Recently, the case of a listed company's executives suspected of financial fraud and violation of credit disclosure, handled by Mr. Wang Jiaming, has achieved significant milestones. In the key link of transferring the case to the procuratorate for review and approval of arrest, Mr. Wang, by virtue of his accurate grasp of the facts of the case and professional defense strategy, successfully persuaded the procuratorate to agree to make a decision of not approving the arrest, and the person concerned has been released on bail pending trial. This case, as a criminal case involving securities under the current strict regulation, demonstrates the professional ability of lawyers to break through the deadlock in complex financial crime cases.

First, the background of the case is complex: the listed company financial counterfeiting time span, involved in a long chain, the main body involved in

 this case involves a listed company for many years of systematic financial counterfeiting behavior, the proportion of the amount of counterfeiting is abnormally high, the number of people involved in a large number of executives, including the company's actual controller, general manager, deputy general manager, financial director, director secretaries and other executives, the person concerned, as one of the core management, was accused of inflated profits, The person concerned, as one of the core management, was accused of being one of the supervisors directly responsible for financial falsification and information disclosure violations such as inflating profits and revenues. Due to the significant social impact of the case, the complexity of the evidence materials, and the fact that the person concerned was recognized as the “key responsible person”, it was extremely difficult to obtain bail and await trial at the investigation stage.

Second, the administrative stage of the remaining problems: the lack of pleading procedures to exacerbate the risk of criminal defense

 in the administrative investigation stage of the case (SEC filing stage), the parties failed to start the administrative hearing procedures in a timely manner and effective defense, resulting in some of the evidence in its favor has not been fixed, the conclusion of the administrative determination of the criminal directly become an important basis for the criminal pursuit of responsibility. After the transfer to the public security organs, the space for defense was further compressed, and the client faced a very high risk of being approved for arrest. After Wang Jiaming's intervention, he quickly responded to the facts of the case in the interface between administrative and criminal procedures, restored the facts of the case by supplementally submitting the listed company's annual report data, signature records and other objective evidence, redefined the nature of the party's behavior and the boundaries of responsibility, and fully exchanged views on this issue with the prosecutor in charge of the case and obtained the prosecutor's approval of the non-approval of the arrest of the legal opinion, and ultimately, the Procuratorate made the decision of non-approval of the arrest.

Third, listed companies financial fraud cases, break the “only signature theory” inertia thinking

 in most cases involving listed companies financial fraud, part of the regulatory authorities (including administrative and criminal authorities) uphold the “only signature theory” of the determination of the logic and enforcement of the concept of “only signature theory”, often based on the “whether or not to sign”. In most cases involving financial fraud of listed companies, some regulatory authorities (including administrative authorities and criminal case management authorities) adhere to the “signature-only” identification logic and law enforcement philosophy, and often take “whether to sign” as the only basis for determining “whether to assume responsibility”, and accordingly, take “whether to sign” as the basis for determining "whether to Detention“ ”whether to arrest" as the only basis, but the practice of financial counterfeiting violation of information disclosure cases, counterfeiting means and methods are not uniform, should be based on different behavioral methods, personnel positions, terms of reference, decision-making process, as well as the specific implementation of the links, etc., a comprehensive definition of the different executives, or other Responsible persons should be responsible for the size of the responsibility, the severity of the responsibility, with or without. At the same time, the grasp of the subjective cognition, whether knowingly, is also an important aspect of the determination of the responsibility of the perpetrator.