Dacheng Assists Suspect Involved in a Case over RMB 100 Mln in Releasing on Bail

On May 12, 2015, Public Traffic Security Management Branch of Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau detained Mr. L for crime of fraud. L’s family were dissatisfied with the original lawyer so they came to Dacheng for its high reputation, and retained attorneys Zhang Zhiyong and Du Yonghao as L’s defenders.

Zhang and Du met L immediately for the story of the case. It was known that this case resulted from the report by one domestic famous internet company against relevant staffs for defrauding the company. It involved such new legal issues as “flow hijacking”, over twenty people and amount up to billions of yuan. With the hearsay spreading and different messages going around, L’s family had no idea what was real and they were so puzzled and distressed about whether L committed the crime.

Upon several meetings with great patience in which the case was fully discussed, according to the facts and relevant laws, Zhang and Du considered that L did not commit the crime of fraud, especially had no criminal motive or behavior regarding the crime with others. L’s behavior did not constitute the crime of fraud as charged by the investigation organ. Zhang and Du’s assessment based on their expertise gace L and his family a lot of confidence.
Zhang and Du timely submitted the application for a bail with the investigation agency. Though it was not approved by then, they were not too upset. They promptly submitted the Legal Opinion on Disapproval of Arrest with People’s Procuratorate of Chaoyang District, Beijing Municipality which examined the approval of arrest, and stated their arguments. People’s Procuratorate of Chaoyang District, Beijing Municipality partially accepted the Dacheng’s arguments but approved the arrest on conditions towards L on June 18, 2015.

In accordance with the provisions referred to in Quality Standards for the Examination of Arrest Requests by People's Procuratorates, arrest on conditions refer to the occasion that during the examination of arrest, where the facts proven with the available evidence already basically constitute a crime, and the procuratorial organ considers that necessary evidence for conviction can be collected upon further investigation, and that it is necessary to arrest suspects of major cases, criminal suspects may be arrested upon decision by the chief procurator or the procuratorial committee; where upon follow-up examination and supervision, the procuratorial organ considers that the evidence for proving the crime cannot be obtained or the conditions for obtaining the evidence are not available anymore, the decision for such arrest shall be cancelled. The implementation of this rule is of practical significance for the procuratorial organ to accurately adopt the arrest measures, crack down on crimes and protect human rights.

In view of the above, the defenders held that no relevant evidence were collected even after one month of follow-up investigation, therefore the compulsory measures should be modified for L. Additionally, Shanghai Pudong New Area People’s Court had already affirmed similar actions of flow hijacking as “crime of destruction of computer information system”, but not crime of fraud, and adopted probation for relevant defendants. Such judgment is of referential significance for this case. Therefore, the case of Mr. L is not a major case.

The defenders immediately submitted the report of this case with the investigation organ and the arrest-approving authority, proposing to the procuratorate for examining the necessity for further detainment of L, and applied again for a bail for L.

With untiring efforts, on August 13, 2015, the investigation organ consented Dacheng’s application for modifying the compulsory measures on L and granted a bail. L walked out of the detention house and reunited with his family. This case involved so many people and a wide coverage, with a large amount of value and complicated procedures. However, Zhang and Du grasped the key points of this case. They were never shaken by the external disturbances and negative information, and they always insisted the correct judgment. This case reflects the supreme expertise of Dacheng’s criminal defense lawyers.