[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"public-home":3,"news-detail-professional-1093":403},{"entity":4,"seo":355},{"siteConfig":5,"banners":28,"branches":48,"honors":81,"cases":113,"caseTypes":195,"caseIntro":230,"latestLawyerNews":231,"lawyerNews":246,"lawyerNewsMonthCount":298,"serviceTags":299,"serviceCategories":300,"subSlogan":12,"serviceIntro":331,"homeStats":332,"serviceProducts":345},{"id":6,"siteName":7,"siteDomain":8,"logoUrl":9,"faviconUrl":10,"slogan":11,"subSlogan":12,"aboutSummary":13,"aboutImage":14,"teamPhotoUrl":15,"hotline":16,"email":10,"headquartersAddress":17,"headquartersLng":18,"headquartersLat":19,"foundingYear":20,"creditCode":10,"sameAs":10,"wechatQrcode":21,"videoQrcode":22,"douyinQrcode":23,"xiaohongshuQrcode":24,"icpNumber":25,"psbNumber":26,"createdAt":27,"updatedAt":27},1,"四川卓安律师事务所","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F07\u002F083753d8-b587-4105-a0e2-9da8eacdcfd5.png",null,"为生命辩护，为自由辩护","一家专注刑事，走「专门」路线的律师所","卓安律师事务所由执业近30年的成安博士于2013年发起设立，是全国最早一批专注刑事的刑事专业律师事务所之一。一心一意，只做刑事，不做综合所，不接非刑事业务。以专业化、精品化、一体化运营为全国客户提供刑事辩护、刑事控告、企业刑事合规与风险防控法律服务。","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F07\u002Fffef6a8d-e19d-44df-a8f1-08ece0042bd7.jpg","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F06\u002F87a0be21-3874-4f87-8586-63a62fd10a31.jpg","4000-148-149","四川省成都高新区天府二街蜀都中心1号楼19楼1902-1904室",104.06749,30.5524575,"2003","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F06\u002Fb86da287-bc41-4285-aa3c-0602065190d2.jpg","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F06\u002F77233542-14b7-4884-a78f-8c0d531d096d.png","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F06\u002F616aa748-5454-49dd-a09d-a73925d672fe.png","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F06\u002F4b5bc9ea-d513-4287-8aca-0a589e539381.png","蜀ICP备2026035071号-1","川公网安备51019002009895号","2026-06-22 21:30:32",[29,34,39,42,45],{"id":6,"createdAt":30,"updatedAt":30,"deleted":31,"title":32,"subtitle":32,"imageUrl":33,"linkUrl":32,"sort":6,"status":6},"2026-06-22 21:33:46",0,"","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F14\u002Ff8e758a5-0784-4769-aa52-97ec64cc1216.jpg",{"id":35,"createdAt":36,"updatedAt":36,"deleted":31,"title":32,"subtitle":32,"imageUrl":37,"linkUrl":32,"sort":38,"status":6},3,"2026-07-14 14:39:20","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F14\u002F557b3e37-70b1-4aa8-88d6-9a07b61969b1.png",2,{"id":40,"createdAt":30,"updatedAt":30,"deleted":31,"title":32,"subtitle":32,"imageUrl":41,"linkUrl":32,"sort":35,"status":6},5,"\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F14\u002F7512d49c-e31a-4bd1-a436-00de2d2d960f.png",{"id":43,"createdAt":30,"updatedAt":30,"deleted":31,"title":32,"subtitle":32,"imageUrl":44,"linkUrl":32,"sort":43,"status":6},4,"\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F14\u002F27e2b0bf-cf18-4dd0-bb77-5853e0673a1b.png",{"id":38,"createdAt":46,"updatedAt":46,"deleted":31,"title":32,"subtitle":32,"imageUrl":47,"linkUrl":32,"sort":40,"status":6},"2026-07-14 14:39:06","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F14\u002F3c8f1908-114d-44bf-9e33-2818d8bfce89.png",[49,55,60,65,70,75],{"id":35,"createdAt":50,"updatedAt":51,"deleted":31,"code":52,"name":53,"address":17,"phone":16,"thumbnail":32,"lng":10,"lat":10,"sort":54,"status":6},"2026-06-16 13:55:38","2026-08-24 21:29:48","chengdu","成都总所",-1,{"id":6,"createdAt":56,"updatedAt":56,"deleted":31,"code":57,"name":58,"address":59,"phone":32,"thumbnail":32,"lng":10,"lat":10,"sort":31,"status":6},"2026-06-22 21:46:09","kunming","昆明","云南省昆明市五华区和谐广场和谐B座第49层4909室",{"id":38,"createdAt":61,"updatedAt":61,"deleted":31,"code":62,"name":63,"address":64,"phone":32,"thumbnail":32,"lng":10,"lat":10,"sort":31,"status":6},"2026-06-22 21:46:31","shenzheng","深圳","广东省深圳市龙华区民塘路328号龙华区数字创新中心A座14层04、05号",{"id":43,"createdAt":66,"updatedAt":66,"deleted":31,"code":67,"name":68,"address":69,"phone":32,"thumbnail":32,"lng":10,"lat":10,"sort":31,"status":6},"2026-06-26 