Recently, in a case involving Mr. L, who was suspected of fraud, Mr. Yan Huainan, a senior partner at King&Capital Law Firm, successfully secured bail for the defendant on the 30th day after his detention by accurately sorting out the facts of the case, conducting rigorous legal arguments, communicating with the public security authorities in a timely manner, and submitting an application for bail pending trial, all in accordance with the facts of the case and the provisions of the law during the “golden 37 days” of the investigation stage.
I. Core Factual Analysis and Legal Characterization
The case originated when C voluntarily requested L to handle the approval and screening of a television series, with both parties agreeing on a service fee of 1 million yuan. C paid an initial 500,000 yuan through a third-party company. Later, due to disputes over project review requirements and refund issues, C reported L to the police, alleging that L had “fabricated a special relationship with friends and leaders to facilitate approval,” leading to L's criminal detention by the Chaoyang Branch of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau on July 8, 2025. Attorney Yan Huainan, through meetings with L, verification of WeChat chat records, and transfer vouchers, clarified that the core dispute in this case revolves around the distinction between civil agency disputes and criminal fraud. Analyzing the five elements of fraud—illegal intent to appropriate property, deceptive conduct, the victim's mistaken belief, disposition of property based on such belief, and property loss—one by one:
1
L had no intent to illegally appropriate property: After C requested a refund, L consistently promised to refund the money, and the negotiations were solely due to discrepancies in fulfilling the agreement. Additionally, there were actual efforts to borrow money from friends to prepare for the refund, supported by WeChat chat records and transaction receipts;
2
L did not engage in deceptive conduct: After accepting the commission, L leveraged his 40 years of experience in the film and television industry to contact industry contacts to facilitate the approval process, demonstrating actual performance of the commission. There was no fabrication of facts or concealment of the truth;
3
The victim did not fall into a mistaken belief: C expressed doubts and requested to suspend the commission two days after making the payment. The payment was made based on the nature of the commission itself, not due to being deceived into a mistaken belief through a “fabricated relationship”;
4
The victim did not dispose of property due to a mistaken belief: C's request was for the approval of a television series, and the payment was the total cost incurred during the processing of the aforementioned matter. The payment was made before L carried out the requested actions and was not based on a mistaken belief;
5
The victim did not suffer substantial losses: L explicitly agreed to resolve the dispute through civil means, and his son Z has prepared a refund of 500,000 yuan. The losses can be compensated through civil remedies.
II. Precise Argumentation of Legal Basis and Reasons for Bail
Attorney Yan Huainan closely followed relevant legal provisions to construct a comprehensive basis for bail: pursuant to Article 67 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, he emphasized that L's alleged actions did not meet the elements of fraud and posed no social danger; in conjunction with Article 3 of the Provisions on Bail, he argued that the case could be resolved through civil channels, and bail was sufficient to prevent social danger. Furthermore, L is a first-time offender with no prior criminal record, and as a seasoned film producer, he has produced award-winning works with significant social contributions; after surrendering, he truthfully confessed, and the primary evidence (such as mobile phone chat records) has been seized and secured, so bail would not hinder the investigation; additionally, he is currently advancing the preparation of an anti-fraud film and a drama commemorating the 100th anniversary of the founding of the People's Liberation Army, and bail would ensure the continuation of these social values.
III. Communication and Evidence Presentation
Yan Huainan lawyer systematically organized the evidence into a complete chain of evidence comprising “commission facts – performance actions – refund commitments – preparation documentation,” including WeChat chat recordings (proving the commission agreement, performance communications, and refund negotiations), lawyer's letters and sending records, L's refund preparation chat records, and payment records, and presented them to the investigating authorities one by one. Attorney Yan Huainan also collected evidence through family members from witnesses, coordinated witnesses to testify at the police station, and, when the police selectively collected evidence, had witnesses mail the evidence to the police.
Yan Huainan repeatedly communicated with the investigating authorities, clearly conveying the core argument: this case involves a civil agency dispute, L has no criminal liability, and bail has a factual basis and legal grounds. Furthermore, the dispute can be resolved through refunds, achieving a satisfactory conclusion. Ultimately, the investigating authorities adopted the defense's arguments and changed L's detention measures to bail after 30 days of custody.
