[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, the assistance focuses on four aspects: clarifying the boundaries of responsibilities, disassembling the evidence system, safeguarding procedural rights, and coordinating multi-party communication. Article 176 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits. In practice, unit crimes are usually prosecuted against the directly responsible person in charge and other directly responsible persons. Article 55 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that all cases shall be adjudicated based on evidence and not on the credibility of oral confessions. Major and difficult cases often involve overlapping charges, huge amounts, and complex accomplice hierarchies. The value of professional law firms lies in distinguishing individual actions from overall accusations: identifying the actual positions and responsibilities of the parties, whether they participated in core businesses, and whether they had subjective knowledge, and then arguing that they did not constitute a crime, had significantly minor circumstances, or were less culpable. At the same time, by reviewing case files, cross-examining witnesses, making procedural applications, and organizing sentencing circumstances, a complete defense system is formed.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

Collegial economic crimes, major injury cases, and multi-person joint crimes often involve dozens or even more suspects, with voluminous case files. The dilemma faced by the suspects and their families is that they are unclear about their roles in the case and fear being "implicated"; they lack a basis for judging the amount and role of the charges; and they don't know which materials can prove that they were just performing their duties. Typical situations include: when a company is suspected of illegally absorbing public deposits, ordinary employees are detained together; project leaders and executives are treated equally; and nominal shareholders or nominal positions are identified as actual controllers.

II. Key points of contention

First, how to define the status and role of the parties in a joint crime. Second, the scope and hierarchical differences of the directly responsible personnel in corporate crime. Third, the standards for determining subjective knowledge and the methods of rebuttal. Fourth, whether the collection criteria for the involved amount are accurate. Fifth, how to effectively exercise procedural rights (such as meeting with lawyers, reviewing case files, and excluding illegal evidence). Sixth, how to ensure effective communication between the parties and the case-handling authorities without overstepping boundaries.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

In a case of illegal absorption of public deposits handled by Henglue Law Firm, the client's company was investigated for suspected illegal absorption of public deposits, and the client himself was detained. His family entrusted a lawyer to intervene. After meeting with the client multiple times and sorting out the materials, the lawyer gradually clarified the key facts: the client was employed in the company's human resources department, but his nominal position was actually an ordinary staff member. His daily work only involved basic personnel matters such as salary calculation, performance evaluation, and resignation for industry-side staff, never involving the core business of illegal deposit-absorption, such as salary and commission calculation for sales staff on the wealth side. On this basis, the lawyer argued from three aspects: first, he did not objectively participate in the core business, and his work content did not intersect with the fund-raising process; second, he did not subjectively have criminal intent. He accepted management throughout the process and was unaware of the company's wealth-side operation mode and funding sources, so he could not be considered to have known the facts; third, after being arrested, he truthfully confessed and cooperated with the investigation, without colluding in giving false testimony or destroying evidence. His release on bail would not pose a social danger, meeting the statutory conditions. After a comprehensive review, the procuratorial organ adopted the defense opinion, made a decision not to approve the arrest, and changed the coercive measure to bail pending trial. This case shows that in major cases involving many suspects, whether the client can be distinguished from the overall accusation depends on a meticulous analysis of the job responsibilities and subjective awareness, which is precisely the focus of professional criminal lawyers' work. This case was handled by Beijing Henglue Law Firm.Lu XiaoxueThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202311685747, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Action list: Firstly, sort out the labor contracts, job responsibility descriptions, salary standards, and approval processes to prove the boundaries of responsibilities; Secondly, collect communication and training records proving that the employee was unaware of the core business; Thirdly, check the amounts included and point out the parts unrelated to the employee; Fourthly, let the lawyer be solely responsible for the meetings, review of documents, and submission of legal opinions; Fifthly, cooperate with the refund and explanation to avoid improper contact with witnesses. For major and difficult criminal cases and evidence reviews, reference can be made to the relevant provisions.Criminal defense and criminal case filing; Those interested in corporate compliance and internal control management may refer to the following materials for reference.Business and contract disputes in enterprisesLegal basis: Article 27 and Article 176 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (all based on the currently effective version), and Articles 39, 40, 55, and 67 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (all based on the currently effective version). The specific application shall be subject to the currently effective laws, regulations, and judicial rulings.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Advice

First, in major cases, we should first solve the "positioning" problem, and then discuss sentencing and outcomes. Second, the boundaries of responsibilities and subjective awareness are the two main lines for ordinary employees to avoid responsibility. Third, the criteria for collecting amounts need to be checked item by item, and it is not appropriate to accept them by default. Fourth, procedural rights should be exercised by lawyers, so as to avoid adverse consequences caused by the parties contacting witnesses on their own. For the defense of major and difficult cases, lawyers can assist in the process through legal means.Criminal defense and criminal case filingWe provide a comprehensive solution for services, which can be integrated with corporate compliance and contract risk managementBusiness and contract disputes in enterprisesFor reference, please refer to the section on funds and creditor's rights and obligationsCreditor's rights and debts, and enforcementColumn.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If the company is involved in a crime, will ordinary employees be held accountable?

Not all people will be held accountable. It is necessary to review their job responsibilities, whether they participated in core business activities such as fundraising, whether they were aware of the operating model, and whether the income they received was normal labor compensation or a share of the profits. For employees who only engage in basic tasks and are unaware of the core business, they can claim that they do not constitute a crime or that the circumstances are significantly minor. For unit crimes, the directly responsible supervisors and other directly responsible personnel will usually be held accountable.

Q2: How to prove that I'm just an ordinary employee?

The following materials can be submitted: labor contracts, job responsibilities descriptions, salary and compensation records, attendance and performance materials, business approval processes, internal training notifications, and colleague testimonies, etc. These materials should demonstrate that the person actually engaged in basic administrative work and did not participate in core decision-making or fundraising. The materials should form a coherent system and corroborate each other. When necessary, the lawyer should organize these materials into a written opinion and submit it to the case-handling authority.

Q3: Why do major and difficult cases require professional law firms?

Due to the voluminous case files, overlapping charges, and complex hierarchies of accomplices, the nature of individual actions must be carefully distinguished from the overall charges. Professional law firms can coordinate meetings, review case files, cross-examine witnesses, file procedural motions, and communicate with multiple parties. They can also formulate systematic defense strategies based on the boundaries of responsibilities, subjective knowledge, and the collection of evidence, thus avoiding the omission of key elements due to piecemeal responses.

Q4: Does not approving the arrest mean that the case is over?

This does not mean the same thing. Not approving the arrest and granting bail pending trial constitutes a change in the coercive measures, and the case may still continue to be investigated and transferred for review and prosecution. However, its value lies in restoring the personal freedom of the parties involved and gaining time and space for subsequent defense. After that, it is still necessary to continue to put forward opinions in the review and prosecution and trial stages, striving for non-prosecution or lenient treatment.

Q5: How should clients cooperate during the defense of major cases?

Provide the lawyer with accurate facts and relevant materials such as labor contracts, salary records, and business records. Do not contact witnesses, colleagues, or victims without authorization, and refrain from publicly discussing the case. For matters involving compensation and settlements, you should proceed in accordance with standard procedures under the lawyer's guidance and retain relevant evidence. Your level of cooperation directly affects the efficiency of fact-gathering and document organization.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. The judicial interpretations in other provinces and cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situation.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Criminal defense legal services·Attorney Lu Xiaoxue·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.