13:55:59","chongqing","重庆","重庆市渝北区湖山路虹陶大厦22层13-17号",{"id":40,"createdAt":71,"updatedAt":71,"deleted":31,"code":72,"name":73,"address":74,"phone":32,"thumbnail":32,"lng":10,"lat":10,"sort":31,"status":6},"2026-06-26 13:56:12","dazhou","达州","四川省达州市通川区永兴路146号恒基大厦二楼",{"id":76,"createdAt":77,"updatedAt":77,"deleted":31,"code":78,"name":79,"address":80,"phone":32,"thumbnail":32,"lng":10,"lat":10,"sort":31,"status":6},6,"2026-06-26 13:56:31","xining","西宁","青海省西宁市城东区南山东路创新创业大厦A座15楼",[82,88,94,100,105,109],{"id":6,"createdAt":83,"updatedAt":83,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"title":84,"thumbnail":85,"content":10,"publishTime":86,"sort":87,"status":6},"2026-06-26 14:01:11","四川卓安律师事务所党支部—“四川省律师行业党建标准化律师事务所党组织”","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F26\u002F15b73500-33d0-4eae-ae82-192e3f44d1c3.jpg","2026-07-27 21:53:52",-3,{"id":38,"createdAt":89,"updatedAt":89,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"title":90,"thumbnail":91,"content":10,"publishTime":92,"sort":93,"status":6},"2026-06-28 22:22:47","四川卓安律师事务所——\"四川省律师行业文化名所\"","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F26\u002F3e628c5a-4df8-42d2-8667-d107a295f786.jpg","2026-08-26 17:05:47",-2,{"id":95,"createdAt":96,"updatedAt":96,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"title":97,"thumbnail":98,"content":10,"publishTime":99,"sort":54,"status":6},24,"2026-09-01 14:02:47","“司法云庭荟”法律职业共同体线上交流平台建设的全新创新做法入选最高人民检察院政治部《全国检察机关教育培训创新100例》","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F09\u002F01\u002F03c5415b-2799-4097-8c6b-95a6089d5a3c.jpg","2026-09-01 14:01:51",{"id":35,"createdAt":101,"updatedAt":101,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"title":102,"thumbnail":103,"content":10,"publishTime":104,"sort":31,"status":6},"2026-06-28 22:23:01","成安律师被评为“成都市优秀律师”","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F26\u002Fdae82b8c-327b-437e-8c37-bc241a6bf780.jpg","2026-08-26 17:07:20",{"id":43,"createdAt":101,"updatedAt":101,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"title":106,"thumbnail":107,"content":10,"publishTime":108,"sort":31,"status":6},"成安律师被聘请为“成都市人民政府第一届行政复议委员会委员”","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F27\u002F92313a8b-8b6e-4cff-9c80-ec82331e9bc0.jpg","2026-08-27 14:01:26",{"id":40,"createdAt":101,"updatedAt":101,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"title":110,"thumbnail":111,"content":10,"publishTime":112,"sort":31,"status":6},"成安律师被聘请为“日知公益学习社团青年刑辩人才计划特聘导师”","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F27\u002Fb8c6c1f9-16e5-4f16-b3c3-a8833b9d4275.jpg","2026-08-27 14:03:31",[114,121,126,131,136,141,146,153,158,165,173,177,181,185,190],{"id":115,"title":116,"thumbnail":117,"summary":118,"caseTypeId":43,"caseTypeName":119,"caseTypeCode":120},709,"Z某涉嫌高利转贷等罪，四川卓安律所钟灵柔律师为其无罪辩护，法院宣判无罪","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F27\u002F0a7baa15-a6ee-41ca-ae2b-d86edffbb0a7.png","一、案情简介 办案机关指控当事人在明知出借人是从银行贷款出来的钱后，仍然介绍借款人给出借人，金额高达上百万，构成高利转贷罪。 二、办案过程与结果 接到家属委托后第一时间前往会见，梳理卷宗，最终通过开庭时的据理力争，成功打掉该罪名，法院宣判无","经济犯罪优秀案例","economic_crime",{"id":122,"title":123,"thumbnail":124,"summary":125,"caseTypeId":43,"caseTypeName":119,"caseTypeCode":120},708,"Y某卖烟涉嫌非法经营罪，四川卓安律所钟灵柔律师为其辩护，成功取保候审","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F27\u002Fdd174c24-5332-4bf7-a617-b2cd89db9554.png","一、案例罪名： 非法经营罪 二、案情简介： 办案机关指控当事人无证卖烟，500多条烟全被没收，涉案价值十万元左右。 三、办案过程： 承办律师在接受当事人家属委托之后，立即前往办案单位递交委托手续并开展会见工作，客观公正地分析了案件情况。同时",{"id":127,"title":128,"thumbnail":129,"summary":130,"caseTypeId":43,"caseTypeName":119,"caseTypeCode":120},707,"D某卖烟股东涉嫌非法经营罪，四川卓安律所钟灵柔律师为其辩护，在逮捕后成功取保候审","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F27\u002F7c1c2115-8db9-4ccf-a3c5-5b598e85e2ef.png","一、案情简介 办案机关指控当事人作为股东和实际经营者的身份，参与两个店铺私下售卖香烟的活动，经营数额达到近40万，并且在同案家中还搜出大量香烟存货。 二、办案过程 承办律师在接受当事人家属委托之后，立即前往办案单位递交委托手续，客观公正地分",{"id":132,"title":133,"thumbnail":134,"summary":135,"caseTypeId":43,"caseTypeName":119,"caseTypeCode":120},706,"Y某卖烟老板涉嫌非法经营罪，四川卓安律所钟灵柔律师为其辩护，成功取保候审","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F27\u002Fc4b12d35-80b7-4a81-8a80-c58a67c6a1c0.png","一、案情简介 当事人无烟草专卖零售许可证，找司机运输300多条烟想要拿来再卖时，运输途中被办案机关挡获，顺着司机笔录、派单信息、收货信息，侦查机关直接异地上门抓捕当事人。 