Recently, Attorney Tang Jianbin, Senior Partner at Beijing King&Capital Law Firm and Director of the King&Capital Research Center for Environmental, Food, Drug, and Intellectual Property Law, was invited to participate in the “21st Yinghe Criminal Defense Forum—Forum on the Defense of New Types of Crimes Against the Backdrop of Deepening the Campaign to Eradicate Organized Crime and Eliminate Evil Forces.” Hosted by the School of Criminal Justice at China University of Political Science and Law, the forum was held simultaneously in Beijing and Shenyang. It brought together law professors, senior judges, and frontline criminal defense experts, attracting a cumulative audience of nearly 30,000 participants both online and offline.
As the routine campaign against organized crime continues to deepen, illegal lending via online platforms and debt collection through “soft violence” have become key targets for crackdowns. In judicial practice, organized high-interest lending cases are highly likely to be deemed as involving criminal gangs. In response, during the forum’s first session, Attorney Tang Jianbin used an illegal lending case he handled—involving over 100 million yuan—as a starting point to provide an in-depth analysis of the risks associated with illegal lending being classified as organized crime and the key defense strategies to address them.
I. Risk Analysis:
Multiple Overlapping Factors Create Pressure for “Organized Crime” Designation
Drawing on the complete case history of this matter, Attorney Tang Jianbin systematically outlined the multiple practical risks that make illegal lending cases prone to being classified as “criminal gangs.” Under the current policy of routine crackdowns on organized crime, investigative authorities have developed a “path dependence” toward imposing harsher penalties on cases involving organized, commercial operations—particularly groups with fixed core members and stable divisions of labor, which are highly likely to be equated with criminal gang organizations. In terms of behavioral patterns, debt collection activities such as verbal abuse over the phone or staking out a debtor’s residence—once uniformly deployed and carried out by a team—fall within the scope of “soft violence.” This, in turn, leads to a pattern of cumulative charges and, ultimately, aggravated punishment resulting from a classification as “criminal gang-related.”
II. Precise Analysis: Exploring Breakthrough Strategies for Dismissing “Organized Crime” Charges
Faced with the pressure of “organized crime” charges, Attorney Tang Jianbin, drawing on current judicial interpretations, guiding cases, and academic perspectives, explains the defense strategy for such cases from two key dimensions: the classification of criminal charges and the determination of whether an organization constitutes an “evil force.”
First, by returning to the elements of individual offenses, he conducts a substantive review of the criteria for establishing guilt in the crimes of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” and “collecting illegal debts.” Regarding charges of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” the defense focuses on the fact that all relevant disputes stem from genuinely existing debts; debt collection, in this context, constitutes a justified demand for repayment rather than a groundless disturbance of social order. At the same time, considering the objective scope of information dissemination, some defamatory information was circulated only within the closed circle of the debtor’s relatives and friends and did not spread to the general public. Furthermore, the Criminal Law has already established the separate offense of “collection of illegal debts” to specifically regulate such conduct; therefore, the charge of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” should not be applied redundantly. Regarding the crime of collecting illegal debts, the threshold for criminal liability—specifically “serious circumstances”—must be strictly applied. A distinction must be made between ordinary in-person communication and unlawful entry into a residence, as well as between general verbal conflicts and acts of violence or coercion as defined by criminal law. Brief visits that do not continuously disturb the peace of another’s residence should not be轻易 subject to criminal evaluation.
On this basis, by closely adhering to the statutory elements of “criminal gangs,” we must clarify the boundary between commercial business teams and criminal organizations. Through a step-by-step analysis, we can block the path to a “criminal gang” designation. A team operating for the purpose of earning interest—rather than oppressing unrelated members of the public—cannot be directly presumed to be a “criminal gang” merely because of its large scale, clear division of labor, or diverse methods.
III. Implications for Case Handling: Returning to the Principle of Legality to Ensure Effective Defense
After successfully refuting the charges of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” and “collecting illegal debts,” and ruling out the characterization as a “malicious force,” the defense’s focus shifted back to the sentencing phase for the crime of “illegal business operations.” At this stage, the defense sought lenient sentencing by taking into account factors such as the source of the loan funds, the amount involved and profits made, the actual social harm caused, and the defendant’s restitution and admission of guilt.
This forum was not only an academic feast blending theory and practice but also charted a course for criminal defense attorneys in handling cases involving organized crime. Attorney Tang Jianbin noted that illegal lending cases often involve characteristics such as organized operations and “soft violence” in debt collection, which closely align with the formal elements of “malicious forces.” However, when handling such cases, one must look beyond superficial appearances to focus on the statutory elements themselves, clarify the legal boundaries between criminal and non-criminal conduct, and strive to achieve effective criminal defense to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of clients.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
