Recently, King&Capital Law Firm partner Xu Wei, Ding Liping lawyer, Jiangning lawyers acting on behalf of Z suspected of organizing, leading pyramid selling activities, after many effective communication with the prosecutor, the client was not approved by the Procuratorate to arrest and successfully released on bail pending trial.
In this case, Z accepted the commission to provide network technology service for others, and generated network products for the commissioner's own use, but the commissioner used the network products for pyramid selling activities, so Z was charged with the crime of allegedly organizing and leading pyramid selling activities.
After the defense intervened in the case, based on the understanding from the meeting, it was believed that the service provided by Z was a neutral helping act beforehand, and subjectively did not have criminal intent, which did not constitute a crime according to the law, and should not be arrested.
Because Z did not participate in the specific "organization and leadership of pyramid schemes" after the incident, the subjective aspect of whether or not the technical service beforehand constituted a joint crime is the key to the characterization of the act.
However, the prosecutor based on the understanding of the case, the subjective ignorance of the defense is not recognized.
The defense again emphasized that the number of times and the amount of services provided by Z can not be used to directly presume that its subjective has reached the degree of "knowledge", it is recommended to focus on the examination of whether there is objective evidence that Z has a criminal conspiracy with others; at the same time, Z will check the client's business license, public information, domain name filing before accepting the commission, and other materials. His objective behavior proves that there is no criminal intent subjectively; in addition, after verification by the defense, the generated network products do not reflect the characteristics that they may be used for pyramid schemes from the form; therefore, if there is no other objective evidence to support it, it cannot be concluded that there is criminal intent on the part of Z Mou. The defense also proposed that, in conjunction with the newly enacted provisions on bail, Z's social danger is small, and the evidence in this case may be insufficient, and should be applied to bail pending trial according to the law.
After a number of benign communication, the prosecutor was found to have insufficient evidence of the alleged crime, and ultimately did not approve the public security organs of the arrest application. z was able to regain his freedom and reunite with his family before the National Day.
In this case, the defender used his rich experience in handling cases related to information network crimes to quickly formulate a defense strategy, and formed a positive communication with the parties and the authorities handling the case, seizing the golden opportunity to fully express his defense opinions, reaping the desired defense effect and winning the high recognition of the parties and their families.