二、办案过程 承办律师在接受当事人家属委托之后，立即前往办案单位递交",{"id":137,"title":138,"thumbnail":139,"summary":140,"caseTypeId":43,"caseTypeName":119,"caseTypeCode":120},705,"W某卖电子烟涉嫌非法经营罪、销售伪劣产品罪，四川卓安律所钟灵柔律师为其辩护，成功取保候审","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F27\u002Fc1d3f8ce-0cc5-48f1-b5f4-32737ad4fcca.png","一、案情简介 办案机关指控当事人在2022年10月之后仍在售卖水果味电子烟，现场进行抓捕并查获店内库存，刚开始以立案，但后面由于律师提出当事人具备烟草专卖零售许可证，上面明确写明当事人有电子烟零售资格，故侦查机关改为以销售伪劣产品罪指控。 ",{"id":142,"title":143,"thumbnail":144,"summary":145,"caseTypeId":43,"caseTypeName":119,"caseTypeCode":120},704,"H某涉嫌房地产业诈骗罪，四川卓安律所钟灵柔律师为其辩护，成功取保候审","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F27\u002Fd95de080-9070-48ad-b94c-ecc4de442609.png","一、案情简介 办案机关指控当事人作为房地产咨询公司的法人，明知并且帮助公司对客户进行诈骗，数额特别巨大，情节严重。 二、办案过程 承办律师在接受当事人家属委托之后，立即前往办案单位递交委托手续并开展会见工作，客观公正地分析了案件情况。同时承",{"id":147,"title":148,"thumbnail":149,"summary":150,"caseTypeId":40,"caseTypeName":151,"caseTypeCode":152},703,"L某涉嫌贩卖毒品罪一案，四川卓安律师事务所钟灵柔律师为其辩护，检察院不予批准逮捕并变更强制措施为取保候审","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F27\u002F884d8a69-4b7d-46f6-afce-990c9062826b.png","一、案情简介 L某因出售大麻给好友，以涉嫌 贩卖毒品罪 被刑事拘留。 二、办案过程 接到家属委托后第一时间前往会见，当事人将如何到案以及每一次给好友大麻的详细过程讲述给律师，律师在其中找到相应辩点，并依据《全国法院毒品案件审判工作会议纪要》","毒品犯罪优秀案例","drug_crime",{"id":154,"title":155,"thumbnail":156,"summary":157,"caseTypeId":40,"caseTypeName":151,"caseTypeCode":152},702,"W某涉嫌贩卖毒品案，四川卓安律所钟灵柔律师为其开庭辩护，争取到比量刑建议更低的刑期","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F27\u002F3b51bd8d-cfad-4548-8234-80e435979513.png","一、案例罪名： 贩卖毒品罪 二、案情简介 办案机关指控当事人贩卖1克左右的冰毒。 三、开庭过程 签了认罪认罚后，庭上再出现新情节，检察院先不认可，提交了相应证据后虽然认可了，但坚持不愿意再下调量刑建议。 家属和当事人紧张得不得了，我还是比较",{"id":159,"title":160,"thumbnail":161,"summary":162,"caseTypeId":38,"caseTypeName":163,"caseTypeCode":164},701,"L某涉嫌对非国家工作人员行贿罪530余万，四川卓安律所钟灵柔律师为其辩护，法院未判该罪","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F27\u002F2db72e2b-5ffe-48ee-9741-c25d3b8f80e0.png","检察院指控两罪：虚开增值税专用发票罪，税额6998余万；对非国家工作人员，530余万。 隔了半年后开二庭，检察院坚持不变更起诉，我和当事人仍然坚持做对非公行贿罪无罪，虚开罪辩逃税罪的辩护。 休庭后经审判委员会讨论决定，最终法院仅判决虚开一项","职务犯罪优秀案例","duty_crime",{"id":166,"title":167,"thumbnail":168,"summary":169,"caseTypeId":170,"caseTypeName":171,"caseTypeCode":172},700,"L某涉嫌开设赌场罪一案，四川卓安律师事务所律师为其辩护，法院采纳辩护意见，对部分指控事实不予认定，量刑较同案主犯减轻30%","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F27\u002Fe0d0c90e-5703-44a7-bf9e-ba1f77bc340a.png","一、案件结果、亮点、焦点、封面语 罪名：开设赌场罪 结果：法院采纳辩护意见，对部分指控事实不予认定，量刑较同案减轻30% 亮点： 1. 成功推翻2022年12月23日前的涉案金额指控（减少认定违法所得14.7万元） 2. 通过证据对抗实现 ",7,"网络新型犯罪优秀案例","cyber_crime",{"id":174,"title":175,"thumbnail":10,"summary":176,"caseTypeId":170,"caseTypeName":171,"caseTypeCode":172},699,"XX涉嫌开设赌场罪一案，四川卓安律师事务所律师为其辩护，获降低量刑至最低刑期","罪名 ：开设赌场罪 结果 ：一审判决 有期徒刑 一年（检察机关量刑建议一年）， 罚金 人民币三千元 亮点 ：成功降低量刑幅度至法定最低刑（基准刑五年以下，实际判处一年） 通过证据审查否定\"股东身份\"\"管理职责\"等加重情节指控 自首情节精准认",{"id":178,"title":179,"thumbnail":10,"summary":180,"caseTypeId":170,"caseTypeName":171,"caseTypeCode":172},698,"W某涉嫌熊猫麻将开设赌场罪，在检察院量刑实刑情况下，四川卓安律师事务所律师团队为其辩护获轻判缓刑","律师工作： 1.拿到案卷之后先阅卷，发现案件突破点：主犯、犯罪金额 2.立马写好法律意见，跟法院、检察院当面沟通法律意见，表达律师诉求 3.对当事人进行全面辅导，证据分析，阐述律师的辩护方案，并对当事人进行庭前辅导 4.搜集当事人罪轻证据，",{"id":182,"title":183,"thumbnail":10,"summary":184,"caseTypeId":170,"caseTypeName":171,"caseTypeCode":172},697,"W某涉嫌开设赌场罪一案,四川卓安律师事务所律师团队经过不懈努力，未变更罪名从轻处罚","一、【案情简述】 被告等人以营利为目的，组建聊天群组，通过“熊猫麻将”“悦穆”等手机软件组织他人赌博并抽头渔利，被告等人明知他人 开设赌场 而为其提供财务管理、抽头渔利、赌资结算等帮助，经法院认定为构成 开设赌场罪 。 二、【辩护思路】 经",{"id":186,"title":187,"thumbnail":188,"summary":189,"caseTypeId":170,"caseTypeName":171,"caseTypeCode":172},696,"L某涉嫌开设赌场罪一案，四川卓安律师事务所律师为其辩护，在法定刑框架内为当事人争取最优结果","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F27\u002Fcd0d4300-bc88-4251-a9ff-f95f54f3de33.png","一、案件结果、亮点、焦点、封面语 罪名：开设赌场罪 结果：法院采纳从犯认定、认罪认罚等辩护意见，在公诉机关建议刑期（五年）基础上未加重处罚，并判处罚金二万元。 亮点： 1. 