Recently, Ma Lixi lawyer undertook a Beijing science and technology company and a number of employees suspected of casino crimes, fraud crimes series of cases, by a place in Inner Mongolia People's Procuratorate finally made a decision not to prosecute. This case involves a large number of people, the amount of money involved up to hundreds of millions of dollars, the number of files up to ninety books, the case in the location of the case-handling authorities have a greater impact.

Acceptance of heavy trust

After the case, including the party (the shareholders), including more than ten people (shareholders and employees), from Beijing was taken to a place of detention in Inner Mongolia, the party's family in the recommendation of the first time to interview the lawyer. During the interview, the lawyer combined with past experience in handling similar cases, the family made a preliminary analysis of the application of the law, the main points of the decision of the case. The client was accused of being responsible for the game development, operation and other work, was listed as the second defendant. Based on the referrals and recognition of the lawyer's professionalism, the family immediately decided to appoint Mr. Ma to join the defense of the case.

Twists and turns in the case

After accepting the commission, the lawyer quickly went to the detention center to meet, but for various reasons did not arrange the first time to meet. After contact with the case authorities many times, repeatedly insisted and waiting, two or three days later was able to meet in the detention center to see the client. Procuratorate review and approval of the arrest stage, the lawyer put forward “not to approve the arrest of the lawyer's opinion” and apply for bail, the procuratorate adopted the lawyer's opinion, made the decision not to arrest, but then the person concerned was designated residence under surveillance. During the period of residence under surveillance, the lawyer was refused to meet with the client, and it was only after many days of multi-channel communication that the client's right to meet with the lawyer was guaranteed. When the designated residence under surveillance was about to expire, the person concerned was again taken into criminal detention and detained in the detention center.

Counsel's Opinion

In addition to the Opinion of the Lawyer on Not Approving Arrest, the lawyer also submitted the Application for Release on Bail and Waiting for Trial and the Application for Review of the Necessity of Detention and other legal documents in the stage of investigation and prosecution, insisting that the client and the whole case should be innocent. Briefly, the defense of innocence is as follows:

I. The fact that the gambling profit in the game does not exist in the crime of opening a casino, the company and the personnel involved in the case only have the responsibility of unfavorable supervision.

The company involved in the operation of the online game belongs to the legal game in line with the rules of operation of board games. The main reason for the suspected crime of opening a casino is that the network coin dealers (in the form of game players), through the game system for different levels of “players” in the price of coins sold or sold coins for different promotional activities, to realize the low price of coins. After obtaining the coins, the coin dealer sells the coins through other platforms, and then sells the low-priced coins at a slightly higher price to the gamer after reaching an agreement with the gamer to make a profit. Afterwards, they use the loopholes in the game system management (such as the friend-following function) to “lose” the agreed game coins to the game players, and the coins dealers finally realize the profit of exchanging the game coins and RMB. However, the behavior of a few coins dealers is not the same as the entertainment behavior of real game players.

In this case, there is no concrete evidence to prove that the company involved in the case and the coin merchants have conspired and shared interests, in particular, it is impossible to prove that the game players can win RMB through playing the game within the game system. In fact, the game system in question itself is simply unable to realize the profitability of exchanging game coins with RMB, and there is no possibility for game players to gamble and make profit through the game. The opening of a casino refers to the opening of a place dedicated to gambling, in this case, the company involved in the development and operation of such game behavior, it is impossible to open a casino behavior, only should bear the responsibility of unfavorable supervision.

Second, the charge of fraud fictitious facts, the subjective intent of the elements are not available

The allegation of fraud stems from the fact that the company in question used robots in the operation of the game. However, the system set up robots only for the purpose of enhancing the game experience of the game players, less people are responsible for accompanying the game. Robots can promote the consumption of game players, but whether the game player consumption, whether based on misperception and consumption (mistaken robot as a real person to recharge), these can not be simply attributed to the robot's “credit”. Therefore, the subjective and objective elements of fraud are not available, not the crime of fraud.

Conclusion

On October 18, 2024, the People's Procuratorate, which undertook the case, issued a Decision not to Prosecute. From the acceptance of the commission to the decision not to prosecute issued, the case lasted nearly a year, the process of handling the case can be described as ups and downs. The suspended, anxious hearts of the parties and their families finally landed and relaxed.

An ideal outcome of the case can not be separated from the joint efforts of many parties. The case authorities strictly control the evidence and the law, to do not in vain, highlighting the seriousness of justice and temperature; the parties can restore the facts of the case, the original story, clear up the objective truth and misunderstanding; defense lawyers try their best to do their best to seize the controversial point of difficulty, and clear the direction of the defense and the point of view. In short, any case lawful, fair and reasonable handling, are inseparable from the judicial organs, the parties and the defense lawyers to do their respective duties and responsibilities.