Recently, attorneys Yan Huainan and Liu Bolin of Beijing King&Capital Law Firm, acting as co-counsel in a “fake order and review manipulation” case involving a massive sum of money and complex legal relationships, achieved a major breakthrough at the People’s Procuratorate of a certain district in a certain city. Facing serious charges of illegally obtaining data from a computer information system—a crime punishable by at least three years’ imprisonment—attorney Yan Huainan meticulously reviewed the case files, accurately determined the legal classification of the offense, boldly raised an objection to jurisdiction, and submitted critical experimental data. After a comprehensive review of the facts and the application of the law, the procuratorate adopted the defense’s core arguments, determined that the circumstances of Chai Moumou’s crime were minor, and issued a decision of relative non-prosecution in accordance with the law. A family on the brink of collapse was reunited, and the client was relieved of the heavy burden of criminal prosecution. The case involved multiple challenging defense strategies—including a jurisdictional objection, a change in the characterization of the offense, and arguments regarding social harm—ultimately achieving a reversal from a serious criminal charge to a decision not to prosecute. It serves as a landmark case illustrating the boundaries of criminal regulation regarding online “order-padding” and “review-boosting” practices.
I. Case Summary: An Online Store Entrepreneur Strays from the Right Path; Over 4 Million in Transaction Volume Leads to Serious “Data Crime” Charges
The defendant, Chai XX, was originally an ordinary online store operator. To survive in a highly competitive market, starting in 2023, Chai XX and his partner rented a studio and used software such as “Xiao M Assistant” and “Yiduo Duo” to provide sales and review inflation services for merchants on the Pinduoduo platform in exchange for commissions. After the case came to light, investigative authorities determined that his actions constituted the crime of illegally obtaining data from computer information systems. They also established that the seven WeChat and Alipay accounts he used to receive payments had accumulated a total of over 4.67 million yuan over a two-year period.
The crime of illegally obtaining data from computer information systems carries a sentence of up to three years’ imprisonment for serious circumstances; for particularly serious circumstances, the sentence is three to seven years’ imprisonment. According to Article 1 of the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases Involving Endangering the Security of Computer Information Systems,” illicit gains of 50,000 yuan or more constitute particularly serious circumstances. Since Chai Moumou’s illegal profits amounted to over 4 million yuan, he faces a sentence of “imprisonment for not less than three years but not more than seven years, along with a fine.” Faced with serious criminal charges and the risk of an actual prison sentence, Chai Moumou and his family were plunged into deep panic, and the situation surrounding the case was extremely dire.
II. Defense Strategy: Employing Multiple Tactics to Comprehensively Dismantle the Charges—From Legal Characterization to Procedural Objections
Faced with the investigative authorities’ allegations of guilt and the pressure of the massive transaction volumes, Attorney Yan Huainan, upon accepting the case, swiftly launched the defense effort, constructing a multi-layered defense strategy that combined procedural objections with arguments regarding the nature of the offense. He submitted three written defense briefs, along with experimental reports and references to similar cases, ultimately persuading the procuratorate to issue a decision not to prosecute.
Round One: Holding the Line, Vigorously Proving the “Crime of Illegally Obtaining Computer Information System Data” Does Not Hold
Rather than being thrown off balance by the massive amount involved in the case, the defense counsel returned to the essence of the case. Starting with the elements of the crime, they drafted a defense brief of over 10,000 characters that cut straight to the core: Chai Moumou’s actions did not constitute the crime of illegally obtaining data from a computer information system.
1. The conduct in question does not meet the objective elements of the crime: The crime of illegally obtaining data from a computer information system requires the perpetrator to violate state regulations by intruding into or using other technical means to obtain data stored, processed, or transmitted within the system. However, the software used by Chai Moumou merely simulated normal user operations and submitted order parameters through public APIs; it did not intrude into the backend systems of Pinduoduo or WeChat, nor did it obtain any undisclosed core data.
2. No damage was caused to the computer information system: The software in question merely automated batch operations; it did not delete, modify, or add system functions, did not interfere with the system’s normal operation, and certainly did not cause system failure or data loss.
3. Different Legal Interests at Stake: This offense protects the security of computer information systems and data confidentiality, whereas Mr. Chai’s actions did not cause any damage to the security of the Pinduoduo platform’s computer information systems, and system operations were not affected in any way. The essence of his actions is “order-padding and review-manipulation”—behavior that disrupts the fair competitive order of the e-commerce market—which constitutes an administrative violation and should not be treated as a criminal offense.