通过精细化数据比对（占股比例、投注金额、分红金额等），成功论证当事",{"id":191,"title":192,"thumbnail":193,"summary":194,"caseTypeId":170,"caseTypeName":171,"caseTypeCode":172},695,"H某涉嫌开设赌场罪一案，四川卓安律师事务所律师为其辩护，获从轻处罚","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F27\u002Fccfbf910-e1fb-4252-baf9-2c8cf90dea2a.png","一、案件结果、亮点、焦点、封面语 罪名：开设赌场罪 结果：有期徒刑6年6个月（较指控刑期降低40%），罚金60万元 亮点： 成功否定\"犯罪集团首要分子\"的加重情节认定 通过司法会计鉴定质证核减涉案金额近亿元 跨境电子证据合法性辩护获法庭采纳",[196,199,204,207,210,215,218,224],{"id":38,"code":164,"name":163,"summary":197,"keywords":198},"覆盖贪污罪、受贿罪、行贿罪、挪用公款罪、滥用职权罪、玩忽职守罪等。","监察留置｜公职人员辩护｜数额认定",{"id":35,"code":200,"name":201,"summary":202,"keywords":203},"gang_crime","涉黑涉恶优秀案例","覆盖组织、领导、参加黑社会性质组织罪，以及寻衅滋事、敲诈勒索、聚众斗殴等。","黑恶性质认定｜组织层级｜罪数认定",{"id":43,"code":120,"name":119,"summary":205,"keywords":206},"覆盖诈骗罪、合同诈骗罪、非法吸收公众存款罪、非法经营罪、虚开增值税专用发票罪等。","企业家辩护｜涉案金额｜刑民交叉",{"id":40,"code":152,"name":151,"summary":208,"keywords":209},"覆盖走私、贩卖、运输、制造毒品罪，非法持有毒品罪及制毒物品犯罪。","毒品数量认定｜主观明知｜死刑辩护",{"id":76,"code":211,"name":212,"summary":213,"keywords":214},"property_crime","财产犯罪优秀案例","覆盖盗窃罪、抢劫罪、诈骗罪、敲诈勒索罪、职务侵占罪、挪用资金罪等。","非法占有目的｜涉案金额｜退赔谅解",{"id":170,"code":172,"name":171,"summary":216,"keywords":217},"覆盖帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪、电信网络诈骗、侵犯公民个人信息罪、开设赌场罪等。\n","电子数据审查｜主观明知｜资金流水",{"id":219,"code":220,"name":221,"summary":222,"keywords":223},8,"corporate_compliance","性犯罪优秀案例","覆盖强奸罪、强制猥亵罪、猥亵儿童罪、组织卖淫罪、传播淫秽物品罪等。\n","言词证据｜未成年人案件｜隐私保护",{"id":225,"code":226,"name":227,"summary":228,"keywords":229},9,"criminal_complaint","人身权利犯罪优秀案例","覆盖故意杀人罪、故意伤害罪、非法拘禁罪、绑架罪、过失致人死亡罪等。","正当防卫｜因果关系｜伤情鉴定","多年来，卓安专注刑事领域，累计办理刑事案件8000余件，依法为当事人争取无罪、取保候审、缓刑、不起诉、从轻及减轻处罚等结果。",{"id":232,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":233,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"lawyerId":234,"city":235,"caseType":236,"title":237,"thumbnail":238,"content":10,"publishTime":239,"sort":10,"status":10,"lawyerNames":240,"lawyers":241,"lawyer":245},831,"2026-10-27 10:29:19",82,"西昌市看守所","诈骗罪","2026年10月20日 张津川 诈骗罪——卓安（重庆）律师事务所","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F27\u002Fe894f1b9-c858-4fb5-a101-1ae3b44dc208.png","2026-10-20 11:27:15","张津川",[242],{"id":234,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":240,"position":243,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":244,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},"卓安（重庆）律师事务所  合伙人","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F18\u002F3b4ec06f-eb61-4b5c-a5e1-759d77d45b9e.jpg",{"id":234,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":240,"position":243,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":244,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},[247,250,263,275,286],{"id":232,"createdAt":233,"updatedAt":233,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"lawyerId":234,"city":235,"caseType":236,"title":237,"thumbnail":238,"content":10,"publishTime":239,"sort":31,"status":6,"lawyerNames":240,"lawyers":248},[249],{"id":234,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":240,"position":243,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":244,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},{"id":251,"createdAt":233,"updatedAt":233,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"lawyerId":252,"city":253,"caseType":254,"title":255,"thumbnail":256,"content":10,"publishTime":257,"sort":31,"status":6,"lawyerNames":258,"lawyers":259},830,83,"绵阳市涪城区人民检察院","职务侵占罪","2026年10月20日 吴亮 职务侵占罪——卓安（重庆）律师事务所","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F27\u002F4340bc0c-447e-4dae-a2e4-8e68069399e7.png","2026-10-20 11:26:17","吴亮",[260],{"id":252,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":258,"position":261,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":262,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},"专职律师","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F18\u002F2a4e2cca-a0b3-4bbe-b5ed-dc0d91aec070.jpg",{"id":264,"createdAt":233,"updatedAt":233,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"lawyerId":265,"city":266,"caseType":267,"title":268,"thumbnail":269,"content":10,"publishTime":270,"sort":31,"status":6,"lawyerNames":271,"lawyers":272},829,78,"重庆市九龙坡区人民法院","开设赌场罪","2026年10月20日 彭栖伟 开设赌场罪——卓安（重庆）律师事务所","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F27\u002F8e9a02bf-330a-483f-875f-b9e94a610ec0.png","2026-10-20 