[Direct answer]When a company is suspected of committing a crime, the first correct action to take is to stop the suspected business activities, preserve accounting books and other materials, and hire a criminal lawyer to intervene. It is crucial not to destroy evidence, collude in fabricating alibis, or transfer assets. Key points for handling the case include: distinguishing between corporate crimes and individual crimes (Articles 30 and 31 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China), clarifying the boundaries between the company's responsibilities and those of senior executives and employees; while cooperating with the investigation, reviewing whether the coercive measures are legal and whether the seizure, attachment, and freezing of assets exceed the scope of authority; eligible enterprises involved in the case may seek non-prosecution in accordance with Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and conduct rectifications in line with the enterprise's compliance reform to strive for lenient treatment according to the law.

I. Problem background and typical scenarios

The typical scenarios of enterprises being involved in criminal cases are not far away: allowing sales staff to cross the line in order to meet performance targets, with sales models hovering on the edge of illegal operations and pyramid schemes; accepting fake invoices or concealing income to evade taxes; being suspected of illegally absorbing public deposits after large-scale fund lending; offering kickbacks and bribes in business transactions, which constitutes commercial bribery; and administrative violations in the fields of data, environmental protection, and safety production escalating into criminal risks. Many enterprises' first reaction is panic—executives being summoned for questioning, accounts being frozen, and employees being taken away. Management often doesn't know what they can and cannot do, often turning a controllable situation into an uncontrollable one because of mistakes made in the early stages.

II. Key points of dispute

  • Is it a corporate crime or an individual crime? Whether the act is carried out for the benefit of the company, implemented through the company's decision-making process, and the illegal income belongs to the company, directly determines whether the company should bear responsibility. Employees' unauthorized illegal acts may not constitute a corporate crime, but the company may still bear administrative or even criminal consequences due to negligence in management.
  • Determining the scope of responsible persons: In the case of corporate crimes, the directly responsible supervisors and other directly responsible persons are held accountable. However, there are significant differences in the responsibilities of nominal responsible persons and employees with varying degrees of knowledge and participation. It is necessary to clarify the actions and subjective states of each individual.
  • Is there a lenient path available? Under the compliance reform of the enterprises involved in the case, the enterprises that promise to rectify, establish an effective compliance system, and accept supervision and evaluation may be given lenient treatment by the procuratorial organs in accordance with the law; however, there are strict requirements for the applicable conditions, rectification standards, and acceptance procedures, and timing is particularly important.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

The observation of Henglue Lawyers in criminal cases involving enterprises is that there are three types of wrong actions most likely to occur in the early stages of criminal cases involving enterprises. First, blind resistance and refusal to communicate lead to the loss of opportunities for leniency such as confession and plea bargaining; Second, excessive self-blame, making unfavorable statements before clarifying the facts, and confusing personal actions with corporate actions; Third, unauthorized disposal, transferring funds, deleting data, and unifying statements, which may constitute new crimes or aggravating circumstances in themselves. The rational approach is to first stop the bleeding and then treat the disease: First, sort out the involved business, fund flows, and decision-making chains to distinguish the boundaries between criminal violations and administrative violations; Check whether the compulsory measures such as summons, detention, and seizure comply with legal procedures, and promptly apply for the lifting of excessive freezes unrelated to the case; Assess whether the enterprise meets the conditions for compliance rectification, and if feasible, form a complete closed loop around special compliance plans, system reconstruction, and third-party supervision and evaluation to strive for lenient treatment from the procuratorial organs. It should also be noted that administrative penalties, license revocation, and civil claims often overlap with criminal procedures, and the overall response plan should be designed in a coordinated manner. For the construction of daily compliance systems in enterprises, reference can be made to the relevant provisions. 恒略律师在涉企刑事案件中的观察是：企业涉刑初期最容易出现三类错误动作。一是盲目对抗，拒绝沟通导致丧失坦白、认罪认罚等从宽机会；二是过度自我归责，在未厘清事实前作出不利陈述，把个人行为与单位行为混为一谈；三是擅自处置，转移资金、删除数据、统一口径，这些行为本身可能构成新的犯罪或从重情节。理性的路径是先止血再治病：第一时间梳理涉案业务、资金流向与决策链条，区分刑事违法与行政违法的边界；核查传唤、拘留、查封等强制措施是否符合法定程序，对与案件无关的超范围冻结及时提出申请；评估是否符合涉案企业合规整改的条件，若可行，围绕专项合规计划、制度重建、第三方监督评估验收形成完整闭环，争取检察机关的从宽处理。还需要注意，刑事程序之外往往叠加行政处罚、许可吊销与民事索赔，整体应对方案应当统筹设计。企业日常合规体系建设的，可参考Intellectual property protection and corporate legal servicesIf the risk has involved criminal proceedings, you can find out more about itCriminal defense legal services.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

At the legal basis level: Article 30 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that where a company, enterprise, institution, organ, or organization commits acts that endanger society and are defined by law as corporate crimes, the entity shall bear criminal responsibility. Article 31 stipulates that where a corporate crime is committed, the entity shall be fined and its directly responsible supervisors and other directly responsible personnel shall be sentenced to criminal punishment. Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that where the suspect has no criminal facts or meets the circumstances specified in Article 16 of the Law, the People's Procuratorate shall make a decision not to prosecute; where the crime is minor and does not require punishment or exemption from punishment according to the Criminal Law, a decision not to prosecute may be made. The plea bargaining system also provides a procedural and substantive leniency space for enterprises and individuals involved in criminal cases. At the practical advice level: immediately suspend the suspected business model and evaluate whether to stop it altogether; designate a dedicated person to liaise with the investigating authorities to avoid conflicting statements due to multiple contacts; seal and back up the case-related materials to both facilitate retrieval and preserve self-evident materials; separately collect evidence on employees' personal actions and the entity's decisions; and, where conditions permit, promptly initiate internal investigations and compliance rectifications before the procuratorial authorities conduct their review and acceptance.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

