[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, when a company is under investigation, the decision made in the first hour often determines the entire course of the case: immediately establishing a response team (with a decision-maker leading it and external criminal lawyers involved), and implementing the "three noes" for sensitive operations—no destruction or deletion of any files or data, no unified statements or collusion in providing false evidence, and no unauthorized public statements; balancing cooperation with the investigation and legal defense—providing the required materials in accordance with procedures, and refuting false accusations with evidence one by one; managing the personal risks of executives separately from the corporate risks, with each involved person appointing their own defense attorney. The key to winning or losing in corporate criminal cases often lies in two aspects: distinguishing between corporate crimes and individual responsibilities, and seeking leniency through compliance rectification and mitigating circumstances.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

After the tax inspection, the public security organ intervened to investigate the false invoices, and the pyramid selling clues transferred by the market supervision authority were upgraded to criminal cases. Competitors reported cases of commercial bribery - the office was searched, the servers were seized, and the financial director was taken away for questioning, causing the company to shut down instantly. Criminal investigations against private companies are a life-and-death test: account freezes lead to cash flow disruptions, executives being detained cause operational disruptions, and customers flee upon hearing the news.

II. Key points of contention

First, the list of response actions and taboos in the early stage of the investigation. Second, the division of corporate and individual responsibilities in corporate crimes. Third, the responsibility boundaries of ordinary employees involved in the case. Fourth, the application of compliance rectification and the lenient compliance mechanism for enterprises involved in the case.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

The first level involves initial response actions and red lines: Actions: - Immediately hire a criminal lawyer to review the investigation authority's evidence collection list and the charges involved in the case; - Designate a dedicated person to liaise with the investigating authority, cooperate with search and evidence collection procedures, and simultaneously maintain witness records; - Evaluate the list of individuals involved in the case and advise them of their personal rights. Red lines: - Never delete server data, chat records, or financial materials. Destroying evidence will push a defensible case into a deeper crisis and may lead to additional charges; - Never organize employees to give consistent statements or collude with suspects. Once such collusion is established, all opportunities for leniency will be closed off; - Never issue statements on behalf of the company claiming "we never violated the law". Every word spoken will become evidence in future court hearings. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.\nQiu JuanThe attorney (practice license number: 11101201811026953, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative authority) acts as the agent. Secondly, the distinction between the responsibilities of entities and individuals: For corporate crimes, the act must be committed for the entity's interests and implemented by the entity's decision-making process. If the legal representative makes decisions personally and the benefits accrue to the individual, the case may be handled as an individual crime; conversely, if employees implement the entity's decisions, they are considered direct responsible persons in corporate crimes, with their responsibilities being lighter than those of organizational planners. The core of the defense lies in demonstrating the decision-making chain, the ownership of benefits, and the degree of participation. In the case of fraudulent issuance of VAT invoices handled by our firm, it was proven that the decisions were made by the legal representative and the illegal proceeds belonged to the company. The ordinary employees only transmitted the invoicing requests and had no decision-making authority. Ultimately, the procuratorial organ decided not to prosecute them—the clarity of the distinction directly determines whether an individual will be "not prosecuted" or "sentenced to prison". Thirdly, ordinary employees' self-protection: Investigated employees should clarify that they are only responsible for the actual participated processes—do not speculate, assume responsibility for others, or bear facts that do not belong to them on behalf of the company; truthfully describe the business they handled, and preserve evidence such as labor contracts, job responsibilities, and approval records to prove their "duty performance". If the salary and compensation are normal labor income, they should vigorously argue for the distinction from illegal proceeds. If conditions permit, early engagement of personal defense lawyers is recommended, which differs from the role of the company's lawyers. Personal lawyers only serve you personally. Fourthly, compliance rectification and procedural utilization: The leniency system for guilty pleas and fines and the enterprise compliance reform provide opportunities for enterprises involved in crimes to eliminate risks—if the enterprise voluntarily rectifies (addresses internal control loopholes, refunds illegal proceeds, and compensates for losses), establishes an effective compliance system and passes third-party supervision and evaluation, the procuratorial organ may decide not to prosecute or propose lenient sentencing recommendations according to law. For minor-offense enterprises, striving for compliance-based non-prosecution, and for serious-offense enterprises, striving for lenient sentencing are both paths to turn crises into opportunities for institutional reconstruction. At the same time, for enterprises, building legal compliance systems after the resolution of criminal cases (financial compliance, invoice management, and anti-commercial bribery systems) is the fundamental way to prevent recurring violations.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to establish a response team and hire external criminal lawyers to formulate a unified strategy. The second step is to preserve all data and documents and prevent any destruction or collusion. The third step is to separate the responsibilities of the unit and individuals, with the involved employees each appointing their own defense attorneys. The fourth step is to evaluate the path of compliance rectification and communicate with the procuratorial organs about the leniency mechanism. The main legal basis includes Article 30 and Article 31 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China regarding corporate crimes, Articles 15 and 177 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and related normative documents on corporate compliance reform. The specific application shall be subject to the currently effective provisions.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

There are three key points in corporate criminal investigations: Setting the tone in the first hour — preserving data, not giving conflicting statements, and consulting a lawyer; distinguishing between corporate and individual responsibilities, as employees' job duties and decision-making authority are two entirely different matters; and obtaining leniency through compliance reforms, with crises serving as an opportunity for institutional improvement. For addressing corporate criminal risks, you can refer to the following resources:Criminal defense and criminal case filingWe provide a comprehensive solution for services, which involves the integration of corporate governance and compliance systems.Intellectual property protection and corporate lawFor disputes involving taxation and invoices, you can refer to the relevant sections.Business and contract disputes in enterprisesThe column provides consultation on major and difficult casesSpecial servicesTeam.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can the company still operate normally during the investigation period?

The assets that have not been sealed or frozen can still be operated normally; it is recommended to simultaneously evaluate the capital chain and coordinate the communication with clients to avoid the expansion of operational losses.

Q2: Will the legal representative definitely be held accountable?

Not necessarily. Whether the legal representative of a unit bears responsibility in a crime depends on whether he or she made the decision, organized or directly carried out the crime; and he or she should disassociate himself or herself from the case in a timely manner and provide an explanation.

Q3: If an employee is detained after cooperating with the investigation, what should the company do?

Help family members hire defense lawyers and keep evidence of their performance; handle labor relations in accordance with the law, and shall not unlawfully terminate the employment contract merely because the employee is under investigation.

Q4: Can the seized servers and account books be recovered?

Property unrelated to the case shall be returned. The lawyer may apply to the case-handling organ for review. After the case is concluded, the property shall be dealt with in accordance with the law and returned. The lawyer may follow up to assert his/her rights.

Q5: What kind of cases are eligible for non-prosecution based on corporate compliance?

It is mainly applicable to cases of minor offenses involving enterprises; enterprises need to sincerely admit their guilt and accept the punishment, actively rectify their mistakes, and pass the supervision and evaluation. The procuratorial organ will review and decide on the case accordingly.

This article is written based on the common judicial interpretations in the Beijing area. If the case occurs in other regions, it is recommended to consult local lawyers to verify the regional differences.

If you are currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the relevant evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Criminal defense legal services·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. In case of disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.