11:25:36","彭栖伟",[273],{"id":265,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":271,"position":261,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":274,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},"\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F18\u002Fe7e138d0-374e-40f4-8a64-17f2eaa16ca6.jpg",{"id":276,"createdAt":233,"updatedAt":233,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"lawyerId":277,"city":278,"caseType":236,"title":279,"thumbnail":280,"content":10,"publishTime":281,"sort":31,"status":6,"lawyerNames":282,"lawyers":283},828,50,"成都市龙泉驿区看守所","2026年10月20日 丁平 诈骗罪——卓安律师事务所","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F27\u002F34ad0be4-0cc2-4ce1-876c-1bb0b2837f62.png","2026-10-20 11:24:58","丁平",[284],{"id":277,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":282,"position":261,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":285,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},"\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F09\u002F09\u002Fa9064de6-ed2e-474c-82dc-e8805483d87a.jpg",{"id":287,"createdAt":233,"updatedAt":233,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"lawyerId":288,"city":289,"caseType":290,"title":291,"thumbnail":292,"content":10,"publishTime":293,"sort":31,"status":6,"lawyerNames":294,"lawyers":295},827,44,"彭州市看守所","利用迷信破坏法律实施罪","2026年10月20日 宁得宇 利用迷信破坏法律实施罪——卓安律师事务所","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F27\u002Fbab16de0-23a5-4dbb-bd9a-e78176788977.png","2026-10-20 11:24:14","宁得宇",[296],{"id":288,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":294,"position":261,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":297,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},"\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F18\u002F88cf054d-ca57-4c31-be35-19492c99381d.jpg",73,[],[301,306,311,316,321,326],{"id":40,"createdAt":302,"updatedAt":303,"deleted":31,"code":304,"name":305,"summary":32,"displayTags":10,"icon":32,"thumbnail":10,"content":10,"sort":31,"status":6},"2026-08-17 10:39:04","2026-10-27 15:19:16","XINGSHIHEGUI","服务品质",{"id":6,"createdAt":27,"updatedAt":307,"deleted":31,"code":308,"name":309,"summary":32,"displayTags":10,"icon":310,"thumbnail":10,"content":10,"sort":6,"status":6},"2026-10-27 15:14:17","criminal","服务范围","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F07\u002Fca98263c-68cd-4768-8c9e-ccc0086eade9.jpg",{"id":38,"createdAt":27,"updatedAt":312,"deleted":31,"code":313,"name":314,"summary":32,"displayTags":10,"icon":315,"thumbnail":10,"content":10,"sort":38,"status":6},"2026-10-27 15:18:16","key_crime","服务方式","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F07\u002F5df41c7a-813a-48db-8eb7-057f5019ab32.jpg",{"id":35,"createdAt":27,"updatedAt":317,"deleted":31,"code":318,"name":319,"summary":32,"displayTags":10,"icon":320,"thumbnail":10,"content":10,"sort":35,"status":6},"2026-10-27 15:16:50","corporate","服务流程","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F07\u002F40c30169-fc75-40bc-a144-8f9b4261f108.jpg",{"id":170,"createdAt":322,"updatedAt":323,"deleted":31,"code":324,"name":325,"summary":32,"displayTags":10,"icon":32,"thumbnail":10,"content":10,"sort":43,"status":6},"2026-10-13 16:30:32","2026-10-13 16:30:42","fuwutiyan","服务体验",{"id":219,"createdAt":327,"updatedAt":328,"deleted":31,"code":329,"name":330,"summary":32,"displayTags":10,"icon":32,"thumbnail":10,"content":10,"sort":40,"status":6},"2026-10-13 16:31:42","2026-10-27 15:20:09","fuwushoufei","服务收费原则","卓安以刑事专业能力为企业提供风险识别、合规治理、专项培训与危机处置支持，帮助企业在复杂经营环境中守住法律底线。",[333,336,339,342],{"value":334,"label":335},"8000+","成功案例",{"value":337,"label":338},"600+","锦旗感谢",{"value":340,"label":341},"100+","法律服务产品",{"value":343,"label":344},"6","全国分所",[346,349,352],{"title":347,"desc":348},"刑事诉讼类服务","律师会见、法律咨询、专家论证、案件指导\u002F协作、立案\u002F取保\u002F不起诉\u002F无罪\u002F罪轻等全阶段辩护。",{"title":350,"desc":351},"刑事风控类服务","风控计划、风控评估、执法调查应对、企业全生命周期刑事风控与重点行业\u002F领域风控。",{"title":353,"desc":354},"刑事普法类服务","政策宣讲、知识付费、轻法服务（线上咨询、文书范本、解决方案）等上百项精准化产品。",{"title":356,"description":13,"keywords":357,"canonical":358,"image":10,"jsonLd":359},"四川卓安律师事务所 - 