Introduction

The exchange of power for money is the essence of the crime of bribery by non-state personnel; however, in the complex web of internet business partnerships, distinguishing between normal business dealings and criminal activity is often the key to a successful defense. Recently, in a case involving an employee of an internet company suspected of bribery as a non-state official, represented by Attorney Li Wei of King&Capital Law Firm, the procuratorate ultimately accepted the defense counsel’s arguments and issued a decision not to prosecute the client, successfully safeguarding the young professional’s legal rights and professional reputation.

I. Workplace Turmoil: Employee Suddenly Placed Under Criminal Detention

The client in this case, Mr. A, is an employee of a well-known domestic internet platform. The public security authorities determined that while facilitating a cooperative project between the company and a certain agent, Mr. A had used his position to accept property, involving a substantial amount of money, and was criminally detained on suspicion of bribery by a non-state employee.

Faced with this sudden criminal detention, Mr. A and his family were plunged into deep anxiety. Upon accepting the case, Attorney Li Wei immediately met with the client. Through a meticulous review of the case, he keenly identified fundamental flaws in the elements of the alleged crime—recognizing that this was not a simple case of “taking money to do a favor.” He submitted relevant evidence during the arrest review period, and the procuratorate ultimately declined to approve Mr. A’s arrest.

II. Defense Strategy: Challenging the “Power-for-Money Transaction” Allegation

During the prosecution review phase, Attorney Li Wei submitted a detailed legal opinion to the procuratorate to mount a precise defense:

(1) Review of Official Authority: Entry-level positions lack substantive managerial authority. Mr. A’s job responsibilities did not include managerial powers such as review, approval, allocation, or decision-making. The commercial partnership and contract signing involved in the case were subject to strict internal compliance audits and approval by the procurement department. Mr. A had neither the authority to influence decisions nor played a substantive facilitating role in the process.

(2) Clarification of Causality: Commercial partnerships are based on market advantages. As a distributor with a competitive edge, the partner involved fully met the listing requirements of a certain internet company. The defense emphasized that even without Mr. A’s involvement, the partnership between the two parties would have been an inevitable outcome under commercial logic, and there was no causal relationship involving “securing benefits for others.”

(3) Balanced Strategy: While maintaining a not-guilty defense, Attorney Li Wei actively pointed out flaws in the case evidence to the procuratorate, arguing that the evidence supporting the alleged amount involved was insufficient and the facts unclear. Additionally, he guided the client to express a willingness to return the funds and presented a comprehensive argument combining this with mitigating factors such as the client’s voluntary surrender.

III. The Clouds Part: The Prosecution Decides Not to Prosecute in Accordance with the Law

After returning the case to the public security authorities for supplementary investigation and fully hearing the defense counsel’s arguments, the prosecution ultimately decided not to prosecute Mr. A.

IV. Concluding Remarks by the Attorney

The essence of the crime of bribery by a non-state employee lies in the exchange of power for money—that is, the perpetrator accepts property based on the ability to secure benefits for others through their official position. Accordingly, in determining this offense, the focus should be on examining the connection between the official position and the illegal acceptance of property. The rapid evolution of the internet industry is often accompanied by blurred legal boundaries. A lawyer’s duty extends beyond courtroom advocacy to uncovering the truth in every nuance of job responsibilities and every commercial contract. Only through a precise understanding of job authority and a deep grasp of commercial logic can the best possible outcome be secured for the client.