Recently, by the King&Capital Law Firm Huang Kai, Xu Yujie lawyers representing a major fraud case in the defense lawyers unremitting efforts to make breakthrough progress. The case was returned to the court after the first trial stage due to major procedural issues such as jurisdiction, and the two parties, who were originally recognized as “co-principals” and whose sentences were recommended to be more than 10 years, were released on bail pending trial, and finally walked out of the detention center after a year of unjustified suffering.
I. A common choice under despair
This case is a province of public security off-site law enforcement, inter-provincial arrest case. The two parties involved in the case were recognized by the public security authorities as accomplices to the crime of fraud, involving more than two million dollars, after they were defrauded to collect their legitimate claims. After the case, the families of the parties do not understand the case, the first time to the public security organs to return the relevant money, after a long time “outside the case efforts”, the parties and their families thought that the case would be due to their own side of the “active cooperation” work, take the initiative to refund and “The big deal”, did not expect to suddenly in the 18th month after the case received the arrest notice of the Public Prosecution Office, and was told that the second party was found to be a co-conspirator in the crime of fraud, the amount of money is particularly large, may face more than 10 years of imprisonment charges. The family was anxious and in deep despair. With the last bit of hope, the families of the two parties came to Beijing separately to hire lawyers. Coincidentally, although the two families did not discuss in advance, they coincidentally chose King&Capital Law Firm through different channels and entrusted Mr. Huang Kai and Mr. Xu Yujie to defend the two parties respectively.
Second, a hundred thousand in the urgent race against time
After accepting the commission, the two lawyers immediately put into the case processing work, quickly go to the prosecutor's office to read the file. Until the two in the procuratorate door meet, only to know the two agents is the same case. The two lawyers first came to the public prosecutor's office to submit the defense procedures, the public prosecutor firmly told: lawyers if you have comments to be submitted as soon as possible, the case is expected to be prosecuted within 10 days to the court. In the face of such a tight case time, the two lawyers from the facts of the case, the evidence, and handling procedures, carefully and carefully to carry out reading and meeting, and soon found:
1. The case is still in the state of unclear facts, insufficient evidence, the public prosecutor accused of the specific facts of the crime in the file and no evidence to support;
2. and the case may be a major procedural violations - the public security organs in the interrogation room of its case unit on the two suspects in the implementation of the designated residence under surveillance for nearly 10 days, and forged the “designated residence” formalities to the prosecution falsely claimed that the implementation of residence under surveillance in a hotel.
After the discovery of the problem, the two defenders came to the Procuratorate again a week later, solemnly submitted the opinions of the lawyers, and personally explained to the public prosecutor in the case file found in the case, hoping that the public prosecution authorities to deal with this case prudently. The public prosecutor listened to the defense was surprised, said he would carefully verify. The case was stopped at the last moment before it was to be transferred to the prosecution, and was quickly returned to the public security organs for additional investigation.
Third, a breakthrough between the snake and the gray line
In the following six months, the case has experienced “three delayed two back”, the two defenders with profound legal theory and practical experience, from the details of the case file, and constantly found the case in the basic facts, the evidence system, case procedures and the disposal of property involved in the process of the existence of a number of major problems. During the six months, the two defenders traveled to and from Beijing and the place where the case was handled many times, and carried out in-depth and meticulous communication with the public prosecution, indicating the attitude of not guilty defense and fully explaining the reasons. Although the prosecution ultimately decided to prosecute, the two defenders also through repeated communication and exchange and the promotion of the refund procedure, most of the issues in this case, especially the investigating authorities of the violations of the law are fixed in the supplementary investigation file, for the defense of the later laid a solid foundation.
In particular, during this period, through the defense of the informant's statement, delivery notes, current and other evidence of repeated checks, gradually found that the case of the place of the case and the case itself is actually no connection, the informant is suspected of providing false evidence of jurisdictional links to the investigating authorities. Thereafter, under the joint visits of the family and the defense, the defense's speculation was finally confirmed - there are major procedural errors in the jurisdiction of this case, and the investigating authorities have no jurisdiction over this case.
Fourth, accurate defense ushered in a turnaround
After the case entered the first trial stage, the two defenders immediately submitted a pre-trial conference application to the court, and pro-existing major problems in this case. At the pre-trial conference, faced with the jurisdictional issues raised by the defense, the public prosecutor submitted additional evidence from the public security organs - the interrogation transcripts and witness testimonies made by the informant on the jurisdictional issues. With solid work and a full understanding of the evidence, the defense pointed out in court, the reporting person on the jurisdiction of the inconsistency of the statement and the existence of irreconcilable contradictions. In view of the jurisdiction of the case for all the rhetorical evidence and inconsistencies, the defense submitted to the court in court to supplement the evidence application, requesting the court to retrieve the reporting person in the case during the cell phone signaling data, cell phone banking during the use of the IP address records and the current purchase of tickets and other evidence to prove the authenticity of the rhetorical evidence; at the same time in order to increase the success rate of evidence collection and relevance, the defense submitted to the court in writing The defense submitted in writing to the court a detailed process of evidence collection and evidence holding unit and so on. The court immediately requested the public prosecution to supplement the above evidence with the defense's justified application.
Thereafter, three months after the court's request for additional evidence, the defense received a notification confirming that the case was returned to the Prosecutor's Office in the first instance due to problems with the jurisdiction of the case, ushering in a major turnaround in the case.
V. Regaining freedom after tireless efforts
After the case was returned to the Procuratorate, the two defenders went to the Procuratorate again, repeatedly communicated with the Public Prosecution Office about the subsequent procedural matters, and repeatedly proposed to the Procuratorate that due to the possibility of the case being transferred across the provincial boundaries, the case was returned to the Procuratorate and the Procuratorate had already used all the “three delays and two refunds” procedures in the early stage, in order to avoid prolonged detention, the compulsory measures should be changed immediately for the person concerned. The party should immediately change the coercive measures. In the defense of a number of in-depth, patient communication, the public prosecution finally listened to the views of the defense. The two parties were arrested a year later, finally out of the detention center door.
Although the case has not yet been completed, but from the arrest of “more than ten years” to one year after the bail pending trial, the case has undoubtedly achieved significant milestones. This case is a typical case of King&Capital criminal defense lawyers successfully promoting the process of the case through procedural defense, defense lawyers based on the facts and evidence of the case, strict compliance with the legal procedures, with a pragmatic attitude and solid business ability to reverse the judicial authorities for “lawyers to carry out procedural defense is ‘die-hard faction’”. The wrong understanding of “lawyers to carry out procedural defense is a ‘die-hard faction’”, not only fully safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, but also gained the full recognition of the judicial organs.