专注刑事辩护的专业律所","刑事辩护,律师事务所,四川卓安","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F",[360],{"@context":361,"@graph":362},"https:\u002F\u002Fschema.org",[363,369],{"@type":364,"@id":365,"url":358,"name":7,"inLanguage":366,"publisher":367},"WebSite","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#website","zh-CN",{"@id":368},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#organization",{"@type":370,"@id":368,"name":7,"url":358,"logo":371,"image":371,"description":13,"telephone":16,"email":10,"foundingDate":20,"taxID":10,"inLanguage":366,"address":372,"geo":375,"department":377},"LegalService","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F07\u002F083753d8-b587-4105-a0e2-9da8eacdcfd5.png",{"@type":373,"streetAddress":17,"addressCountry":374},"PostalAddress","CN",{"@type":376,"latitude":19,"longitude":18},"GeoCoordinates",[378,383,387,391,395,399],{"@type":379,"@id":380,"name":53,"image":10,"telephone":16,"address":381,"parentOrganization":382},"LocalBusiness","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#branch-chengdu",{"@type":373,"streetAddress":17},{"@id":368},{"@type":379,"@id":384,"name":58,"image":10,"telephone":32,"address":385,"parentOrganization":386},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#branch-kunming",{"@type":373,"streetAddress":59},{"@id":368},{"@type":379,"@id":388,"name":63,"image":10,"telephone":32,"address":389,"parentOrganization":390},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#branch-shenzheng",{"@type":373,"streetAddress":64},{"@id":368},{"@type":379,"@id":392,"name":68,"image":10,"telephone":32,"address":393,"parentOrganization":394},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#branch-chongqing",{"@type":373,"streetAddress":69},{"@id":368},{"@type":379,"@id":396,"name":73,"image":10,"telephone":32,"address":397,"parentOrganization":398},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#branch-dazhou",{"@type":373,"streetAddress":74},{"@id":368},{"@type":379,"@id":400,"name":79,"image":10,"telephone":32,"address":401,"parentOrganization":402},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#branch-xining",{"@type":373,"streetAddress":80},{"@id":368},{"entity":404,"seo":415},{"id":405,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":406,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":32,"seoDescription":32,"seoKeywords":32,"schemaExtra":10,"typeId":43,"title":407,"thumbnail":408,"content":409,"publishTime":410,"sort":10,"status":10,"newsType":411},1093,"2026-10-27 14:16:05","主动交代了监委还没掌握的事，能不能算自首？","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F27\u002F174047ff-4a65-4960-806e-a9f5d069687b.jpg","\u003Cp>被留置后，当事人主动交代了监委此前尚未掌握的事实，这种行为能否认定为自首？这是职务犯罪案件中争议极大的一个问题。许多家属误以为“人都进去了，说什么都没用”，从而错失了争取从宽的关键窗口。但法律对自首的认定，并非以“人是否主动走进门”为唯一标准。根据《中华人民共和国刑法》第六十七条第二款，被采取强制措施的犯罪嫌疑人，如实供述司法机关还未掌握的本人其他罪行的，以自首论；针对职务犯罪，最高人民法院、最高人民检察院《关于办理职务犯罪案件认定自首、立功等量刑情节若干问题的意见》（法发〔2009〕13号）规定，办案机关所掌握线索针对的犯罪事实不成立，在此范围外交代同种罪行的，以自首论；2026年5月1日起施行的《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理贪污贿赂刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释（二）》（法释〔2026〕6号）第二十一条，更进一步为贪污贿赂案件中的同种罪行自首开辟了一条以“已掌握行为是否达到数额较大”为判断标准的通道。本文解析“还没掌握”与“还没有线索”的界限、“其他罪行”与“不同种罪名”的关系，并结合真实案例与团队辩护经验，给出涉案家属的应对建议。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>一、结论先行：被动到案后主动交代未掌握事实，有可能认定为自首\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>人已经被留置，自动投案这一条件确实无法满足。但在法律框架内，还存在一种被称为“准自首”的特殊形态。《中华人民共和国刑法》第六十七条第二款规定，被采取强制措施的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人和正在服刑的罪犯，如实供述司法机关还未掌握的本人其他罪行的，以自首论。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>直接给出结论：被动到案之后，主动交代监委尚未掌握的事实，有可能被认定为自首，但必须满足法定条件。在职务犯罪辩护实践中，此类情形下自首的认定确有难度，但绝非不可能。核心要看三件事：一是监委此前到底“掌握”到了什么程度；二是当事人交代的内容，是否属于“其他罪行”或符合特别规则所要求的条件；三是对于贪污贿赂案件，是否满足《解释（二）》第21条所设定的“已掌握行为未达数额较大”这一独立前提。把这几点厘清，才能判断究竟构成自首，还是仅构成坦白。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>二、法律解析：自首的认定边界与两个核心要点\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>（一）自首的两个基本条件与“准自首”的引入\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>根据《刑法》第六十七条第一款，成立一般自首需同时具备“自动投案”与“如实供述自己的罪行”两个要件。对于已被留置的当事人而言，自动投案这一前提已不具备，因而需要转向第二款的“准自首”（又称“余罪自首”或“特别自首”）。