Recently, in the case of Z Mou's alleged crime of disguising and concealing the proceeds of crime, represented by Mr. Xu Wei, a partner of King&Capital Law Firm, the client was not approved to be arrested by the Procuratorate after several effective communications between Mr. Xu Wei and the prosecutor.
In this case, the upstream purchased bitcoins from Z, but the money paid was recognized as proceeds of fraud, so Z was charged with the crime of disguising and concealing the proceeds of crime.
After the defense intervened in the case, based on the understanding from the meeting, the preliminary defense strategy was formulated that the client's behavior in this case did not constitute a crime so he should not be arrested, and even if it did constitute a crime, it could only constitute a misdemeanor and there was no need to be arrested.
The client was charged with the crime of disguising or concealing the proceeds of crime, and depending on the amount, could be sentenced to more than three years of imprisonment. The defense argues that the seemingly unusual payment method of the upstream in this case may have caused the person concerned to be alerted or worried, but the degree of such awareness cannot meet the requirement of subjective "knowledge" of the crime. At the same time, the upstream payment method does not meet the legal or judicial interpretation of the presumption of knowledge.
The prosecutor objected to the defense's opinion based on the information available, and the defense said that even if the person concerned was suspected of committing a crime, it could only be the crime of helping information network criminal activities under three years, not the crime of disguising or concealing the proceeds of crime, and there was no need to arrest him. Considering the subjective constituent elements, the person concerned in this case was limited to a generalized understanding of the nature of the upstream funds. Considering the objective elements, the crime of disguising or concealing the proceeds of crime is premised on the attempt of the predicate offense, and the parties in this case objectively intervened before the attempt of the predicate offense. From the perspective of subjective and objective consistency, even if the person concerned constitutes a crime, he or she may only be suspected of a misdemeanor.
The defense also reflected to the prosecutor that there may be a problem with the objectivity of the content of the confession, and that the person concerned, for some reason, became fearful and frightened during the interrogation, and made a confession that did not correspond to the facts. In the case of possible flaws in the confession, the defense firmly suggested that the prosecutor should focus on reviewing the chat records in the case.
When submitting the "Not Approved Arrest Lawyer Opinion", the defender once again proposed to the prosecutor, "The upstream and downstream suspects have not yet appeared in the case, the existing evidence may be insufficient, the party concerned is less socially dangerous, and the new provisions on bail have just been enacted, and this situation should be taken out of the bail, do you still want to insist on the approval of the arrest?"
After many times of benign communication, the prosecutor, after studying that the current evidence can not prove that the parties to the existence of the nature of all the funds knowingly, combined with the jurisdiction of the case is flawed, and ultimately did not approve the public security organs of the arrest application. The client finally regained his freedom.
In this case, the defense used mature defense logic and many times of benign communication to harvest the ideal results, showing the dedication of King&Capital lawyers and the professional standard of criminal defense, and won the high affirmation of the client and his family.
