Recently, Beijing King&Capital Law Firm senior partner Mr. Niu Xingli and Mr. Zhu Kun provided legal services for a suspected fraud case. Through the unremitting efforts of the two defense lawyers, in the "37 days golden rescue period" to achieve successful rescue, the party was not approved by the procuratorate arrest, and the public security organs to change the mandatory measures for bail pending trial, and ultimately regained their freedom.
First, closely linked to the criminal elements of the crime of solicitation, actively organize the provision of evidence, detailed argumentation that the person does not constitute a crime.
The crime involved in the case is the crime of solicitation, which is manifested in the objective aspect as the suspect's behavior of posing as a staff member of state organs in order to seek illegal benefits. The defense attorney met with the client several times in accordance with the law to understand and analyze the possible causes of the crime, i.e., the probability that the case was triggered by a certain civil dispute. According to the client's statement, he had not committed the act of impersonating an official of a State organ throughout the process of handling the dispute. The only problem was that the person concerned might have been a "dual national" at the time of the dispute. Defense lawyers analyzed "dual nationality" does not necessarily lead to a criminal offense, the core point of the case or whether the person involved in the act of impersonating a staff member of state organs.
Afterwards, according to the evidence provided by the family of the client, the defense lawyer selected 26 pieces of evidence confirming the identity of the client, arguing in detail the authenticity of his identity, as well as the client does not have the act of pretending to be a staff member of a state organ, and provided the above evidence to the public security organs and the procuratorate in accordance with the law.
II. Taking into account the circumstances of the case, fully elaborating that the person concerned was not socially dangerous
Social dangerousness in the field of criminal law is not a vague concept, but is objective, realistic and needs to be supported by evidence. The supreme people's procuratorate, the ministry of public security on the arrest of social dangerousness conditions of a number of issues (for trial implementation), article 4: "the people's procuratorate review to determine whether the suspect is socially dangerous, should be based on the public security organs to transfer the social dangerousness of the evidence related to the public security organs, and combined with the specific circumstances of the case comprehensive determination."
The defense attorney, based on the current understanding of the case, fully elaborated that his client was not socially dangerous. Therefore, this case does not meet the conditions for arrest, "the use of bail pending trial is not sufficient to prevent the occurrence of social dangerousness". Defense lawyers submitted to the Procuratorate written "should not approve the arrest of the lawyer's defense", and with the arrest of the prosecutor had a full telephone communication. In the end, the Procuratorate adopted the defense counsel's opinion and decided not to approve the arrest.
Conclusion