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>需要特别说明的是，准自首中的“本人其他罪行”，在一般刑事案件中，依据《最高人民法院关于处理自首和立功具体应用法律若干问题的解释》（法释〔1998〕8号），通常限于与司法机关已掌握或者判决确定的罪行属“不同种罪行”。如果是“同种罪行”，一般只能认定为坦白，可以从轻处罚，但不构成自首。这一限制在职务犯罪领域，已被特别规则逐步突破，详见下文要点二。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>（二）要点一：“还没掌握”不等于“还没有线索”，判断的核心是“实质比较”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>判断“未掌握”，不能只看监委手里有没有几条线索。《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理职务犯罪案件认定自首、立功等量刑情节若干问题的意见》（法发〔2009〕13号）明确：犯罪事实或者犯罪分子未被办案机关掌握，或者虽被掌握，但犯罪分子尚未受到调查谈话、讯问，或者未被宣布采取调查措施、强制措施时，向办案机关投案的，是自动投案。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>结合司法实践，所谓“还未掌握”，至少包含三种情形：其一，司法机关根本不知道犯罪已经发生；其二，知道犯罪发生但不知道是谁实施；其三，虽对某个人有所怀疑，但手上的线索和证据还远远不足以确定其就是嫌疑人。《最高人民法院关于处理自首和立功若干具体问题的意见》（法发〔2010〕60号）亦强调，是否已“掌握”要作具体分析，不能仅因办案机关接到了通缉令、协查通报，就一概认定犯罪事实已被发觉。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>但上述“三种情形”只是初步的类型化描述，实务审查中真正可操作的标准是“实质比较”。 人民法院案例库参考案例（张某某故意杀人案，入库编号2024-04-1-177-013）的裁判要旨明确指出：判断是否属于“司法机关还未掌握的本人其他罪行”，“不应当仅以立案侦查的罪名是否相同作为判断标准，而应当实质审查，将被告人供述的事实与立案侦查所针对的事实进行实质比较，如果系同一事实的，则不宜认定为如实供述‘司法机关还未掌握的本人其他罪行’”。这意味着，即便监委立案的罪名与当事人交代的罪名相同，如果交代的是与已掌握线索指向不同的事实（如不同的行贿人、不同的谋利事项、不同的资金流向），仍可能被认定为“未掌握”；反之，如果交代的就是监委线索已经指向的同一笔事实，即便罪名表述不同，也不构成“未掌握”。供述的是否为同一笔事实，往往比罪名是否相同更具决定意义。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>关键的分水岭在于：监委手中的材料，究竟是“仅有点线索”，还是“证据已经查实、足以定罪”。如果监委前期的线索根本没有查实，而定罪所依赖的全部关键事实都来自于留置期间的主动供述，那么当事人主动交代的部分，就明显符合以自首论的条件——尤其是法发〔2009〕13号所规定的“办案机关所掌握线索针对的犯罪事实不成立，在此范围外犯罪分子交代同种罪行的”情形。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>（三）要点二：“其他罪行”不等于“不同种罪名”，贪污贿赂案件另有独立通道\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>这是实践中最常见的误区。如前所述，一般规则下准自首要求“不同种罪行”。但在职务犯罪领域，存在两层突破。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>第一层是法发〔2009〕13号的“线索不成立”规则。 该意见规定：没有自动投案，但具有以下情形之一的，以自首论——第一，犯罪分子如实交代办案机关未掌握的罪行，与办案机关已掌握的罪行属不同种罪行的；第二，办案机关所掌握线索针对的犯罪事实不成立，在此范围外犯罪分子交代同种罪行的。这意味着，即便当事人交代的内容与监委本就在查的罪名属于同一种（例如本就在查受贿，又交代了受贿），只要办案机关掌握的线索尚未达到定罪标准、针对的犯罪事实不成立，同样有争取认定为自首的空间。但这一规则的适用门槛较高，其前提是“所掌握线索针对的犯罪事实不成立”；实务中监委对被调查人启动调查时往往已有初步证据，该例外规定的实际适用空间因此较为有限。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>第二层，也是2026年5月1日之后贪污贿赂案件中最直接、门槛更明确的规范依据，是《解释（二）》第21条。 该条规定：“监察机关掌握的被调查人贪污贿赂行为尚未达到数额较大，被调查人主动、如实供述监察机关尚未掌握的本人绝大部分犯罪事实的，以自首论。”这一条打破了“同种罪行一律不成立自首”的传统限制，在贪污贿赂案件中开辟了一条以“已掌握行为是否达到数额较大”为核心判断标准的独立通道。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>适用第21条，须同时满足四项要件：\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>其一，罪行要件。 仅适用于贪污贿赂行为，即贪污罪、受贿罪等《刑法》分则第八章规定的罪名；挪用公款、巨额财产来源不明、渎职等其他职务犯罪不适用该条，仍按法发〔2009〕13号的严格标准处理。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>其二，程序要件。 仅适用于监察调查阶段，即监察机关立案调查后、移送人民检察院审查起诉之前。该条将自首认定的时间窗口前移至刑事程序启动之前。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>其三，前提要件——“已掌握行为尚未达到数额较大”。 贪污罪、受贿罪“数额较大”的标准为三万元。两高《理解与适用》明确指出，必须是监察机关掌握的贪污贿赂行为尚不构成犯罪（即未达三万元），方可适用该条；如果已掌握的事实已达到数额较大标准，则无适用余地。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>其四，行为要件——主动、如实供述“绝大部分”犯罪事实。 “主动”强调供述的自愿性；“如实”要求真实、完整、稳定，后续翻供则不认定自首；“绝大部分”在数额或情节上应占据绝对多数，实务中通常理解为远高于“主要犯罪事实”所要求的百分之五十，有观点主张以百分之八十以上为参照。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>需要将第21条与法发〔2009〕13号的关系讲清楚：二者是“特别与补充”的关系，而非相互替代。 法发〔2009〕13号的“线索不成立”规则，在“已掌握事实根本不成立”时发挥作用；第21条则进一步放宽到“已掌握事实虽成立、但未达数额较大”的情形。对于贪污贿赂案件，辩护中应当优先审查第21条是否适用，因为其前提条件（“未达数额较大”）比法发〔2009〕13号（“事实不成立”）更为具体、更容易通过证据加以检验；只有在第21条不适用时，再回到法发〔2009〕13号的框架下寻找空间。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>但必须同时提示实务中的争议。 第21条自出台以来，对其实际效果存在两种截然不同的评价。一种观点认为该条是重大突破，为同种罪行自首打开了明确的规范通道；另一种观点则指出，三万元的“数额较大”门槛在监察实务中极易达到——“凡是监察机关立案调查的案件，掌握线索指向的数额都可轻易达到数额较大”——该条可能沦为“鸡肋条款”。这一争议的实质在于：“已掌握行为未达数额较大”这一前提，在个案中是否能够被证据所证实，存在真实的判断空间。 辩护方不能因为第21条在规范上存在，就当然认为同种罪行自首已经畅通无阻；也不能因为实务中立案门槛容易被跨越，就放弃对这一条款的审查。理性的做法是：把“监委到案前究竟掌握了多少、掌握的数额是否确实未达三万元”作为独立的证据争点，通过调取初核材料、立案审批、到案经过说明等程序性文件加以还原，再决定是否以及如何援引第21条。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>至于“同种”与“不同种”如何区分，法发〔2010〕60号明确，一般应以罪名区分；但同时规定，虽如实供述的其他罪名与已掌握罪名不同，但若二者属于选择性罪名或者在法律、事实上密切关联，仍应认定为同种罪行。例如，多次实施行贿行为，即便单次对象、金额不同，因在法律和事实上密切关联，通常被认定为同种罪行，不能以“不同罪名”为由当然成立自首。这也正是第21条的意义所在：即便被认定为同种罪行，在贪污贿赂案件中，仍有一条以“已掌握行为未达数额较大”为条件的自首通道可供审查。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>（四）自首与坦白的量刑差异：一个“减”字的分量\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>区分自首与坦白，绝非文字游戏。