Defense for private entrepreneurs, both for the defense of freedom, but also for the rule of law business environment. Recently, King&Capital law firm Li Wei, Wang Zhiqiang lawyers acting on behalf of a company suspected of fraud case has made critical progress, the whole case involved in the case were released on bail pending trial, the parties were arrested before the two lawyers intervened in the case, the lawyers through the change in the characterization of the case and through the review of the necessity of detention procedures, successfully for the company's executives to obtain release on bail pending trial, a strong protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the parties.

First, the choice of trust in the predicament

The case is the public security organs across the province to arrest the case, the family in the case that after communication with li wei lawyer, but for various reasons failed to entrust, then the case involved in the case of people are approved by the procuratorial organs to the crime of fraud arrest, because the company customers involved in many people, the amount involved is particularly huge, the company's legal person, the family was arrested once into a confusion and anxiety, the family requested li wei lawyer to set up a team of lawyers Intervene in the case, then Li Wei lawyer, Wang Zhiqiang lawyer defense team, quickly intervene in the case. After understanding, this case is because the company provides “overseas survey questionnaire answer” technical services triggered by disputes, the company's customers that did not meet the expected returns, sued the company fraud, a number of executives were therefore pursued by the public security organs across the province. After analyzing and judging, the two lawyers pointed out that the company's operation did not constitute fraud, but was a legitimate business practice, and then firmly defended the innocence, while guiding the family of the client to provide evidence.

Second, the defense of the cocoon defense attack

After the arrest of the fraud case want to bail pending trial, we have to find ways to change the characterization of the case. The two lawyers started from the most basic mode of operation of the company, carefully combing the facts and evidence of the case. The lawyers believed that the technical service agreement signed between the company and the customer should belong to the civil law category, after both parties signed the agreement and the customer completed the payment, the company provided the customer with overseas questionnaires, manpower in line with the market price, technical guidance and other quid pro quo services, although the company in the publicity and promotion of the revenue of the description of the company with a little exaggerated, but did not fictional facts or conceal the truth, at most, may constitute the crime of false advertising. The crime of false advertising.

In response to the case-handling authority's understanding of the company's operating mode, the two lawyers submitted detailed, logical and clear written opinions and evidence materials, combed the company's operating mode and the process of providing services into charts, and combined with the service agreement, and the chat records of the exchange business, etc., and sought to explain the company's normal business logic in layman's terms, and to break the “customer benefits” and “technical service fees” directly linked to the company. The company strives to explain the company's normal business logic in easy-to-understand language, and break the misconception of “customer revenue is directly linked to the technical service fee”. In the communication with the prosecutor, the lawyer closely followed the company's operation mode, and clearly pointed out that: the fee paid by the customer belongs to the technical service fee, not the investment money, due to the customer's own reasons failed to insist on answering the questions, resulting in the earnings did not meet the expectations, which belongs to the customer's own responsibility, and should not be attributed to the company. Secondly, the proceeds obtained by the customer can be exchanged directly by contacting the third-party company, or by contacting the company involved in the case. Even if the customer chooses to contact the company involved in the case for exchange, the company involved in the case will transfer the exchange operation to the brokerage firm to deal with, and the company involved in the case did not obtain any proceeds from it. In addition, the customer enjoys the freedom of refund, which is fundamentally different from the “purpose of illegal possession” in the crime of fraud, and therefore does not constitute the crime of fraud.

(Flow chart of the business model of the company in question)

Third, the breakthrough of both program and entity

After continuous communication with the procuratorial authorities and professional argumentation, the two lawyers' opinions gradually get the attention of the case-handling authorities. In view of the client has been in custody, the two lawyers actively apply for the initiation of the necessity of custody review procedures, many times with the prosecutor to meet, patiently answer their concerns and provide additional comments and evidence to promote the prosecuting authorities to re-characterize the case and the necessity of the client's custody reassessment. Eventually, all the persons involved in the case were released on bail pending trial. Successful release on bail pending trial through the detention necessity review procedure after arrest not only enabled the client to temporarily get rid of the difficult detention situation, but also laid the foundation for the subsequent defense work.

Protecting Private Enterprises

The whole case involved in the successful release of bail pending trial, not only lifting the personal detention predicament, but also to protect the stability of the enterprise management, to create conditions for the continuous operation of the enterprise, effectively reflecting the criminal defense in the maintenance of property rights and entrepreneurs in the rights and interests of the private enterprises and the key role of the entrepreneurs. The two lawyers adhered to the principle of “clarifying the boundaries between criminal and civil” in the characterization of the case, and avoided elevating a normal commercial dispute to a criminal offense by demonstrating the commercial compliance of the company's “Overseas Survey Questionnaire” technical service, and making it clear that the customer's failure to meet the expectation of revenue belongs to the category of market risk rather than a criminal fraud. Avoiding elevating normal commercial disputes to criminal offenses, directly blocking the impact of “criminalization of civil disputes” on the company involved in the case. At the same time, the lawyer combined with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, argued the reasonableness of the change of coercive measures from the perspective of “business necessity”, and pushed the procuratorial authorities to take into account the dual values of “combating crime” and “protecting people's livelihood”. To promote the procuratorial authorities to take into account the dual values of “combating crime” and “protecting people's livelihood”, to avoid the consequences of “handling a case, collapse an enterprise”.

The two lawyers intervened after the arrest and successfully secured bail pending trial for the client, which not only demonstrated the professional ability of King&Capital lawyers in the field of criminal defense, but also provided invaluable legal support and protection for the private enterprise. Bail pending trial is not the end of the case, the next step, the two lawyers will continue to defend the enterprise, and strive to properly resolve the crisis.