Liu Qiang's Legal Analysis of Dongmingzhou Incident｜Legal Law

mini Topics

Text｜Jiang Jinhan

2022/10/10 15:00

Data map: Liu Qiangdong. Figure: Visual China

In 2018, Liu Qiangdong made a lot of noise after the alleged sexual assault incident in the United States was exposed. At the end of the year, the U.S. prosecutor in Mingzhou decided not to prosecute Liu Qiangdong, and the incident fell for a while. However, four months after U.S. prosecutors decided against criminal prosecution, Jingyao Liu, a Mingzhou female college student who earlier accused Liu Qiangdong of sexual assault, formally filed a civil lawsuit against Liu Qiangdong. For more than three years, this civil lawsuit has gone through several pretrial legal procedures, including offline public hearings, the disclosure of a large amount of evidence such as police body-enforcement recorder videos, the legal opinions submitted by both parties, and the determination of the jury, etc. The case has been highly concerned by all parties. Just two days before the formal trial, the two sides suddenly announced a settlement, ending the proceedings of the case.

Although the case of Liu Qiang's Dongmingzhou incident was legally closed, there were many doubts and speculations about all aspects involved. The author has been a practicing lawyer in the United States for many years, trying to analyze the following points from a legal perspective.

1. Liu Qiangdong has not been criminally charged, does it mean his innocence and "innocence"?

In short, Yes and No. Liu Qiangdong was initially investigated on the charge of "rape". When prosecutors are considering whether to prosecute, they first examine the relevant evidence. In this case, the prosecutor considered that the evidence was insufficient and made a decision not to criminally prosecute through the investigation of the surveillance video, the content of the text messages, the police's investigation at the crime scene, and the inconsistency of the testimony provided by the woman. It can be predicted that even if the prosecutors criminally prosecute Liu Qiangdong, the court will most likely acquit Liu Qiangdong. A court conviction requires the unanimous decision of a jury, which is the consensus of each jury member. In criminal proceedings, the applicable standard of proof for the jury to find the defendant guilty is "beyond all reasonable doubt", that is, only the evidence presented by the prosecutor can prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. When the degree of certainty is reached, the jury can find the defendant guilty. "Beyond all reasonable doubt" is a fairly high standard of proof. The prosecutor obviously believes that the existing evidence does not meet this standard, so there is no doubt that Liu Qiangdong's rape charge cannot be convicted. On the other hand, the prosecutor's decision not to criminally prosecute rape by relying on the existing evidence does not mean Liu Qiangdong's "innocence" of other related misconduct. In fact, the other related wrongdoings described were indeed charged in subsequent civil lawsuits.

2. If the civil lawsuit brought by Jingyao Liu against Liu Qiangdong is not settled but goes to court, what will be the result?

Jingyao Liu made six charges in the indictment, including three charges against Liu Qiangdong: assault and battery with intent, unlawful restraint of liberty (in a luxury car), sexual assault and battery (in an apartment); and three charges against JD.com Joint and several liability charges. The author believes that Jingyao Liu (partly) has a good chance of winning the case for the following reasons: first, the scope of the charges in civil litigation is much larger than the charges in criminal litigation, and it is easy to be supported by relevant evidence; second, in civil litigation, the standard adopted by the jury It is "preponderance of evidence", that is, as long as Jingyao Liu can prove the truth and reliability of the accusation with a probability greater than 50%, the jury can accept and judge Jingyao Liu in favor of the case, and this "preponderance of evidence" standard is far more The "beyond all reasonable doubt" standard is easy to meet; finally, in a civil suit, 12 jurors need not reach a consensus, as long as seven or more jurors agree. So, if Jingyao Liu wins the case, how much compensation will he get? The answer: God knows, because American juries are notoriously unpredictable.

3. Why did Liu Qiangdong choose to reconcile?

Liu Qiangdong chose to reconcile before the trial. The main purpose was to avoid the unpredictable verdict of the jury and to protect himself, JD.com and two JD.com employees related to the case to a certain extent. It can be expected that if the trial goes to court, the accusation of the plaintiff's lawyer will not be limited to Liu Qiangdong himself, the two JD employees related to this case, JD's liquor bureau culture, various unspoken rules and shameful business operations, etc. will be exposed. In the version of the plaintiff's lawyer, the story of Liu Qiangdong's mastermind, the coordination of JD.com employees, and the malicious business environment of JD.com that directly caused the plaintiff's physical and mental harm, as long as it is shown in court, no matter whether the trial results win or lose, It will be disastrous for both Liu Qiangdong and JD.com. In addition, based on the practical experience of Liu Qiangdong's legal team, it is likely that they have already engaged in court exercises: paying to hire people to play the roles of judges, jurors, and opposing lawyers to predict the actual outcome of the trial. If the court exercise shows that there is a certain The probability is to lose the case, it is better to settle the matter.

4. Why did Jingyao Liu choose to settle?

The high settlement fee is of course one of the reasons, because the unpredictability of the jury is also true for the plaintiff. After all, a bird in the hand is better than a bird in the forest. Another most important reason is that Jingyao Liu chose to reconcile, which can protect personal privacy and avoid personal exposure. It can be expected that if the trial is entered, the defense lawyer will carry out a full-scale attack on the plaintiff. In the defendant's lawyer's version, Jingyao Liu will be described as a slut who is sexually disorderly, mercenary, relies on sugar daddy connections, and obtains opportunities through sex transactions; her relationship history, classmates, friends, acquaintances, social information All kinds of "evidence" that can be used to stigmatize will be made public in court, and the plaintiff will be questioned by top litigators like "the devil's advocate". How much mental capacity does Jingyao Liu have to survive the trial? Will there be further psychological trauma? From this point of view, reconciliation is the best choice for Jingyao Liu. There is no need for Jingyao Liu's side to ask for more, and those who oppose Jingyao Liu should not simply infer that this case is "fairy dance" based on the reconciliation result.

5. What is the truth? What are the implications of this case?

Unfortunately, there are only legal facts, not objective truths. The objective truth is Rashomon, and the legal facts that are most likely to be close to the objective truth have been "reconciled" in advance. The settlement fee is determined by the two parties through negotiation. The amount should be lower than the plaintiff's previous request, and it is also within the range that Liu Qiangdong can afford. As for the specific figure, I am afraid it will always be a mystery. If there is any reference to this case, it will probably be a warning to some Chinese entrepreneurs: in different legal and business environments, if some unspoken rules hit the rocks, can they do something about the wine table culture and business unspoken rules? Necessary introspection? ■

The author holds a bachelor's degree in electronics from Peking University, a master's degree in physics from the Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, a doctoral student/teaching assistant in the Department of Physics at the State University of New York, a doctorate in law from Albany Law School in New York, a lawyer in California, and a patent attorney in the United States.

Responsible editor: Li Jiayu | Layout editor: Xie Yiying