According to the trial, due to Liu's abuse of power, Ding Yuxin and other businesspeople raked in more than 3 billion yuan (489.3 million U.S. dollars) worth of profits. Judicial authorities, correspondingly, seized and froze large amounts of cash, stock shares, properties and pieces of art, among other assets owned by Ding and the other businesspeople, said Bai. The seized and frozen assets included 374 properties and cash. However, they were not criminal gains of Liu, but illegal profits Ding and other businesspeople obtained through Liu's abuse of power, which highlighted the gravity of Liu's crime, Bai added. Based on judicial authorities' assessment of the total value of these assets, the court found the majority of economic losses inflicted by Liu's abuse of power had been recovered. However, considering Liu's especially serious crimes of power abuse and applying favoritism, the court did not mitigate his punishment, rather, sentenced him to 10 years in jail, a maximum sentence for the crime of power abuse, Bai said. Previous media reports have revealed that a sum of 49 million yuan out of the total 64.6 million was spent by Ding to benefit Liu. It has raised controversy whether this part of the money should be regarded as bribes Liu received. Bai confirmed that this was a disputed issue between the prosecution and the defence during the trial. According to Bai, Liu told Ding to "grease the wheels" and handle other relevant affairs for him. Ding spent 49 million yuan to comply with Liu's orders. "It is unlike an ordinary bribe-taking act that one receives bribes directly, as Liu has not directly possessed this money, and Liu's lawyers also argued that this act does not constitute a bribe-taking crime," Bai said. However, evidence during the trial revealed that Liu had taken advantage of his positions to help Ding and her relatives obtain huge economic benefits. He also hinted to Ding to buy off relevant officials and people to free him of any implication in the case of He Hongda, a former senior official of the Railways Ministry investigated for corruption, as well as to create favorable conditions for him to secure a better position. Liu confessed that he was fully aware beforehand that such manipulation may cost a lot of money, and Ding also informed him afterwards that she spent tens of millions of yuan to carry out his instructions, the judge said. "Although Liu did not directly take this money, the money was used by Ding at the behest of Liu and for the benefits of Liu," Bai said. Ding also gave a testimony confirming that she spent large amounts of money for Liu in return for Liu's help for her to reap huge profits, according to the judge. Taking these facts into account, Liu's behavior should be deemed as a power-for-money deal, and the court finds that such acts constitute taking bribes. The judge also noted that according to precedents in previous judicial cases, similar deals were all regarded as bribery crimes. When explaining why the court appointed a lawyer to Liu who did not want one, Bai said according to article 32 and 34 of the Criminal Procedure Law and its judicial interpretation by the Supreme People's Court, in addition to exercising the right to defend oneself, the defendant can also entrust one or two people to defend him. The court should inform a legal aid center to appoint lawyers for the defendant who has not entrusted defenders but is likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment or the death penalty. Bai said it had informed Liu of the right to entrusting defenders when giving him the duplicate copy of the indictment, but the defendant expressed clearly his unwillingness to do so. Liu also refused to ask his relatives to entrust people to defend him. Charged with accepting more than 64 million yuan in bribes, Liu could be sentenced to life imprisonment or a more serious penalty in accordance with Chinese law. Therefore, on condition of gaining Liu's consent, the legal aid center appointed two lawyers. The defense read the file of the case and met Liu several times before the trial, and lawyers argued for a lighter punishment defence at the trial based on the facts and evidence. Media reports had questioned the trial procedure as the pretrial meeting took one day but the trial only proceeded for half a day. Bai explained the functions of the pretrial meeting. Bai said according to the amended criminal procedural law, judges can convene with prosecutors, defendants and defenders before the opening of a trial, to learn and discuss issues such as jurisdiction, avoidance, exclusion of illegal evidence, necessity of collecting new evidence if the case is complex and influential, and involves a lot of evidence. In Liu's case, Bai said, the court called in the prosecutor, Liu and his defense to attend the pretrial meeting, soliciting both sides' opinions. Liu and his defense raised no opposition. Therefore, on the courtday, Bai said prosecutors simplified evidence presentation procedures. Besides, except that Liu's defenders challenged whether the 49 million yuan should be considered as Liu's bribery, Liu and his defense showed no opposition to the evidence collection methods that prosecutors adopted. Also, Liu admitted all the facts of his crime of taking bribes and power abuse, raising no further allegations. All these made the half-day trial possible.