When responding to criminal risks, it is more important to focus on time windows and procedural awareness than emotional defense. Enterprises need to understand two things: first, cooperating with investigations does not mean giving up rights. There is room for remedies and corrections for procedural violations, over-range seizures and freezes, and unfavorable statements; second, reforms must be genuine. A compliance system is not just about purchasing a few institutional documents, but about demonstrating to prosecutorial authorities the real changes in business models and internal control mechanisms. In daily operations, integrating criminal compliance into corporate governance — assessing the legality of business models, establishing employee behavioral norms, implementing financial and capital internal controls, and conducting due diligence on suppliers — is far less costly than remedying problems after a case occurs. For those needing to assess case-specific risks or establish a compliance system, they can seek assistance throughSpecial services and other case servicesOrBusiness and contract dispute services for enterprisesMake an appointment for an interview.

Q1: If the company is under investigation by the public security authorities and its executives are taken away for questioning, what should the company and their families do?

First, do three things: confirm the case-handling authority and the nature of the case, and understand whether the person is being taken away to assist in the investigation or has already been subject to compulsory measures. This determines the timing of being able to meet with the lawyer and appointing a lawyer. Appoint a lawyer as soon as possible to convey the company's situation and the family's concerns, and verify whether the interrogation procedures are legal. Designate a person outside the management team to handle daily operations to avoid the company shutting down. It's equally important to avoid doing certain things: don't inquire about destroying evidence, don't contact co-defendants to coordinate their statements, and don't transfer account assets. These actions may turn assisting in the investigation into obstruction of justice or transferring illicit funds, significantly worsening the overall situation.

Q2: What is the difference between corporate crime and individual crime? Could ordinary employees be implicated in such crimes?

Corporate crime refers to crimes committed in the name of a company, for the company's benefit, and implemented by the company's decision-makers. The punishment for the company includes a fine, and the directly responsible supervisors and other directly responsible personnel will be sentenced to criminal punishment. This differs from the situation where an individual uses the company's name to profit for himself. Whether ordinary employees are implicated depends on whether they are aware of the illegality, whether they participate in the implementation, whether they profit from it, and the decision-making level of their positions: employees who only perform their duties and are unaware of the illegality will generally not be held criminally responsible, but those who know the illegality and still actively participate may be identified as directly responsible personnel. During the company's internal investigation, it is necessary to review the behavioral trajectories of each employee and establish evidence of innocence for innocent employees.

Q3: What is the compliance rectification of the involved enterprises? Can they really avoid being prosecuted after the rectification?

The compliance reform of the enterprises involved in the case is a system implemented by the procuratorial organs: the enterprises involved in the case promise to carry out compliance rectification, establish or improve a special compliance system around the issues involved in the case, and if they pass the inspection and acceptance by the third-party supervision and evaluation mechanism, the procuratorial organs may make a decision not to prosecute according to law, or put forward suggestions for lenient sentencing and change of compulsory measures, etc. It should be emphasized that non-prosecution is not the result of a promise, and whether it can be applied depends on a comprehensive judgment of the charges, circumstances, the enterprises' willingness and feasibility of rectification, etc. The rectification must be genuine. False rectification and paper-based compliance will not only fail to obtain leniency, but may also be regarded as unfavorable circumstances. For enterprises that meet the conditions, this is a practical channel to transform criminal crises into governance upgrades.

Q4: The company's account has been frozen. What should I do with the funds needed for normal operations?

The case-handling authorities should freeze only the assets related to the case. For the excessive freezing of assets unrelated to the case, enterprises or relevant rights holders have the right to file appeals, complaints, or applications for lifting the freeze. In practice, it is first necessary to clarify the nature and fund composition of the frozen accounts, distinguishing between the funds involved in the case and normal operating funds. For basic operational needs such as paying salaries, paying taxes, and settling supplier payments, the case-handling authorities can be informed of the situation and applications can be made to lift the freeze on the corresponding accounts or change the freezing measures. Lawyers can assist in submitting written applications, providing evidence of operational losses, and proposing alternative guarantee schemes. Delaying processing will exacerbate operational losses, and procedures should be initiated as soon as possible when it is found that the freezing clearly exceeds the scope of the case.

Q5: If the company is suspected of committing a crime, is the legal representative necessarily responsible?

Not necessarily. Whether the legal representative is liable depends on whether he/she is a directly responsible supervisor, that is, a person who bears the responsibility for organizing, deciding, and commanding the unit's criminal activities, or a person who knowingly or negligently allows the crime to occur. Nominal legal representatives or nominal responsible persons who do not participate in decision-making and operation can prove that they were unaware of the situation, did not participate in it, and did not benefit from it to claim that they are not liable; conversely, actual controllers may be held accountable even if they do not serve as legal representatives. The determination of liability focuses on the decision-making chain, evidence of knowledge, and the situation of benefiting from the crime. Therefore, after the enterprise is involved in criminal cases, it is not appropriate to simply define the liability based on the idea of "who signs the document is liable" or "the legal representative takes responsibility for everything". Instead, lawyers should judge each item based on the case materials.

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. →Business and commercial legal services·Beijing Henglue Law Firm