Six people in Shenzhen were arrested for suspected massive fraud, but all were released after a lawyer from Zhiming Law Firm argued forcefully based on the law.
On October 19, 2019, the family of the party Deng found lawyer Li Zhiyong from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm through a friend's introduction. The family stated that Deng was criminally detained by Wuxi police on suspicion of fraud, with a total of six people detained in Shenzhen. Wuxi police identified Deng as the ringleader, and the amount of fraud was huge. The family was extremely anxious and at a loss. Lawyer Li Zhiyong comforted the family not to worry excessively. Based on the family's introduction, Lawyer Li believed there was room for defense in the case. After accepting the commission, Lawyer Li immediately went to Wuxi to meet with Deng.
According to Deng, they were cooperating with personnel from a commodity trading center in Guizhou to introduce clients to the trading center. Clients suffered huge losses at the commodity trading center due to certain actions by the trading center's personnel. The involved personnel of the trading center had already fled. Wuxi police believed that Deng and his salesmen, together with the trading center personnel, committed fraud. However, after detailed inquiry into the case details, the defender believed that the actions of Deng and his salesmen could not be considered fraud. Upon verification, the involved Guizhou commodity trading center was a legitimate trading center approved by relevant authorities, legally qualified for bulk commodity trading. The reporting clients allegedly suffered losses from trading a type of alcohol product launched by the bulk commodity trading center. As far as the defender knew, bulk commodity trading typically uses a leveraged trading model, which carries high risks. If clients operated improperly, it was normal to lose all principal quickly. Deng and his team provided client referral services, a common civil act that was not inherently illegal. The reporting clients' loss of funds in trading might have been due to their own investment decision errors. Even if the involved trading center personnel had induced clients to trade and caused losses, the responsibility should lie with the relevant personnel of the trading center, not Deng and his salesmen. Deng and his salesmen were neither employees of the bulk commodity trading center nor had the intent to defraud clients of funds. They did not engage in fraudulent acts against clients and had no illegal gains; they only provided intermediary services.
Therefore, there are three major issues in this case: First, it cannot be concluded that the client's huge losses were caused by fraud. Second, even if relevant personnel at the trading center engaged in illegal or irregular conduct, they should be held accountable accordingly. Third, Deng and his agents' provision of intermediary services does not constitute fraud. They are not members of a fraudulent group, and whether such a group exists remains a fact to be proven. Holding Deng and his agents criminally liable for fraud does not comply with our criminal laws.
The lawyer promptly submitted preliminary defense opinions that Deng did not constitute fraud. Fortunately, the Wuxi police quickly accepted the lawyer's opinion. After more than 20 days of criminal detention, the Wuxi police decided to release Deng and the other five suspects arrested in Shenzhen on bail pending trial. The clients and their families were very grateful for the professional and effective defense provided by the lawyer and also expressed appreciation for the lawyer's dedication.
