Zhiheng case | Special defense at the arrest-review stage: clarifying lending versus guarantee boundaries, and the client was granted bail- Zhiheng Law Firm

ZHIHENG

Introduction

In criminal cases, 37 days marks the critical juncture between liberty and detention.

According to Article 91 of the Criminal Procedure Law, after a criminal detention, the public security organ has up to 30 days to submit a request for arrest approval, and the people’s procuratorate has 7 days to review and make a decision; the maximum total period of detention is 37 days. The 37-day “golden rescue period” from the time of criminal detention in a criminal case until the procuratorate reviews and approves the arrest is a critically important window for criminal defense.

Whether the factual boundaries can be clearly delineated, whether the absence of necessity for arrest can be precisely substantiated, and whether the investigating authorities can be effectively persuaded directly determines whether theThe party concerned can be released from custody and regain personal freedom.

Recently, Zhiheng Tianjin Law FirmAttorney Liang JinxingWe successfully concluded a representative criminal case involving property disputes with both criminal and civil elements. Through meticulous defense throughout the entire investigation phase, we submitted a comprehensive legal argument at the critical stage of review for arrest. Ultimately, the procuratorial organ fully adopted our defense arguments and, in accordance with the law, issued a decision not to approve the arrest. As a result, the client was granted release on bail pending trial and has returned to a normal life.

Drawing on a comprehensive review of the entire case-handling process, this article shares defense strategies applicable during the investigation phase of criminal–civil intersection cases, objectively demonstrating the professional value of effective advocacy at this stage. It is intended as a reference for legal professionals and also serves as a practical guide for individuals and their families caught up in criminal disputes.

Case details

Background of the case

Due to a long-standing private dispute over debts, the individual resorted to self-help by disposing of the secured property and was subsequently investigated and criminally detained by the investigative authorities on charges of property-related crimes. The family urgently retained Attorney Liang Jinxing as the sole defense counsel to intervene in the case during the investigation phase.

The central dispute in this case centers on the boundary between civil self-help and criminal property offenses, a distinction that isExtremely easy confused and highly contentious in judicial practice.Criminal-civil intersection cases：

The two parties have maintained a long-standing, undisputed private loan relationship, and the property in question serves as collateral for the debt.

2. The parties’ handling of the property was conducted in full transparency, with complete and objective records maintained throughout; there was no concealed misappropriation.

3. The parties acted solely with the intent to urge the debtor to repay the debt and redeem the property, without any criminal intent to permanently possess the property;

4. The property involved in the case has been fully returned, no property loss has occurred, and the actual parties to the creditor-debtor relationship have not sought criminal prosecution.

5. The individual has no prior criminal record or adverse history, has cooperated well with the investigation, and does not pose any legally prescribed public safety risk.

After the case was transferred to the procuratorate for review and approval of arrest, the family members were extremely anxious, fearing that the suspect would be approved for arrest and that prolonged detention would have irreversible consequences for the individual’s life and the family. Attorney Liang Jinxing is firmly focused on the review and approval of arrests.7-day critical window, Systematically carry out defense work.

Comprehensive and meticulous defense throughout the entire process

Three-Step Approach to Achieving the Goal of Defense Against Arrest Approval

Meet with the parties at the earliest opportunity, establish the core facts of the case, and clearly delineate the boundaries between criminal and civil matters.

On the very day he accepted the commission, Attorney Liang Jinxing immediately went to the detention center to meet with his client and commenced an in-depth consultation.

Thoroughly verify the details of the entire process, from the origination of the debt and the establishment of the guarantee to the disposal of assets, and reconstruct a complete timeline along with an objective behavioral logic.

2. Distinguish between the underlying civil contractual act and the disposal act in question, and systematically organize all objective facts that can substantiate the claim of “civil rights protection without criminal intent.”

3. Explain to the parties involved the elements of the crime of theft, the statutory conditions for arrest, and the judicial policy of exercising restraint in arrests, prosecutions, and detention, and guide them to provide objective and consistent accounts of the facts, so as to avoid evidentiary defects in their statements that could exacerbate adverse consequences.

