Wonderful case of the parties suspected of infringing on citizens' personal information is not approved for arrest.
Author | Zhuosheng Criminal Law Team
1. Case Summary
A local state-owned enterprise in Zhuhai had several of its core executives poached by the local subsidiary of a listed company from another region, resulting in substantial losses. A state-owned enterprise has filed for arbitration on the grounds that several senior executives violated non-compete agreements and has engaged our client to gather evidence. Our client was criminally detained by the local public security authorities on suspicion of infringing upon citizens’ personal information, following evidence-gathering activities such as shadowing.
On July 1, the client’s family retained the Zhuosheng Criminal Law Team to provide legal assistance. After accepting the commission, Attorney Mai visited the local detention center on four occasions to conduct detailed consultations with the client and made two visits to the state-owned enterprise to gather information. At the same time, he drafted an 18-page legal opinion, collected seven supporting documents, and went to the local public security organ to present, in person to the case-handling officers, the reasons why the conduct did not constitute a crime. However, the public security organ still submitted a request for arrest.
When the case reached the procuratorate for review and approval of arrest, Attorney Mai again prepared a 16-page legal opinion, along with several supporting documents, which he submitted to the handling prosecutor, and personally presented to the prosecutor the reasons why the conduct did not constitute a crime. After fully exchanging views with the prosecutor, Attorney Mai returned to Dongguan from Zhuhai that evening and drafted a second six-page supplementary legal opinion late into the night, which he mailed to the prosecutor the following day.
Ultimately, after thorough deliberation, the procuratorate adopted our defense arguments and, on July 28, issued a decision not to approve the arrest of the client.
2. Case-handling process
(I) Tirelessly traveling back and forth to advance the case.
Upon accepting the commission, the Zhuosheng Criminal Law Team attached great importance to this case. In order to fully grasp the case details and thoroughly understand the client’s statements, Attorney Mai, who was handling the case, visited the Zhuhai Detention Center on multiple occasions to meet with the client and carefully listened to his account of key aspects of the case, including the evidence‑gathering process and the background of the commission.
At the same time, in order to promptly communicate his views with the investigating authorities, Attorney Mai traveled back and forth between Dongguan and Zhuhai on multiple occasions, engaging in in-depth discussions with the police officers and prosecutors handling the case regarding the facts of the case, the evidentiary situation, and legal opinions.
After the case entered the review and arrest stage, Attorney Mai prepared the first legal opinion in advance and rushed to Zhuhai early in the morning to submit it to the handling prosecutor, where he personally and thoroughly articulated our position. During the communication, the prosecutor raised several questions regarding the details of the case, and Attorney Mai meticulously documented these points on the spot. Upon returning to Dongguan, in order to promptly and specifically address these concerns, I immediately began drafting a second legal opinion. By meticulouslyTo sort out; to organize; to streamline. andArgumentation the facts of the case in conjunction with the relevant legal provisions, I worked continuously late into the night, ultimately completing the document and submitting it to the procuratorial organ in a timely manner.
Even though the process was arduous and exhausting, it also served as the best reassurance for the family’s anxious emotions, and it reflects the Zhuosheng Criminal Defense Team’s unwavering commitment to advancing its defense work with a professional approach.
（
Swipe left or right to view the image
）
Selected work chat logs and release certificate
(II) Implement targeted strategies to formulate core defense arguments.
The team, focusing on the core issues of the case, has developed several key defense arguments:
1. The conduct of the parties involved does not possess social harmfulness, criminal illegality, or merit punishment by criminal sanctions. The evidence-gathering activities were conducted pursuant to a lawful mandate from a state-owned enterprise, with the purpose of collecting evidence of employees’ breach of non-compete obligations for use in arbitration proceedings, thereby constituting legitimate rights protection. Furthermore, all such activities were carried out in public spaces, without intruding into private spheres or infringing upon others’ privacy; the evidence obtained meets the requirements of legality, and the conduct does not constitute a crime.
2. From the perspective of the elements of the crime, the parties involved do not meet the constitutive requirements of the crime of infringing upon citizens’ personal information. Because the actor lacked the subjective intent to infringe upon citizens’ personal privacy, and the purpose of evidence collection was lawful; objectively, the actor’s conduct did not violate the security of citizens’ personal information or the order of identity management, nor did it pose a threat to the personal safety or property of citizens.
3. The data collected by the parties does not constitute “personal information of citizens.” These photos, videos, and other data constitute fragmented information collected in real time; they cannot, either individually or in combination with other information, be used to identify a specific natural person and therefore do not meet the essential requirements of “personal information of citizens.”
4. Even if we were to take a step back, the aforementioned data would not constitute “location tracking” information. Genuine location-tracking information must possess real-time, continuous, dynamically precise, and spatially extensive characteristics; however, the data collected by the parties in question are merely discrete records of individuals within fixed locations, and thus do not meet the defining attributes of “location tracking.”
5. The party did not profit from the act; although their company received the entrusted fees paid by the state-owned enterprise, the party did not receive any remuneration.
3. Case-handling insights
The successful defense in this case stems from Attorney Mai’s meticulous grasp of the case details: through multiple meetings with the client and a comprehensive understanding of the facts, he precisely identified the key points of contention, thereby setting the right direction for the defense. It also relies on the accurate application of laws and precedents—closely adhering to relevant statutory provisions and judicial interpretations, and drawing on analogous cases to conduct an in-depth analysis of the nature of the conduct and the admissibility of the evidence, which rendered the defense arguments more persuasive. At the same time, maintaining active and effective communication with the investigating authorities, as well as with the client, not only ensured timely access to case information but also facilitated the full conveyance of the defense’s views, creating favorable conditions for the case to progress in a positive direction.
In the face of mounting pressure from the case, Attorney Mai fully understands the family’s urgent concerns. He has consistently remained committed to safeguarding his client’s lawful rights and interests, diligently advancing the work with a professional and responsible attitude—this is precisely the responsibility that every criminal defense attorney should uphold. This case demonstrates a precise understanding of the boundary between legitimate rights‑defending conduct and criminal offenses, providing valuable guidance for the handling of similar cases.
Zhuosheng Criminal
Team Introduction
Zhiheng · Introduction