Recently, in a case involving alleged fraud handled by Attorney Liu Hongbei of Beijing King&Capital Law Firm, Attorney Liu successfully persuaded the procuratorate to issue a decision not to approve the arrest during the investigation phase through precise legal analysis, efficient communication with judicial authorities, and a multi-dimensional defense strategy. Subsequently, in accordance with relevant legal provisions, the public security authorities granted the client bail pending trial, achieving a significant defense outcome by transitioning the client from detention to non-custodial coercive measures.
I. Case Background
Client G was hired by a company to expand its business operations. The company assigned a dedicated staff member to handle contract negotiations and sign agreements on his behalf. After the contracts were signed, the company collected fees totaling one million yuan; however, the company failed to fulfill its commitments and refused to refund the fees. After the victim filed a police report, both Client G and the company’s executive were placed under criminal investigation on suspicion of fraud and were subsequently placed under criminal detention.
II. Immediate Intervention and Comprehensive Review
Upon accepting the retainer, Attorney Liu Hongbei immediately initiated the case handling process. He promptly traveled to the detention center to meet with Client G on multiple occasions and engaged in in-depth discussions with the family to comprehensively review the facts of the case. Preliminary investigations revealed that Client G, as a business development representative, had been employed for a relatively short period and had limited understanding of the company’s overall operational model. He held a subordinate position within the company, subject to management and directives, and was neither the actual controller nor a key decision-maker. Attorney Liu Hongbei keenly identified the key points of contention in this case—including the characterization of the charges, the client’s role in the crime, and the assessment of social danger—and established a defense strategy centered on “uncertainty regarding the characterization of the charges” and “no necessity for arrest.”
III. Precise Analysis and Construction of a Multi-Dimensional Defense Strategy
Combining the facts of the case with relevant legal provisions, Attorney Liu Hongbei submitted a legal opinion to the investigating authorities requesting that the arrest not be approved, focusing his argument on the following two aspects:
1. Doubts Regarding Criminal Liability, Significant Subordinate Status, and Lack of Necessity for Arrest
Based on the available evidence and the statement of the client, G, he was only responsible for conveying information during the initial stage of the business process and did not participate in subsequent critical substantive stages, such as case negotiations, contract term deliberations, or contract signing. The company’s actual controller, decision-making authority, and business management powers are entirely vested in the chairman. As a subordinate sales representative, G had no control authority and no subordinates; all fund transfers strictly followed the company’s financial regulations and instructions from superiors, and G had no decision-making power over the final destination or distribution of funds. Therefore, the existing evidence is insufficient to prove that G possessed clear subjective intent to commit fraud, nor is it possible to establish a direct causal relationship under criminal law between his actions and the harmful consequences. For a suspect who played a minor role and whose culpability is in doubt, continued detention is clearly unnecessary.
2. Funds Allocated by the Company to the Victims Have Been Returned; Victims Have Issued a Letter of Forgiveness
Client G proactively returned the funds allocated by the company for this business transaction to the victims. The victims issued a written letter of forgiveness, expressing their understanding of G’s actions and agreeing not to pursue further legal action against him.
III. Effective Communication Facilitated the Implementation of the Decision Not to Approve Arrest
After completing the analysis of the case facts and drafting the legal opinion, Attorney Liu Hongbei promptly submitted the legal opinion to the investigating authorities and engaged in multiple rounds of communication with the prosecuting attorney regarding the core points of contention in the case. Attorney Liu Hongbei elaborated in detail on the circumstances surrounding Client G’s case, including the uncertainty regarding whether his actions constituted a crime, his minor and subordinate role in the incident, the fact that he had already reimbursed the victim and obtained their forgiveness, the absence of subjective intent, and the extremely low level of social danger posed by his actions.
After careful review, the procuratorate accepted the defense counsel’s professional opinion, concluding that Client G did not meet the conditions for arrest. It issued a decision not to approve the arrest in accordance with the law. Subsequently, the public security authorities decided to release Client G on bail pending trial, and the client regained his freedom.
Conclusion
In this case, Attorney Liu Hongbei, drawing on his solid legal foundation, precise analysis of the case facts, and timely and effective communication with judicial authorities, successfully secured a decision not to approve the arrest of Client G—who was suspected of fraud—during the prosecution’s review period, thereby restoring his personal freedom. This defense achievement not only demonstrates the professional expertise of King&Capital Law Firm in the field of criminal defense and has earned high praise from the client and his family, but also highlights the progress made by judicial authorities in implementing the criminal policy of combining leniency with strictness and in safeguarding human rights.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
