The Fake Procuratorate Call and the Disloyal Account Holder
In January 2024, A recruited B to run a 'safe account' scheme. A telephoned C, posing as a procuratorate officer, and told C that C's bank account was linked to a money-laundering case and that C must transfer RMB 800,000 to a 'verification account' or face arrest. C transferred the money to an account opened by B at A's request. B had agreed with D in advance that B would keep the funds and pay D 20 per cent; after receipt B transferred RMB 640,000 to D and gave A only RMB 60,000, telling A that the victim had sent less. A believed the total was RMB 100,000. B later surrendered to police, truthfully confessed the whole scheme, and returned RMB 200,000. The prosecutors charged A and B with fraud. A's lawyer argues that A should be liable only for RMB 100,000 because that is what A believed; the lawyer also argues that B's retention of the money makes B guilty of embezzlement rather than fraud.
1. What offence should A and B be convicted of, and what amount is attributed to each? Address A's mistaken belief and B's retention of the funds.
Read the worked answer
The conduct is fraud under Criminal Law art. 266, committed as a joint crime under art. 25. A and B had a common plan: A impersonated a public officer and created the deception, while B supplied the account and received the victim's money. Their acts were functionally divided but jointly caused C's mistaken disposition and loss. The offence was complete when C transferred RMB 800,000 in reliance on the deception. A's belief that the victim had sent only RMB 100,000 is a mistake about the amount of the proceeds, not about the nature of the joint criminal act; under the joint-crime principle each principal is liable for the total amount jointly caused, with the mistaken belief relevant to sentencing rather than to the conviction. B's later retention of the money and transfer to D does not convert the fraud into embezzlement. B never lawfully possessed C's money; the funds were criminal proceeds jointly obtained, and retaining or dividing proceeds among joint offenders does not create a separate embezzlement offence. B's surrender under art. 67 is a sentencing matter and does not alter the charge.
2. Does B's voluntary surrender and return of RMB 200,000 affect the charge or only sentencing?
Read the worked answer
Voluntary surrender under Criminal Law art. 67 affects sentencing, not the definition of the offence. It requires surrender before compulsory measures are taken and a truthful confession of the crime. On the facts B surrendered and truthfully confessed the whole scheme, including A's role, so the conditions are met. The court may mitigate or reduce the punishment, and because the amount is very large a reduction is significant but not automatic; the court retains discretion. Returning RMB 200,000 is restitution and a manifestation of remorse, which may also lead to a lighter sentence under the sentencing guidelines, but it does not negate the completed fraud. The remaining RMB 600,000 must still be recovered. If B had surrendered but concealed A or falsely described the scheme, the surrender would be ineffective. The return of part of the money does not reduce the amount of the offence, because the amount is measured by the loss caused, not by the amount ultimately recovered.
3. How should the court assess the amount under the fraud sentencing thresholds, and what difference does A's RMB 60,000 share make?
Read the worked answer
Fraud amounts are graded by judicial interpretation: generally RMB 3,000 to 10,000 is 'relatively large', RMB 30,000 to 100,000 is 'huge', and RMB 500,000 and above is 'especially huge', with provincial high courts adjusting the starting points within the permitted ranges. The victim lost RMB 800,000, so the case falls within the 'especially huge' band, carrying ten years' imprisonment or more, or life imprisonment, together with a fine or confiscation of property. A's actual share of RMB 60,000 is not the measure of liability. In a joint crime, each principal is sentenced for the total amount jointly caused, although the court must consider each offender's role, position, degree of participation and actual gain when fixing the sentence. A's smaller share may justify a sentence below that of B, but it does not reduce the statutory amount. B's agreement with D and transfer of RMB 640,000 may be examined as evidence of B's greater control over the proceeds, which is relevant to the sentence and to recovery, not to a separate offence.