When dealing with cases of suspected money laundering, the core goal of defense lawyers is to interpret the parties' capital flows as legal investment behaviors through legal arguments and evidence construction. The following is a set of systematic defense strategy framework, combining legal logic and practical points： --- ###**1. Deconstruction of the legal basis and the burden of proof of the prosecution** 1. **Clarify the constituent elements of the crime of money laundering** According to Article 191 of China's Criminal Law, the crime of money laundering needs to be met at the same time： -Subjectively know that the funds come from a specific upstream crime -Objectively implement the act of concealing or concealing the source and nature of funds The focus of the defense is to break the prosecution's “subjective knowledge” and “illegality of behavior” evidence chain. 2. **Use the burden of proof to reverse the limitation** It is emphasized that the prosecution must independently prove that the parties are “aware” of the source of the funds, and cannot presume guilt based on the mode of transfer of funds alone. Invoking Article 53 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the prosecution is required to provide direct evidence (such as communication records, witness testimony) to prove subjective malice. --- ###**2. Construction of the evidence system for the legality of funds** 1. **Traceable legal income** -Organize the historical income certificates of the parties (corporate financial statements, tax payment certificates, bank turnover), and establish the correlation between funds and legal business activities. -If cross-border funds are involved, provide documents for the record of the Foreign Exchange Administration, international trade contracts and customs declarations to prove that they meet the requirements of cross-border investment supervision. 2. **Demonstration of compliance with investment behavior** -**Rationality of transaction structure**: Introduce testimony from financial experts to explain the universality of multi-layer shareholding, offshore structure and other operations in the fields of venture capital and private equity (such as VIE structure cases). -**Market consideration matching**: Through a third-party evaluation report, it is proved that the transaction price meets the industry valuation standards (such as PE multiple and asset premium rate), and refutes the allegation of “inflated transactions”. - **Closed-loop verification of funds**: Track the final flow of funds to physical projects or assets (such as real estate and equity), and provide project progress documents (construction contracts, shareholder meeting minutes). 3. **Exclude the ”abnormality" label** -Compare the capital turnover rate, number of accounts and other parameters of similar legal investments, and use statistical models to prove that the parties' operations have not deviated significantly from the market norm. -Explain that high-frequency operations such as ”fast forward and fast out" are hedging strategies or cyclical needs of the industry (such as short-term arbitrage in commodity trade). --- ###**3. The defense path at the subjective level** 1. **Shaping the identity of a "bona fide third party”** -If the funds involve a third party (such as a family trust or proxy holding), provide a written agreement and due diligence records of intermediaries (lawyers, accountants) to prove that the parties have fulfilled their reasonable review obligations. -Invoking Article 15 of the "Anti-Money Laundering Law", it is argued that financial institutions have not prompted suspicious transactions, and the parties have not intentionally laundered money. 2. **Business practices and cognitive blind spots** -Collect industry association documents and industry white papers to prove that complex transaction models are common practices in the industry (such as the splitting and financing of box office revenue rights in the film and television industry). -Combine the educational background and professional experience of the parties (such as those in the non-financial industry) to demonstrate their lack of cognitive ability to identify money laundering patterns. --- ###**4. Procedural Defense and evidence exclusion** 1. **Legality review** -Defects in the approval procedures for challenging the sealing/freezing order (such as out-of-scope freezing and failure to notify in time). -Apply for the exclusion of illegal evidence (such as confession transcripts, unsynchronized audio and video interrogations). 2. **Third-party data cross-examination** -The prosecution is required to provide a complete audit of the flow of funds, questioning the qualification of the appraisal institution or the error of the algorithm model (if normal related-party transactions are not excluded). -Apply for access to the original data of the central bank's Anti-money laundering monitoring center to cross-verify the authenticity of suspicious transaction reports. --- ###**5. Typical cases and judicial discretion** 1. **Citing favorable jurisprudence** -Referring to similar innocence cases (such as (2019) Shanghai Criminal Final No. XX), it is emphasized that when there is a lack of subjective knowledge, even if the financial path is complicated, it does not constitute a crime. -Citing the judicial policy of “strictly distinguishing between economic innovation and illegal crimes” in the Supreme Court's "Several Opinions on Hearing Money Laundering Cases". 2. **Sentencing negotiation space** -In areas where the evidence is weak (such as upstream crimes that have not been convicted), promote “non-prosecution without suspicion” or defense of minor crimes (such as advocating the crime of helping faith rather than money laundering). --- ###**6. Risk warning and strategic flexibility** -**Dynamically adjust the focus of defense**: If part of the capital chain cannot be reasonably explained, a “cutting strategy” will be adopted to attribute part of the dispute to accounting errors or third-party behavior. -**Assistance in compliance rectification**: It is recommended that the parties make up taxes, improve internal risk control, and exchange for judicial leniency through post-incident compliance. --- Through the above-mentioned multi-dimensional strategy, defense lawyers can shift the focus of the case from “dispute over the nature of the behavior” to “insufficient evidence for the prosecution”, and ultimately maximize the rights and interests of the parties within the legal framework. It should be noted that the specific plan must be customized and adjusted according to the details of the case file to avoid template response.