Recently, while providing legal services to a client suspected of a duty-related crime, attorney Guo Liangjing of our firm, after 12 consecutive days of effective work, achieved a favorable defense outcome: the investigative authorities released the client directly without seeking approval for his arrest from the People’s Procuratorate.
Mr. T, the client, was formerly a department head at a large state-owned enterprise. He later resigned to start his own business in Beijing and, prior to the incident, served as a shareholder and chairman of a private enterprise. During the course of the company’s operations, he became embroiled in disputes with the actual controller of the corporate group. The actual controller compiled evidence regarding multiple financial issues—including decisions made and transactions handled by Mr. T during the company’s operations and management—and filed a criminal complaint with the public security authorities. Following an investigation, the public security authorities placed Mr. T under criminal detention. Mr. T’s family was frantic with worry and immediately retained a lawyer to provide criminal defense for him. However, even after retaining three lawyers in succession, they were still unable to reach a consensus on the characterization of the case or defense strategy. They struggled to make progress or achieve breakthroughs in effectively communicating with the investigative authorities and police officers, as well as in gaining the client’s trust and approval, and there was constant debate over whether to plead guilty and accept punishment. On the 18th day of Mr. T’s criminal detention, his family, after much effort, managed to find Attorney Guo Liangjing. At that point, only 12 days remained before the deadline for the investigative authorities to submit a request to the procuratorate for approval of arrest.
With time running out, Attorney Guo Liangjing immediately sprang into action upon taking the case. First, he gathered information on the case details and current situation through the family and other attorneys. He then met with the client to understand the allegations made by the investigative authorities and all relevant facts and details of the case. At the same time, Attorney Guo Liangjing contacted the lead investigating unit and the police officers to gather as much information as possible about the case. He discussed preliminary views on the case and established a sincere and smooth channel of communication. Finally, after gaining the client’s trust and approval, Attorney Guo Liangjing and the client jointly reviewed and analyzed the entire incident. Drawing on his many years of experience in law enforcement and case handling, Attorney Guo Liangjing conducted a comprehensive analysis of the case from the dual perspectives of both the “police” and the “attorney.” The client fully trusted and endorsed Attorney Guo Liangjing’s opinions regarding the not-guilty defense, as well as his defense strategy and approach. Subsequently, Attorney Guo Liangjing worked through the night to draft a legal opinion arguing for the client’s innocence and, the following day, communicated again with the lead investigating officer to submit the legal opinion and supporting materials. In his communications and written materials, Attorney Guo Liangjing conducted an in-depth analysis of the nature of each of the criminal allegations made by the investigating authorities. He clearly pointed out that the investigators had failed to accurately define the boundaries between criminal and civil matters, as well as between criminal and administrative matters, and had conflated the categories of criminal and administrative violations with corporate governance issues. He argued that the existing evidence was insufficient to prove that the client possessed the “intent to illegally appropriate property”—a core element of the crime of embezzlement by a person in a position of trust—and that the case would be better resolved through civil channels. The police officers indicated that they would give this serious consideration and promptly report to their superiors, consult with the legal affairs department, and seek guidance.
On the final day of the deadline for requesting the procuratorate’s approval of an arrest, after much deliberation, the public security authorities ultimately decided not to seek approval for arrest from the procuratorate and instead changed the party’s coercive measure to release on bail pending trial. After being detained for exactly 30 days, Mr. T finally walked out of the detention center and breathed the air of freedom. Currently, Attorney Guo Liangjing is maintaining communication with the investigating authorities and is making every effort to push for the dismissal of the case.
