Recently, a client consulted with attorneys after failing to achieve any results despite making “requests for favors” during the handling of a case involving a criminal offense related to official duties. After attorneys Li Zhiguang and Ning Yu became involved, they accurately determined that the nature of the case was actually fraud and advised the client to file a report with the police in a certain district of Beijing. Following intense discussions with the police regarding the characterization of the case, they ultimately succeeded in having the case officially filed, and the suspect voluntarily began returning the ill-gotten gains.

I. Accurate Characterization: Clearly Defining the Case as “Intermediary-Type” Fraud

The client in this case originally intended to resolve a specific matter through intermediaries but subsequently encountered a dispute when the other party failed to deliver and refused to refund the payment. After attorneys Li Zhiguang and Ning Yu became involved, they conducted a detailed analysis and clearly identified the conduct as the fabrication of facts with the intent of illegal possession, meeting the elements of the crime of fraud. The perpetrator’s actions demonstrated that they fundamentally lacked the ability to fulfill the requested matter related to the alleged official misconduct. The attorneys swiftly formulated a complaint strategy, guided the client in preserving evidence, and accompanied them to file a report with the public security authorities in a certain district of Beijing.

II. Vigorously Arguing the Case: Breaking the Deadlock Over Case Acceptance in the Early Hours of the Morning

The process of filing the report was exceptionally arduous. Due to the heavy caseload at the public security bureau, the lawyers accompanied the client through the initial questioning until midnight. At 1:00 a.m., after the client had completed a round of questioning, the lawyers engaged in intense and persistent discussions with the case handler—who remained unwilling to accept the case—insisting that this constituted a criminal fraud case. At 4:00 a.m., the case handler was compelled to agree to accept the case in accordance with the law, and a case acceptance receipt was issued at 8:00 a.m.

However, fifteen days later, as predicted during the confrontation that day, the investigating authority issued a decision to refuse to file the case. Undeterred, the lawyer bolstered the client’s confidence, explaining that the grounds for refusal were clearly unfounded, and guided the client through the process of filing an appeal. Through detailed legal arguments and a thorough review of the evidence, the original investigating authority voluntarily revoked the decision to refuse filing during the appeal phase.

III. Efficient Recovery of Stolen Funds: Victim Received Compensation the Week Following Case Filing

Once the case was successfully filed, it exerted a powerful legal deterrent on the fraudster. By the following week, the fraudster had proactively contacted the victim and begun returning the defrauded funds.

Currently, the client’s confidence has greatly increased, and efforts to recover losses are proceeding in an orderly manner. Attorneys Li Zhiguang and Ning Yu will continue to monitor the case’s progress and spare no effort in safeguarding the client’s legitimate rights and interests.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)