《刑法》第六十七条第一款规定，对于自首的犯罪分子，可以从轻或者减轻处罚，其中犯罪较轻的，可以免除处罚；而第三款对坦白的规定是，如实供述自己罪行的，可以从轻处罚，仅因如实供述避免特别严重后果发生的，才可以减轻处罚。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>量刑指导意见进一步量化了这一差距。《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于常见犯罪的量刑指导意见（试行）》（法发〔2021〕21号）规定，自首情节可以减少基准刑的百分之四十以下，犯罪较轻的可以减少基准刑的百分之四十以上或者依法免除处罚；而坦白中，如实供述自己罪行的，仅可减少基准刑的百分之二十以下，如实供述司法机关尚未掌握的同种较重罪行的，可减少基准刑的百分之十至三十。一个“减”字之差，在职务犯罪案件中，往往就是实刑与缓刑、几年刑期与十几年刑期的区别。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>要点提示：自首制度的核心，不在于人是否“主动走进门”，而在于在案证据是否真的“掌握”了事实，以及当事人交代的内容是否超出了办案机关已有的范围。对于贪污贿赂案件，还需要单独审查《解释（二）》第21条所设定的“已掌握行为未达数额较大”这一前提是否成立。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>三、实战案例：以“准自首”逻辑争取依法减轻处罚\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>四川卓安律师事务所办理的一起受贿案件中，上述“准自首”的辩护逻辑得到了具体运用。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>该案被告人F某，涉嫌受贿罪，涉案数额特别巨大，法定刑本在十年以上有期徒刑或者无期徒刑。承办律师、四川卓安律师事务所何冰冰律师、石大海律师介入后提出：F某经监委通知后到案，并主动交代了监察机关尚未掌握的犯罪事实，依法构成自首，可以从轻或者减轻处罚；同时，F某积极退缴违法所得，具备进一步的从宽情节。法院经审理，采纳了关于自首、积极退缴违法所得等减轻、从轻处罚的辩护意见，在法定刑为十年以上的情况下，最终以受贿罪判处F某有期徒刑九年，实现了依法减轻处罚。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>需要说明的是，在被动到案、已被留置的场景中，辩护的着力点同样在于厘清监委“掌握”到了何种程度、当事人又主动“供述”了哪些超出已有范围的事实——对于受贿案件，这一审查尤其应当将《解释（二）》第21条纳入考量：即便F某交代的是与监委已掌握事实同种的受贿罪行，只要能够证明监委到案时掌握的受贿行为尚未达到数额较大、而F某主动供述了绝大部分未掌握事实，第21条本身就是一条独立的规范依据。 上述结果不代表同类案件得出相同结论，但其价值在于印证本文的核心判断：职务犯罪中的自首认定，关键在于用证据与法理，把“掌握”与“供述”的边界讲清楚。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>四、家属应对：涉案后五项关键处置建议\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>1. 厘清“是否已被掌握”这一前提，落到“实质比较”上。 家属应协助核实监委到案时究竟掌握了什么——不是只看罪名，而是看监委线索指向的具体事实（时间、对象、事项、金额）与当事人交代的事实是否同一。前期线索越薄弱、供述事实与已掌握事实的差异越大，主动交代被认定为自首的空间越大。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>2. 对于贪污贿赂案件，单独审查《解释（二）》第21条是否适用。 重点核实两个事实：监委到案时掌握的贪污贿赂行为是否确实未达三万元“数额较大”标准；当事人主动供述的未掌握事实，在数额或情节上是否占据“绝大部分”。这两项事实的证明，依赖于初核报告、立案审批、到案经过说明等程序性材料的调取与比对，应尽早由律师介入梳理。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>3. 区分交代的是“不同种”还是“同种”罪行，但不要止步于此。 若交代的是不同种罪行，认定自首的障碍相对较小；若交代的是同种罪行，也不当然意味着只能认定坦白——法发〔2009〕13号的“线索不成立”规则和《解释（二）》第21条，都是同种罪行场景下需要逐一审查的通道。同时须提示：第21条的“已掌握行为未达数额较大”前提在实务中存在争议，其适用并非当然，应结合个案证据具体评估，不宜预先假定该条一定能够适用或一定不能适用。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>4. 把握留置期间的“黄金窗口”，但不作不当自认。 被留置后，怎么说、说什么、什么时候说，每一个细节都影响认定。在专业律师介入之前，切勿随意陈述或签字确认与事实不符的内容，避免不当自认；同时也不应因恐惧而隐瞒确属主动交代的事实。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>5. 理性配合，退赃退赔须在律师指导下进行。 主动退缴违法所得是从宽情节，但退缴范围、数额的确认需要专业判断，避免在责任边界尚未厘清时不当自认，反而扩大风险。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>本文仅为法律知识交流与个案经验分享，不构成针对任何具体案件的法律意见或诉讼策略建议。每个案件的事实、证据与法律适用均不相同，读者如遇具体法律问题，应咨询具有相应资质的执业律师。本文所述案例结果不代表同类案件必然得出相同结论，亦不构成任何结果承诺。\u003C\u002Fp>","2026-10-27 18:14:48",{"id":43,"createdAt":27,"updatedAt":27,"deleted":31,"code":412,"name":413,"icon":414,"sort":43,"status":6,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10},"professional","罪名分类","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F14\u002F8cfc49d7-c529-46c5-a6f1-d03a37047b2b.png",{"title":416,"description":417,"keywords":32,"canonical":418,"image":408,"jsonLd":419},"主动交代了监委还没掌握的事，能不能算自首？ - 罪名分类 | 四川卓安律师事务所","被留置后，当事人主动交代了监委此前尚未掌握的事实，这种行为能否认定为自首？这是职务犯罪案件中争议极大的一个问题。许多家属误以为“人都进去了，说什么都没用”，从而错失了争取从宽的关键窗口。但法律对自首的认定，并非以“人是否主动走进门”为唯一标准。根据《中华人民共和国刑法》第六十七条第二款，被采取强制措施的犯罪嫌疑人，如实","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002Fnews\u002Fprofessional\u002F1093",[420],{"@context":361,"@graph":421},[422,429],{"@type":423,"@id":418,"url":418,"headline":407,"description":417,"datePublished":424,"dateModified":425,"author":426,"publisher":427,"articleSection":413,"inLanguage":366,"image":428},"Article","2026-10-27T18:14:48+08:00","2026-10-27T14:16:05+08:00",{"@id":368},{"@id":368},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F27\u002F174047ff-4a65-4960-806e-a9f5d069687b.jpg",{"@type":430,"itemListElement":431},"BreadcrumbList",[432,435,437],{"@type":433,"position":6,"name":434,"item":358},"ListItem","首页",{"@type":433,"position":38,"name":413,"item":436},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002Fnews\u002Fprofessional",{"@type":433,"position":35,"name":407,"item":418}]