The case

Xu Yao, born in 1981, holds a law degree from Southwest University of Political Science and Law and a master’s in law from a US university, and once practised as a lawyer. In 2017 he joined a company under Yoozoo Games founder Lin Qi, and from 2018 was CEO of Three-Body Universe on an annual salary of RMB 20 million. After game performance fell short of expectations, Xu repeatedly asked for equity and was refused; Lin then gradually withdrew his authority, and the conflict escalated.

In 2020, Xu spent over RMB 100,000 buying various toxins. He first poisoned drinks in the office, sending four colleagues to hospital; they survived only after blood purification. On 14–15 December that year he put tetrodotoxin mixed with amatoxins into capsules Lin took daily; on the 16th Lin fell into a coma, and on the 25th he died despite treatment, aged 39. Xu was arrested on the 18th. In March 2024 the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court convicted Xu of intentional homicide and releasing dangerous substances and sentenced him to death; the Shanghai High People’s Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The sentence was recently carried out according to law.

Three legal points worth noting

Point 1: why “cumulative punishment for several crimes”?

Xu’s conduct violated two offences: poisoning Lin to death was intentional homicide; poisoning office drinks endangered the lives and health of an unspecified number of colleagues and public safety, constituting releasing dangerous substances. Each act met the elements of a separate offence, so the court punished them cumulatively — one important reason for the severity of the sentence.

Point 2: why refusing to confess, feigning mental illness and “meritorious service” didn’t save him

As a former lawyer, Xu was highly aware of investigative techniques: he used more than 160 phone numbers to buy chemicals in a dispersed way, and evaded controls by forging seals, renting warehouses and impersonating a university medical school and biotech companies. In five years after his arrest he never admitted guilt, at one point tried to escape liability on grounds of mental illness, and was alleged to have fabricated leads for meritorious service. In judicial practice such conduct is not treated as remorse; it was instead an important consideration in upholding the death sentence at review — the very opposite of “voluntary surrender and truthful confession”, which can earn leniency.

Point 3: where does an equity dispute become a criminal case?

Refused equity demands and withdrawn authority are essentially matters of corporate governance and employment, which can be resolved through equity agreements, non-compete terms, labour arbitration and other lawful channels. Once one side chooses extreme means to “resolve” the conflict, it slides from a civil dispute into crime — and usually an irreversible, serious one.

Lessons for companies and executives

  • Equity and pay disputes with key executives should be handled through written agreements, board resolutions and other lawful channels, so conflict doesn’t build up.
  • Companies should set up early-warning mechanisms for unusual behaviour by executives with core authority or access to sensitive materials or systems.
  • Positions involving the purchase or use of chemicals or hazardous goods need stronger background checks and process controls.
  • If an employee shows signs of vengeful words or conduct, the company should consult a lawyer at once to assess the risk and respond lawfully, rather than settle it privately.

How Wang Xin’s team can help

  • Corporate compliance and executive risk prevention
  • Defense in duty crimes and major criminal cases such as intentional injury or homicide
  • Corporate governance and equity disputes
  • Crisis response and assessment of criminal exposure

If your company faces executive disputes or criminal risk, contact Wang Xin: phone +86 186-0113-9509, WeChat wang223040.

Quick answers

Why was Xu Yao convicted of two crimes?
Poisoning Lin Qi to death was intentional homicide; poisoning office drinks endangered unspecified colleagues and public safety, which is the crime of releasing dangerous substances. The two were punished cumulatively.
Why did refusing to confess and claiming mental illness not help Xu Yao?
Such conduct is generally not treated as remorse and weighed against him at death-penalty review — the opposite of voluntary surrender and truthful confession, which can earn leniency.

This is an English edition of Wang Xin’s original Chinese article, 许垚投毒案：年薪2000万高管为何走向死刑？. It explains the law of the People’s Republic of China in general terms and is not legal advice for any particular case; outcomes depend on the specific facts and on how local authorities apply the rules.