Recently, King&Capital Law Firm partner Xu Wei lawyer, Jiangning lawyers acting on behalf of the case of Z suspected of theft, after the submission of defense opinions and many effective communication with the prosecutor, the party has not been approved by the Procuratorate arrest.
After meeting with the understanding, in October 2022, Z and his companion due to a moment of greed, from a brand store to take away the merchant clothing, after arriving at the case, Z confessed. As the tag price of the stolen clothing has exceeded the local filing standards for theft, Z was criminally detained on suspicion of theft. On the day of the meeting, Z also told the defense that the police told him the results of the price determination of the clothes not long ago, and after understanding, we found that the value of the stolen clothes was determined to be lower than the filing standards for the crime of theft. This means that Z may not constitute the crime of theft.
However, according to the law of theft, even if the value of the stolen goods did not reach the incrimination standard, if the perpetrator of more than three thefts within two years, it may still constitute the crime of theft, or within one year the perpetrator has been subjected to administrative penalties for theft, the value of the stolen goods as long as the value of half of the incrimination standard may also constitute the crime of theft.
We then further verified with Z whether other circumstances existed. After receiving a negative answer from Z, we again reminded Z that the prosecutor would conduct a comprehensive review of the case, including the confessions of the co-defendants and other objective evidence, rather than just listening to his own defense. If there was evidence to prove that there were other incriminating circumstances, it would be ineffective not to make a truthful confession, and Z told us even more firmly that there were no other circumstances.
Understanding of the above, the defense that Z although the theft, but the amount involved does not reach the "amount of large" standard, according to law does not constitute a crime, so to the public security organs to apply for bail pending trial. Undertake police told the defense, Z and others are suspected of repeated theft. After the public security organs rejected the bail application, the case will be transferred to the Procuratorate for review and approval of arrest.
After contacting the prosecutor, the prosecutor also said that Z and others have repeated theft, has constituted the crime of theft.
The defense focused on two aspects of the defense, on the one hand, if the Z has other criminal facts, there should be sufficient objective evidence to prove, for example, whether there is evidence to prove the specific time and place of the theft, the theft of clothes report records, the theft of clothes specific item number, style, size, etc. Whether the clothes can be searched with the search of clothes corresponds to whether there is a surveillance video can prove that theft behavior Whether there is any surveillance video to prove that the theft was indeed committed by Z Mou, etc. On the other hand, the defense combed through similar cases in the region in recent years, and found that for cases involving a comparable amount of money, even if the number of times up to two years or less, it is also a minor circumstance, there is no need to arrest.
Finally, the defense said to the prosecutor, Z has a deep understanding of their own mistakes, a period of detention has achieved the effect of punishment and education and warning effect, Z mother has been hospitalized due to the case of heart attack, Z's children can only be taken care of by the neighbors, who urgently need to return to the family. After hearing this, the prosecutor said that the neighbors might have to continue to take care of the children for a few months.
Within the time limit for reviewing and approving the arrest, the defense had several more exchanges with the prosecutor and submitted detailed written opinions. In the anxious waiting, Z was finally released on the 37th day due to insufficient evidence, and the other co-defendants were still arrested.
In this case, the defender fully expressed his defense opinions from the comprehensive angles of facts and evidence, jurisprudence and reasoning, and the prosecutor was able to listen to the defender's opinions and insisted on making the decision in a serious and responsible manner, seeking truth from facts, and the case eventually reaped the desired results.
