He Jie — Criminal Defense Lawyer in Xuzhou

Her earlier finance-management role gives her a practical understanding of records that later become white-collar evidence. Ledgers, payment approvals and tax files often reflect different people’s functions inside the company. He Jie can approach those materials by asking who created the record, who relied on it and what information reached management, rather than treating the existence of an accounting entry as proof of executive intent.

He Jie’s earlier work as a finance head gives her an unusual practical background for criminal matters built around company books. Accounting records are not self-explanatory. A ledger entry may reflect a genuine service, a timing decision, a provisional classification or an improper transaction; the criminal significance depends on the underlying contract, payment and approval process. Her finance experience can help identify which entries require expert review and which are ordinary accounting mechanics that should not be mistaken for evidence of intent simply because they look unfamiliar to investigators.

Tax-related investigations make this distinction especially important. The 2024 judicial interpretation on crimes endangering tax administration addresses deceptive or concealed conduct, including false declarations and fabricated tax bases. A defense should therefore separate poor documentation or accounting error from conduct the prosecution says was deliberately designed to reduce tax unlawfully. The executive’s personal responsibility turns on what information reached the executive, what approvals were given, and whether disputed entries were visible at the level of management rather than confined to finance staff or outside accountants.

Her company-law practice is also relevant where related-party transactions are questioned. An affiliate may have provided genuine services even if invoices or documentation are incomplete; a board may have approved a contract that later appears commercially weak. Governance evidence can explain authority and transparency without making an unlawful transaction lawful. The defense should identify who negotiated price, who verified performance, who approved payment and whether any manager received a personal benefit. Those facts can distinguish a compliance problem from a criminal theory based on deception or misappropriation.

Digital accounting systems can reveal more than the printed ledger. User permissions, posting history, reversals and month-end adjustments may show which employee created or changed an entry and when. He Jie’s finance background can help frame technically useful questions for an accountant or digital expert without asking the expert to decide criminal intent. The goal is a reconciliation that separates supported transactions, disputed classifications and clearly unsupported items so the legal team can focus on the amount and conduct actually relevant to the charged offense.

Remediation should remain analytically separate from the historical defense. A company may amend returns, improve approvals or repay tax after an audit begins. Those steps can reduce harm and address continuing compliance risk, but they do not by themselves prove or disprove what an executive knew earlier. He Jie’s crossover between criminal, company and finance work is well suited to maintaining that distinction: fix the current control weakness, preserve the source record, and assess personal criminal responsibility against the evidence that existed when the questioned transactions occurred.

The same financial literacy is relevant to management liability. Senior executives often approve payment batches or budgets without reviewing every invoice. That does not automatically eliminate responsibility, but it makes the information flow important. He Jie can frame the defense around what was attached to the approval, which exceptions were escalated, whether finance staff raised warnings, and what the executive did after learning of a problem. This turns a broad allegation of “management approval” into a testable question about knowledge and decision-making.

Her tort and company-dispute practice can also be useful where the criminal investigation sits beside claims by shareholders, customers or counterparties. A civil dispute may generate documents, admissions or competing accounts of the same transaction. Those materials should be coordinated carefully so the company’s litigation position does not accidentally distort the individual executive’s criminal defense. At the same time, a parallel civil claim can provide contemporaneous evidence about the parties’ commercial understanding before the criminal allegation developed.

He Jie’s profile is therefore particularly relevant to white-collar matters where the evidence is embedded in ordinary business systems. The defense needs someone who can read the accounting record as a working process, identify when legal specialization is required, and distinguish correction of a company’s present compliance problem from proof of an individual’s historical criminal intent.

For executives, that combination of legal and finance experience can make the defense more efficient because the team can identify early which accounting questions are genuinely criminally material and which belong to tax, civil or internal-control remediation instead.