Over the course of a year, in a case where a senior executive of a private enterprise, represented by Attorney Xia Jun, was suspected of bribing a non-government official, the public security authorities submitted the case to the procuratorate for review and approval of arrest twice—once last year and once this year. Following the defense’s arguments, the procuratorate twice decided not to approve the arrest. Recently, the investigating authorities issued a decision to terminate the investigation, stating that “the conduct is not deemed a crime.” The client has thus obtained a final acquittal, completely eliminating all risks of criminal liability.
Highlights of the Case
This case involved a senior executive of a large private enterprise suspected of bribing a non-government official. It was a complex case characterized by significant controversy over the legal characterization of the conduct, a protracted investigation period, the gradual strengthening of evidence, and extremely high risks of criminal liability. Throughout the year-long case handling process, Attorney Xia Jun consistently upheld a philosophy of utmost professionalism and full-cycle accountability, closely monitoring every stage of the case and managing every detail. He efficiently handled two rounds of requests by the public security authorities to the procuratorate for review and approval of arrest. Through precise analysis of the charges and well-reasoned, evidence-based examination of the facts and evidence, his defense achieved the breakthrough result of the procuratorate declining to approve arrest on both occasions. Ultimately, the investigative authorities issued a decision to terminate the investigation, stating that “the conduct is not deemed a crime,” in accordance with the law. The client secured a final acquittal, completely eliminating all risks of criminal liability.
Case Overview and Defense Strategy
The case involved a party with significant industry influence and attracted high public attention. The investigation and evidence-gathering were conducted with great caution and rigor, making the defense an extremely challenging endeavor. The core dispute centered on whether the conduct in question constituted individual bribery or corporate bribery, and whether the client and his employer should face criminal liability. The investigation spanned nearly a year and underwent two rounds of arrest review procedures: the first occurred early in the investigative phase, when the evidence may not yet have been complete; the second followed several months of supplementary evidence gathering by the public security authorities, during which the intent to pursue criminal liability was clear, the chain of evidence was more complete, and the case risks escalated significantly, greatly increasing the difficulty of the defense counsel’s work.
I. First Review for Arrest Approval: Precisely Breaking the Deadlock During the 37-Day “Golden Rescue Period” and Achieving the First Rejection of Arrest Through Professional Strategy
As is well known, the 37-day “golden rescue period” is the critical window for preventing improper prosecution and safeguarding the client’s personal freedom. Upon accepting the case, Attorney Xia Jun fully understood that the case concerned the client’s personal freedom and professional future—a responsibility of great weight that brooked no negligence—and immediately launched a comprehensive, systematic defense strategy.
Throughout the case, the attorney met with the client multiple times to meticulously review the entire case frame by frame, carefully sifting through the details of the case, the client’s professional conduct, and the flow of funds. This allowed him to quickly pinpoint the core points of contention and construct a logically rigorous, precisely targeted framework for a not-guilty defense. Addressing issues such as one-sided evidence collection and biased legal characterization during the initial stages of the investigation, the attorney promptly submitted an application for release on bail to the public security authorities. When the initial application for bail was denied, the attorney did not passively wait or give up easily, but instead continued to follow up on the case, making every effort to safeguard the client’s legitimate rights and interests. After the case was transferred to the procuratorate for review and approval of arrest, Attorney Xia Jun seized the critical window of opportunity during the review process, immediately liaising with the handling prosecutor and submitting a well-reasoned and evidence-based legal opinion arguing against the arrest. The defense arguments focused on two main aspects: first, precisely distinguishing the nature of the actor. By identifying the boundary between individual and organizational conduct, the defense systematically analyzed and argued each point across four key dimensions—decision-making intent, the nature of the actions performed in the course of duty, the sources of funds, and the ultimate beneficiary of the benefits—fully demonstrating that the conduct in question was not the client’s individual act but rather an organizational act representing the will of the organization, with the benefits accruing to the organization. On the other hand, the attorney, based on the facts of the case and closely adhering to the elements of the crime, argued that neither the client nor the organization should face criminal prosecution.
On the 37th day of the client’s detention, the procuratorate fully accepted the defense counsel’s arguments and issued a decision not to approve the arrest. The client was successfully granted bail pending trial, successfully resolving the detention crisis and laying a solid foundation for the subsequent not-guilty defense.
II. Second Review for Arrest Approval: New Regulations Empower Precise Defense, Leading to Another Denial of Arrest Approval and a Final Not-Guilty Verdict
There are no shortcuts in criminal defense, nor is there an endpoint; truly effective defense lies in persistent dedication and comprehensive, thorough control throughout the entire process. After the client was released on bail following the first denial of arrest approval, Attorney Xia Jun did not view the release as “case closed,” but instead maintained a highly cautious approach to the case. He continued to monitor the case regularly, conducted dynamic assessments, anticipated prosecution risks after evidence was supplemented, and continuously refined the defense arguments.
Several months later, after supplementing multiple pieces of key evidence and refining the investigative framework, the public security authorities once again submitted a request to the procuratorate for approval of arrest—marking the beginning of the final, critical phase of the defense. Compared to the first round of the arrest request, the evidence in this investigation was more comprehensive and the investigative logic more meticulous; the client faced a significant risk of being held accountable, and the defense became increasingly challenging.
Faced with this significantly escalated case situation, Attorney Xia Jun calmly assessed the situation and devised precise strategies. While upholding the original defense arguments, he further refined the defense strategy and strengthened the defense’s position. He precisely cited relevant provisions from the new regulation, *Interpretation (II) on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Embezzlement and Bribery*, and combined them with cutting-edge judicial perspectives and relevant final judgments in similar cases, he conducted an in-depth analysis of the statutory boundaries between individual bribery and corporate bribery, as well as the criteria for criminal liability and judicial standards. By examining the facts, evidence, legal principles, and the new regulations from four dimensions, he constructed a comprehensive, multi-faceted defense system arguing for acquittal. On the one hand, through thorough argumentation, he demonstrated that the conduct in question indeed benefited the organization and reflected its will. On the other hand, upon learning of newly supplemented evidence, the attorney conducted an in-depth analysis and assessment from the perspectives of legality and authenticity, challenging the probative value and logical flaws of the new evidence and promptly raising objections. Attorney Xia Jun’s timely submission of a second defense brief opposing arrest was once again recognized and adopted by the prosecuting attorney in charge, and the procuratorate once more issued a decision not to approve the arrest. The dual evaluation resulting from two consecutive decisions not to approve the arrest following review fully attests to the professionalism and precision of the attorney’s defense arguments.
Ultimately, the public security authorities issued a “Decision to Terminate the Investigation” in accordance with the law, explicitly determining that the client’s actions “were not considered a crime.” Thus, after a year of meticulous defense throughout the entire process, tangible results were achieved: the criminal proceedings were completely concluded, and the client secured a final and definitive acquittal.
Case Summary and Reflections on Defense
The essence of criminal defense lies not only in deep professional expertise but also in the diligent fulfillment of one’s duties. High-quality criminal defense is never a mere last-minute escape from a tight spot; rather, it is a systematic commitment and meticulous dedication that permeates the entire case process and encompasses every aspect of the case.
In fact, in corporate-related occupational crime cases, prominent issues such as blurred boundaries between criminal and civil law and the overbroad application of criminal charges often arise. The core value of a defense attorney lies in using professional defense strategies to penetrate the surface of a case, precisely distinguishing between lawful conduct and criminal acts, clarifying the line between guilt and innocence, and helping to prevent improper criminal prosecutions.
Every criminal case carries the fate of the client and the hopes of their family. King&Capital Lawyers steadfastly uphold the professional philosophy of “pursuing excellence and living up to the trust placed in us.” Drawing on our deep expertise in criminal defense, our unwavering dedication, and our precise and astute analytical skills, we safeguard freedom through professionalism and strive to protect the legitimate rights and interests of every client.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