Round Two: Shifting Focus to Legal Characterization, Precisely Distinguishing the “Crime of False Advertising”
During communications, the prosecutor in charge had previously indicated a tendency to reclassify the case as the “crime of false advertising.” Attorney Yan Huainan keenly picked up on this and immediately submitted supplementary legal opinions arguing that the “crime of false advertising” was equally untenable.
The defense counsel pointed out that Chai Moumou’s actions were essentially commercial reputation manipulation involving “fabricating transactions and inventing user reviews,” rather than using advertisements to make false claims about goods or services. The positive reviews he mass-produced were mostly genuine reviews collected from other links or default positive ratings, and did not directly fabricate product performance. According to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the E-Commerce Law, administrative penalties should be the primary recourse for such conduct. The defense counsel also cited a case in which the Beijing Municipal Market Supervision Administration imposed a fine of only 100,000 yuan for similar “live-stream review manipulation” behavior, pointing out that for purely data-embellishment acts with lesser social harm, administrative regulation should take precedence, and such acts should not be elevated to criminal offenses. Otherwise, this would blur the boundaries between administrative law and criminal law, leading to an excessive expansion of criminal penalties.
Round Three: Cutting Off the Problem at the Root—Overcoming the “Roadblock” of Jurisdiction
The defense counsel keenly recognized that this case exhibited a clear tendency toward “profit-driven law enforcement”—with the amount involved reaching as high as 4.67 million yuan, the investigating authorities might have expanded their jurisdiction out of motives such as recovering illicit gains or meeting economic quotas. To thoroughly undermine the foundation of the charges, Attorney Yan Huainan decisively deployed a “strike at the root” strategy by raising an objection to jurisdiction.
After a thorough review of the case files, the defense counsel discovered that the connection between this case and a certain district in a certain city was extremely tenuous. Chai Moumou’s place of residence, the location where the acts were committed, and the location where the consequences occurred were all in Zhangzhou City, Fujian Province. The only link was the purchase of software from an upstream seller (Jiang Moumou, whose co-defendant Wang Mou had previously resided in the city in question).
Attorney Yan Huainan decisively submitted a “Legal Opinion on Jurisdiction,” clearly pointing out that the practice of forcibly bringing a case—which has no actual connection to the primary location of the crime—under jurisdiction solely because of an upstream-downstream link in the case leads constitutes a classic example of “exercising jurisdiction based on the slightest connection,” or even a case where there is no connection at all. The defense emphasized that “no jurisdiction, no right to try” is the cornerstone of criminal procedure; if such jurisdictional logic were to hold, any online transaction could be arbitrarily prosecuted, severely undermining the uniformity of the judicial jurisdiction system. The defense insisted that the jurisdictional connection for each suspect must be examined independently, and that the location of another person’s actions cannot serve as the basis for exercising jurisdiction over Chai Moumou. By raising an objection to jurisdiction, the defense not only effectively curbed potential profit-driven law enforcement but also secured procedural leeway for subsequent efforts to secure a decision not to prosecute.
Round Four: Letting the Evidence Speak—Experimental Data Debunks “Substantial Harm”
To prove that the “circumstances were minor,” the defense counsel creatively conducted empirical research. Attorney Yan Huainan personally selected two product links, used the software in question to conduct fake order transactions, and continuously monitored the results for three months.
The experimental data demonstrated that within three months of the operation, both links had zero actual external visitors, and the store’s backend statistics showed zero valid reviews. This key evidence powerfully proved that: 1) The fake order activities in question did not actually increase the products’ search rankings and did not generate any genuine traffic for the merchants; 2) Pinduoduo’s risk control system had automatically identified and isolated the fake reviews, excluding them from the ranking algorithm. This experimental conclusion successfully demonstrated to the judicial authorities that the conduct in question did not cause any substantial or tangible harm to the platform, consumers, or market order, and that its social harm was minimal.
Round Five: Withstanding Pressure and Outmaneuvering the Threat of “A Prison Sentence Without a Plea of Guilty”
During the case review and prosecution phase, the prosecuting attorney explicitly signaled to Chai Moumou and his defense counsel that if Chai Moumou did not plead guilty and accept punishment, the prosecutor would directly recommend that the court impose a prison sentence, with no consideration of probation or non-prosecution. Faced with this “ultimatum of a prison sentence”—which was clearly intended to intimidate—Attorney Yan Huainan remained composed and swiftly implemented a dual-pronged strategy combining internal and external approaches.
