RMB 500,000,000
b. Misuse of company funds
i. It is neither income
ii. Result from embezzlement or fraud
c. Usage of false identity cards [Administrative Law -Law of the People’s Rpublic of
China on Resident Identity Cards Article 18 (2)]
i. Shall be imposed by the public security organ a fine of not less than 200
yuan but not more than 1,000 yuan, or shall be detinaed for not more than
10 days, and the illegal gains shall be confiscared:
 ii. (2) buying, selling or using falsely made or forged resident identity card.
iii. Any resident identity card that is falsely made, or forged, or obtained by
fraudulent means shall be forfeited by the public security organ.
2. Cheng
a. Fraud
i. Deliberate introduction of Lambert Ltd to him for revenge
ii. ‘VII Crime of Fraud ’  the starting amount may be determined within the
corresponding range under the following different circumstances. Since the
case involves a total sum of ‘$50,000’ of an extraordinary huge amount, the
starting point for sentencing may be determined within the range of a fixed
term imprisonment of ten to twelve years.
b. Manslaughter
i. ‘wanted to settle with Cheng Qing’  motivation for murder
ii. Campus site  perhaps to prepare for murder, body may be harder to find
and an attempt to erase evidence
1. Intentional homicide 
iii. Use of false evidence
iv. Defenses
1. Xu spoke foul language against Cheng
2. Inducement by renouncing that he would make Cheng ‘bankrupt’
3. Self defence  ‘being afraid’ Cheng pushed Xu down a cliff
4. No more than necessary
c. But would this even matter  since he had pleaded forgiveness from his wife,
Zhang, the litigation may not even begin and would not require him to be sentenced
d. Xu Bing’s family would sue him
3. The administrative organ
a. ‘’several days of non-stop interrogation without food’  excessive, no more than
necessary
b. Grievous bodily harm
c. Major procedural irregularities
i. Since there is clear evidence of torture (Huang Jing Shui case)
ii. Article 54 Criminal procedure law (2012) – evidence gained from torture is
excluded

Analyze the criminal offences, including the relevant constitutive elements and status, relevant
sentencing circumstances and a possible sentence base on the current law and criminal policy