4. Simultaneously compile a list of supporting documents that family members may submit to supplement the case, and gather a complete set of evidence, including records of debt-related communications, proof of asset restitution, and certificates confirming no criminal or unlawful record.

Following the meeting, the attorney promptly communicated with the family regarding the legal risks of the case and the core strategy for the defense, while simultaneously guiding them in collecting and organizing a comprehensive set of supporting evidence to establish a complete evidentiary framework.

Submit a professional document to the investigative authorities and, in advance, file an application to modify the compulsory measures.

Following the meeting and the review of the case materials, Attorney Liang Jinxing spent the night drafting and binding the “Application for Release on Bail Pending Further Investigation,” submitting it in writing to the investigating authority to request a change in the coercive measures. The core defense arguments are structured around three key lines of reasoning: the characterization of the facts, the assessment of social dangerousness, and adherence to relevant judicial policies. All supporting documentation for the case file was submitted together to the investigative authorities, and at the same time, we engaged in face-to-face discussions with the handling police officers regarding the disputed characterization of the case, fully exchanging our defense arguments and proactively laying the groundwork for the core defense positions.

During the critical window for reviewing arrest applications, a targeted approach was employed, and a specialized legal opinion persuaded the procuratorial organ.

After the case is transferred to the procuratorate for review and approval of arrest, the most critical seven-day window for criminal defense begins. Attorney Liang Jinxing, focusing on the core objective of securing a decision not to approve arrest, completed a comprehensive, specialized defense strategy.

1. Prepare a systematic “Legal Opinion during the Investigation Phase,” focusing on six key dimensions: elements of the crime, subjective intent, objective conduct, harmful consequences, social dangerousness, and the distinction between criminal and civil matters. By integrating the Criminal Law, the Criminal Procedure Law, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate’s policy of “fewer arrests, cautious prosecution, and prudent detention,” as well as case‑law precedents, develop a comprehensive and rigorous legal argument.

2. Actively schedule an appointment with the prosecuting attorney, engage in face-to-face discussions regarding the case facts, expound on each of the core civil-criminal intersection issues in this case, and address one by one the points of contention concerning the legal characterization of the case.

3. Submit, concurrently, the complete set of supporting documents and the application for release on bail pending trial, comprehensively demonstrating that the defendant poses no danger to society, has a reliable guarantor, and is able to ensure the smooth conduct of the proceedings.

The defense arguments thoroughly clarify the nature of the civil debt dispute in this case and clearly demonstrate that the defendant does not meet the statutory conditions for arrest under Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Law, forming a closed-loop argument from multiple dimensions—facts, evidence, law, and judicial policy.

The photo shows Attorney Liang Jinxing at the procuratorate, personally meeting with the handling prosecutor to discuss the facts of the case and issues of legal application, and exchanging defense opinions on the spot.

Case outcome

The procuratorate adopted all defense arguments and decided not to approve the arrest.

After a comprehensive review of the case files and thorough consideration of the defense arguments presented by Attorney Liang Jinxing, the procuratorial organ concluded that this case arises from a private debt dispute and constitutes a civil act of rights protection. The defendant lacked the subjective intent to unlawfully appropriate property and did not engage in any objectively criminal conduct, nor does the case pose the level of social danger required for arrest.

Ultimately, the procuratorial organ made a decision in accordance with the law.Arrest not approved.Decision. In accordance with Article 91, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Procedure Law, the investigating authority placed the suspect under release on bail pending further investigation on the same day, and the suspect was subsequently released from the detention center, regaining full personal freedom.

The decision not to approve the arrest in this case not only spared the individual from prolonged detention but also laid a crucial foundation for the defense of the entire case, significantly reducing the risks of subsequent prosecution and conviction. It proactively prevents the risk of wrongful convictions arising from the misuse of criminal proceedings to resolve civil disputes, thereby fully upholding the core values of criminal defense: safeguarding human rights and clarifying legal boundaries.

Case review and debriefing

Key Defense Points in Criminal–Civil Intersections Involving Property Cases: The Critical 37-Day Window

Drawing on his experience in handling this case, Attorney Liang Jinxing has summarized the key lines of defense during the investigation stage for criminal cases involving property disputes arising from similar private debts, for public reference:

Seize the optimal defense window.