On the one hand, the attorney reassured his client, providing a detailed analysis of the room for dispute regarding the case’s legal characterization and the weaknesses in the existing evidence, thereby strengthening the client’s confidence in a defense grounded in the law and preventing a blind plea of guilty driven by fear. On the other hand, the attorney proactively engaged in multiple rounds of communication with the prosecutor, expressing respect for the judicial authorities’ handling of the case in accordance with the law while also clearly pointing out: the characterization of the case itself contained a fundamental error; using “plea bargaining for a lighter sentence” as a condition for a deal would not only contradict the objective facts but also prevent the correction of a miscarriage of justice. The attorney also submitted a supplementary legal opinion, emphasizing that, pursuant to Article 177, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Law, where the circumstances of the crime are minor and do not warrant a criminal sentence, the procuratorate is fully entitled to issue a decision not to prosecute in accordance with the law, without requiring a plea of guilty or acceptance of punishment as a prerequisite.
After several rounds of negotiations, the prosecutor ultimately recognized that there were indeed significant doubts regarding the legal characterization of this case, and that the risks of forcibly prosecuting it and seeking a custodial sentence were too high. Through the lawyer’s advocacy, Chai Moumou cooperated with the proceedings by pleading guilty and accepting punishment—while reserving his objection to the nature of the offense—and the procuratorate abandoned its threat of “a custodial sentence if you do not plead guilty.” Instead, it carefully reviewed all the circumstances of the case, clearing a key obstacle for the final decision not to prosecute.
Round Six: Integrating Reason, Compassion, and Law to Activate the “Relative Non-Prosecution” System
Building on a professional defense strategy, Attorney Yan Huainan systematically outlined all mitigating circumstances: Mr. Chai was a first-time and occasional offender; he made a truthful confession and pleaded guilty after being apprehended; and his family had voluntarily returned the substantial illicit proceeds. At the same time, the attorney fully explained to the procuratorate the family’s difficult circumstances—including Mr. Chai’s father’s early death, his mother’s work as a farmer, and his status as the sole breadwinner of the family despite suffering from an illness. By combining justice in this specific case with the need to save a family and demonstrate the humanity of the judicial system, he infused the final decision to grant a conditional non-prosecution with ample humanitarian consideration.
III. Case Review: Professionalism, Evidence-Based Approach, and Compassion—A Model of Effective Defense
From facing serious criminal charges of “Illegal Acquisition of Data from Computer Information Systems”—which carries a sentence of three years or more—to successfully securing a reclassification to the lesser offense of “False Advertising,” and ultimately achieving the ideal outcome of a conditional non-prosecution decision from the procuratorate, Attorney Yan Huainan used his professionalism, wisdom, and sense of responsibility to completely relieve his client of the burden of criminal charges. The successful defense in this case once again underscores the importance of “precise legal characterization” in criminal defense.
At a time when cybercrime is on the rise, judicial authorities tend to simplistically classify various illegal acts committed online as computer crimes, overlooking their fundamental nature as infringements upon legal interests. To achieve an effective defense, defense counsel must thoroughly research technical principles, accurately grasp the elements of different criminal charges, and look beyond the surface of the conduct to grasp its essence. In this case, it was precisely through the precise deconstruction of the technical characteristics of the software involved and the clear definition of the legal nature of “order-padding and review manipulation” that the defense successfully separated the case from the classification of computer crimes.
At the same time, this case also highlights the significant value of the principle of criminal law restraint in the internet age. For new types of illegal conduct in the e-commerce sector, market principles and the platforms’ capacity for self-regulation should be fully respected, with priority given to civil and administrative measures for regulation. Only when an act poses serious social harm and other legal remedies prove insufficient to address it should criminal law be invoked as a last resort. The prosecution’s final decision not to indict represents a correct implementation of this principle, upholding the dignity of the law while avoiding the stifling of market vitality caused by excessive criminalization.
Attorney Yan Huainan noted that cybercrime cases often involve the intersection of technology and law, placing higher demands on the professional competence of defense counsel. King&Capital Law Firm will always adhere to its professional philosophy of “pursuing excellence and living up to the trust placed in us.” With professional legal expertise and a rigorous approach to defense, the firm will spare no effort to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of clients in every case, thereby promoting the unity of legal and social outcomes.
