Legal analysis: Description of the case: 20 13, 1 June, the defendants Hu Moumou and Tang Moumou opened a casino in Hu Moumou's rented room, and the casino used a "fishing machine" to gamble. Later, in order to expand the scale of the casino and gain greater benefits, Hu Moumou invited Zhou Moumou and Fang Moumou to become shareholders. On the evening of February 13 and 18, Hu called Tang Moumou, Zhou Moumou and Fang Moumou in the casino, and agreed that each person would contribute 20,000 yuan to jointly operate the casino. Among them, Hu Moumou and Tang Moumou invested in the existing venue and machinery and equipment in the casino, and Fang Moumou and Zhou Moumou each invested 20,000 yuan in cash, and the profits of the casino were shared equally. After that, the four decided to use the profit of 26,000 yuan to buy gambling machinery and equipment and continue to expand the scale of the casino. 2065438+On March 5, 2003, the casino was seized by the police, who seized 4,500 yuan of gambling money, 3 gambling machines and 3 motherboards at the scene. After the incident, Tang Moumou was detained in Changsha No.1 Detention Center because he had a criminal record and refused to plead guilty. Other defendants were released on bail pending trial.

Handling process: Lawyer Dai accepted the entrustment of Tang's family in the final stage of the case review and prosecution, and served as the defender of Tang's review and prosecution stage and trial stage. After accepting the entrustment, Mr. Dai consulted the case file and met with Tang for the first time. Tang Moumou said that he never pleaded guilty during the investigation stage, and he was rude to the public security personnel and prosecutors who came to interrogate and refused to sign the interrogation record. Lawyer Dai patiently listened to Tang's story and explained how the law stipulated this situation. After gaining the trust of Tang Moumou, Tang Moumou began to explain his thoughts, saying that he knew in his heart that his behavior was a criminal act, but he refused to plead guilty as if he were competitive. Lawyer Dai carefully explained the pros and cons of pleading guilty and not pleading guilty in this case to Tang, and suggested that Tang plead guilty in front of evidence and facts and strive for lighter criminal responsibility with a good attitude of pleading guilty. After the case entered the trial stage, Mr. Dai expressed his defense opinion according to law: he had no objection to the fact that the indictment accused the defendant Tang of opening a casino, but he also believed that the defendant Tang had a lighter and mitigated punishment.

The result of handling the case: the court adopted lawyer Dai's defense opinion that Tang was given a lighter punishment according to law, sentenced Tang to 10 months' imprisonment and fined RMB 8,000.

Legal basis: Article 303 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that anyone who gathers people to gamble or gamble for profit shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or public surveillance, and shall also be fined. Whoever opens a casino shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years, criminal detention or public surveillance, and shall also be fined; If the circumstances are serious, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years but not more than ten years and shall also be fined. Whoever organizes People's Republic of China (PRC) citizens to participate in gambling outside the country (territory), if the amount is huge or there are other serious circumstances, shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph.