Recently, attorney Tang Jianbin achieved favorable defense results in a major criminal case involving illegal lending, with the amount in question exceeding 100 million yuan and nearly 1,000 borrowers. During the review and prosecution phase, he successfully had four criminal charges—including two related to illegal debt collection and “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”—that posed risks of being classified as organized crime dismissed. The first defendant, Cao XX, whom Tang Jianbin represented, was ultimately sentenced to a relatively light prison term and fined for the crime of illegal business operations.
The case centered on three individuals—Cao Moumou, Chen Mou, and Guo Moumou—who engaged in high-interest lending activities, including “upfront interest deductions” and “empty loans,” in Cities A and B of Guizhou Province. The total amount lent was 143 million yuan, involving 934 people across 2,943 transactions. Public security authorities conducted an investigation into “predatory lending schemes” and suspected “criminal gangs.” Thanks to Attorney Tang Jianbin’s vigorous defense, the group was not explicitly classified as a “criminal gang,” but the case was still referred for prosecution on three charges: illegal business operations, collection of illegal debts, and provoking trouble. During the review and prosecution phase, Attorney Tang Jianbin thoroughly analyzed the facts of the case, accurately applied the law, and repeatedly communicated legal opinions to the prosecutors. The procuratorial authorities fully adopted the defense counsel’s legal arguments, deciding not to pursue charges for the crimes of collecting illegal debts and picking quarrels and provoking trouble. They retained only the charge of illegal business operations for prosecution in court, thereby avoiding the risk of the case being classified as a “criminal syndicate” case. During the subsequent court proceedings, Attorney Tang Jianbin mounted a sentencing defense by comparing the maximum penalty for the crime of usurious lending and challenging the admissibility of the “Review Opinion” regarding the determination of the loan amount. Ultimately, Cao Moumou was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine of 1 million yuan for the crime of illegal business operations.
The case was filed with the court in September 2025. In July 2026, a new nationwide campaign to combat organized crime—specifically targeting “soft violence” such as illegal lending and debt collection—was launched. The final court hearings for this case took place on August 10 and 11, 2026, and the verdict was handed down on August 21. By successfully challenging four alleged criminal acts—two of which involved the charges of “illegal debt collection” and “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”—during the prosecution review stage, the defense avoided the risk of the defendant being classified as part of a “criminal syndicate” under the new anti-organized crime campaign.
In judicial practice, debt collection behaviors such as door-to-door collection and verbal abuse stemming from usurious lending are very easily classified as the crime of collecting illegal debts and the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. Attorney Tang Jianbin’s two defense arguments regarding these two crimes provide a reference for exculpatory defense in similar cases:
I. Following the “Amendment XI to the Criminal Law,” debt collection activities no longer fall under the offense of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”
Amendment XI to the Criminal Law added Article 293-1, “Crime of Collecting Illegal Debts,” to Article 293 on the crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” thereby uniformly bringing all excessive acts committed for the purpose of debt collection under the regulation of this specific offense. Consequently, acts such as “fabricating false statements” arising from debt collection—which were previously suspected of constituting the crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”—no longer have the legal basis to constitute that offense on their own. Furthermore, criminal law experts such as Zhou Guangquan, Zhang Mingkai, and Liu Xianquan have all upheld this view in their relevant research and analyses.
Additionally, according to the Criminal Trial Reference [No. 1620] “ The Case of Dai Molong Regarding the Collection of Illegal Debts,” it was emphasized that “given that the Crime of Collecting Illegal Debts was newly established by the Eleventh Amendment to the Criminal Law during the second-instance proceedings of this case, and based on the principle of applying the older, more lenient law in China’s criminal law, Dai Molong’s conduct should be punished under the Crime of Collecting Illegal Debts.” Consequently, the first-instance conviction for the Crime of Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble was ultimately overturned and reclassified as the Crime of Collecting Illegal Debts.
II. Debt Collection Conduct Must Reach the Threshold of “Serious Circumstances” to Constitute the Crime of Collecting Illegal Debts
According to Article 293-1 of the Criminal Law, “Where any of the following circumstances apply, and the collection of illegal debts arising from usury or similar activities constitutes ‘serious circumstances,’ the offender shall be punished…” Therefore, only when debt collection conduct constitutes “serious circumstances” does it meet the threshold for criminal investigation; otherwise, only administrative penalties are imposed.
Regarding the criteria for determining “serious circumstances,” Yao Wanqin, Deputy Director of the Artificial Intelligence Law Research Institute at Southwest University of Political Science and Law and a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute of Law of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, along with Zhang Jing, a researcher at the same institute, noted in their article “Three Key Points to Accurately Apply the Crime of Collecting Illegal Debts,” published in the *People’s Court Daily*, that “whether the circumstances are serious should be determined in conjunction with the three types of conduct explicitly listed for this crime”: The first category, “violence and coercion,” requires that the violence be equivalent to that in the crime of intentional injury, and that the coercion be sufficient to suppress another person’s resistance; otherwise, it cannot be deemed a “serious circumstance.” The second category, “trespassing on another person’s residence,” should meet the same standards as those for the crime of “unlawful intrusion into a residence.” The third category, “soft violence,” should—in accordance with the “Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Criminal Cases Involving the Use of ‘Soft Violence’”—be sufficient to cause panic in others or to restrict personal freedom and endanger personal safety and property. Article 3 of these Opinions provides a detailed list of examples of soft violence, all of which require the presence of “soft violence” factors such as criminal gangs or the carrying of weapons.
In this case, based on the three charges brought by the public security authorities, through professional defense during the review and prosecution stage, we successfully secured a decision not to prosecute the defendant for the crimes of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” and “collecting illegal debts.” Ultimately, the court limited its ruling to the defendant’s illegal business operations—specifically, large-scale, routine high-interest lending that seriously disrupted the order of the financial market. The value of criminal defense lies precisely in precisely delineating the boundaries between legal and illegal conduct, as well as between administrative violations and criminal offenses, ensuring that punishment fits the crime, and maximizing the protection of judicial fairness and the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved.