The 37-day period following criminal detention is the sole critical window for preventing an arrest order; once an arrest is approved, the difficulty of securing release on bail or mounting a not-Innocent Defense will increase exponentially. Family members must promptly retain a specialized criminal defense attorney to intervene.

Distinguishing between criminal and civil matters is the key breakthrough.

With respect to property-related cases involving lending, guarantees, and private self-help, the core of the defense lies in demonstrating that the conduct has a legitimate civil basis and does not satisfy the subjective or objective elements of a criminal offense, while closely adhering to the principle of penal restraint.

Complete argument: no social danger.

First-time offense, no prior criminal record, cooperation with the investigation, return of stolen property, fixed residence, and family guarantees are all key factors considered by the procuratorate in deciding not to approve an arrest, and must be supported by a complete set of supporting documentation.

Document preparation and face-to-face communication, a dual-pronged approach.

Submitting written materials alone is insufficient to fully convey the defense’s arguments; proactively engaging in face-to-face communication with the investigating police officers and prosecutors, and clarifying the factual and legal disputes point by point, is crucial for securing a decision not to approve arrest.

Strictly maintain the evidence chain.

Promptly gather objective evidence, including debt-related documents, communication records, receipts for the return of property, and criminal record certificates, to substantiate the defense’s arguments with factual evidence and avoid relying solely on verbal reasoning.

ZHIHENG

Practice Reminder:

Defending in cases involving both criminal and civil issues requires a precise understanding of both the civil legal relationships and the elements of the criminal offense. In this case, successfully securing a decision not to arrest within the review-and-arrest window is a comprehensive demonstration of Attorney Liang Jinxing’s thorough investigation of the facts and his precise application of the law. Looking ahead, Attorney Liang Jinxing’s team will continue to deepen its expertise in the intersection of criminal and civil law, employing more professional strategies and meticulous evidence management to safeguard each client’s personal liberty and fortify their rights.

(Note: The copyright of this article belongs to the attorney. Please contact us immediately for removal if there is any unauthorized use or infringement. This article does not represent the views of our organization.)

Attorney Liang Jinxing

Email: 13091130408@163.com

Business areas：Dispute resolution in civil and commercial litigation, corporate law, and resolution of disputes involving both civil and criminal matters, among others.

Attorney Liang Jinxing has been deeply engaged in legal practice for over a decade, having handled more than a thousand civil, commercial, corporate, and mixed civil-criminal cases. He has successfully resolved numerous complex cases that have had a broad impact within the industry, possessing profound and solid experience in case handling. Currently serves as a long-term legal counsel to numerous well-known enterprises and institutions, providing comprehensive, high-quality legal support for their business operations and development.

Typical caseExample：

• Represented a village committee in a dispute over a reciprocal contract with a real estate development company, successfully securing the reversal of the first-instance judgment on appeal and facilitating a settlement, thereby recovering losses for the client.Over 40 million yuanEconomic loss.

• Previously represented a construction company in Hebei Province in a civil lending dispute with a construction group in Jiangsu Province, skillfully applying the “look at the person, not the seal” rule set forth in the “Minutes of the National Court Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference” to secure favorable outcomes for the client.Over 20 million yuanLegitimate rights and interests.

• Acting for a highway construction group company in Chengdu in a dispute over a construction contract with a heavy engineering technology joint-stock company, the attorney precisely articulated the core arguments during the second-instance trial, resulting in a judgment reversal in accordance with the law and securing favorable outcomes for the client.Recovered losses totaling several million yuan.。

• In the case involving Mr. Shen, vice president of a chamber of commerce in Baoding, who was suspected of the crime of embezzlement, we clarified the nature of the internal partnership dispute and, through precise defense, secured a decision by the procuratorial organ not to prosecute due to insufficient facts and evidence, achieving a successful outcome.Achieve an acquittal result。

• In the case involving Mr. Huang, the director of a certain commercial bureau, who was suspected of misappropriating public funds, we successfully secured for our client…Acquittal result。

······