In a case involving fraud allegations against the legal representative and senior executives of a leading enterprise in a certain province, represented by lawyers Yan Huainan and Li Wei of King&Capital Law Firm in Beijing, the parties involved were released on bail after 30 days of criminal detention. After the two lawyers presented their defense, the procuratorial authorities recently decided not to prosecute the company's legal representative and senior executives on the grounds that the facts of the crime as determined by the public security authorities were unclear and the evidence was insufficient, thus bringing an end to the six-month legal dispute.
Looking back at the entire case, the defendant, as the legal representative and senior executive of a leading enterprise in the internet and digital product sales sector in a certain province, was accused of fraud by an internet platform for engaging in “order padding” activities when opening a store on the platform. During this period, the platform's business development staff, in an effort to boost performance, proactively suggested using “order padding” to increase product rankings. The defendant's company adopted the suggestion to expand sales channels, but due to poor results, the store was closed after only three months of operation. The platform subsequently reported the case to the authorities on the grounds of “fraudulently obtaining subsidies.”
During the case proceedings, attorneys Yan Huainan and Li Wei consistently focused their defense on the core element of the crime of fraud: the “subjective intent to illegally appropriate property.” Through analyzing the company's operational data and reviewing recruitment communication records, the attorneys thoroughly demonstrated that the individual and the company had always aimed to expand sales channels and establish long-term cooperation with the platform, and did not have the direct intent to defraud subsidies; The “order-padding” behavior was actively proposed by the platform's business development personnel, and the company's main platform had been operating stably for a long time with performance consistently ranking among the top in the industry, so there was no motive to rely on “subsidy fraud” to sustain operations. Additionally, the lawyers emphasized the company's status as a key private enterprise in the region, stressing that improper prosecution of the defendant could lead to the company's operational stagnation, affecting the employment of hundreds of employees and the stability of the local industrial chain, aligning with the judicial policy orientation of “legally protecting the property rights of private enterprises and the rights of entrepreneurs.”
During the review and prosecution stage, the two lawyers carefully reviewed the case files and submitted multiple defense opinions and relevant evidence materials to the procuratorate. They specifically pointed out that the WeChat chat records of the parties involved could prove that the platform's business development personnel had engaged in illegal activities, thoroughly argued the core points of the case, and clearly stated that the existing evidence could not form a complete chain to prove that the parties involved had the intent or actions of fraud. Ultimately, the prosecuting authorities adopted the lawyers' core arguments, returned the case for further investigation, and concluded that the facts were unclear and the evidence insufficient, failing to meet the conditions for prosecution. They therefore lawfully made a decision not to prosecute.
This decision to not prosecute cleared the party and their company of wrongdoing, avoiding unnecessary legal risks and reputational damage, and allowing the company to return to normal operations. The proper handling of this case once again demonstrated the judicial authorities' firm adherence to the principle of “presumption of innocence” in handling cases involving private enterprises, embodying the judicial philosophy of “optimizing the legal environment for the development of private enterprises.” The report of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China emphasized the “legal protection of private enterprise property rights and the rights and interests of entrepreneurs.” The Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate have also repeatedly stressed the need to “avoid criminalizing economic disputes.” In this case, the procuratorial authorities made the decision not to prosecute based on evidence and in accordance with the law, thereby upholding the authority of the law while also instilling confidence in the development of private enterprises.
Lawyers Yan Huainan and Li Wei said that defending private entrepreneurs is not only about protecting the legitimate rights and interests of individuals, but also about safeguarding the cornerstone of a business environment governed by the rule of law. In the future, King&Capital lawyers will continue to fulfill their mission with their professional capabilities, providing solid legal protection for various market entities and allowing “law-abiding operation and secure development” to become a reassurance for private enterprises.
