I. Case Review: Mid-Stream Involvement and Facing Serious Charges In 2026, a major illegal business operation case (Case "3.16") involving a huge amount of money occurred in Xiaoshan District, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province. Suspect Chen某某 was criminally detained by public security authorities on suspicion of the crime of illegally conducting business operations. Chen某某 was not the initiator of this case. However, during initial interrogations and case characterization, because he assisted in key links such as fund transfers and lending money to the principal offender for purchasing nitrous oxide from suppliers, the police identified Chen某某 as one of the principal offenders. If recognized as a principal offender, Chen某某 would face sentencing based on the full涉案 amount, resulting in a severe prison term and a high likelihood of pre-trial detention. II. Defense Challenges and Breakthrough Points After accepting the commission, Attorney Wang Yihu quickly intervened. Through detailed meetings with Chen某某 and a thorough review of the case facts, Attorney Wang identified the key defense points as the "timing of involvement" and "actual status and role." Late Entry: Chen某某 was neither the initiator nor the organizer of the illegal business gang; he joined "mid-stream" after the criminal activities had already been underway for some time. High Dependence: Although Chen某某 participated in financial transactions, he acted under orders from superiors, obeying core members without independent decision-making power. III. Attorney Wang Yihu's Defense Strategy: Unraveling the Facts to Change the Characterization Attorney Wang submitted a detailed "Legal Opinion on Non-Approval of Arrest" to the Xiaoshan District People's Procuratorate. The core defense arguments were as follows: Breaking the "Principal Offender" Logic: Attorney Wang pointed out that Chen某某 joined mid-stream and did not participate in the conspiracy or organizational planning of the crime. He played a passive role within the gang, and his actions (such as assisting with transfers and driving to deliver nitrous oxide) were clearly auxiliary and labor-based. According to Article 27 of the Criminal Law, those who play a secondary or auxiliary role in a joint crime are accomplices (accessories). The attorney emphasized that merely participating in certain links does not justify upgrading someone to a principal offender; their actual influence within the entire criminal chain must be considered. Arguing "No Necessity for Detention": Combining Chen某某's status as a first-time and occasional offender with his low subjective malice (initially helping friends/family or collecting debts), Attorney Wang argued he posed no social danger. Since the facts of the case were largely clarified and evidence was secured, releasing him on bail pending trial would not pose a risk to society. Implementing the Policy of "Arresting Fewer, Prosecuting Cautiously, and Detaining Prudently": Attorney Wang stressed that for peripheral roles and accessories in economic crimes like this, non-custodial coercive measures should be prioritized to reflect judicial warmth and fairness. IV. Case Outcome: Defense Opinions Adopted, Successful Bail Granted After Attorney Wang Yihu's vigorous and reasoned advocacy, the Xiaoshan District People's Procuratorate ultimately adopted the core defense opinions: Shift in Characterization: The prosecution acknowledged that Chen某某 played a secondary and auxiliary role in the joint crime, successfully arguing his status down from "principal offender" to "accomplice." This means Chen某某 will receive statutory leniency and mitigation in future sentencing. Change in Coercive Measures: Given his status as an accessory and his attitude of confessing guilt, the prosecution determined there was no necessity for arrest and legally decided against approving the arrest. On 2026/4/30, the public security agency changed Chen某某's coercive measure to bail pending trial based on the procuratorate's decision. Chen某某 regained his freedom and returned to his family and normal life. [Attorney Commentary] In cases of joint crimes, whether one is classified as a "principal offender" or an "accomplice" often determines the defendant's fate. Although the client in this case joined mid-stream and was involved in core business activities, he was easily mischaracterized as a principal offender. Attorney Wang Yihu achieved a dual victory in both characterizing the role (principal vs. accessory) and arguing the necessity of detention by precisely targeting key facts such as "mid-stream entry" and "acting under orders." Attorney Wang Yihu: Phone 18857129945 Cyber Crime Defense Lawyer Areas of Expertise: New-Type Criminal Defense: Computer crimes, virtual currency-related crimes, cyber crimes, and new types of fraud. Offenses Related to Pornography and Gambling: Operating casinos offline or online, gambling crimes, organizing prostitution, aiding in organizing prostitution, and inducing/retaining/introducing prostitution (chat operators), etc. Professional Profile: Since 2024, [he has been with] the Chengdaqun Criminal Defense Team, focusing exclusively on criminal defense. Skilled in securing bail, obtaining non-prosecution decisions, and争取 probation. Familiar with the case handling processes of public security, procuratorates, and courts; communicates efficiently with law enforcement agencies; and can accurately identify case breakthrough points. Possesses clear logic, focuses on digging for defense points from details, and strives to maximize the protection of clients' legitimate rights and interests. Successful Cases (Bail & Non-Prosecution): 1. Wang某某: Suspicion of illegally obtaining data from computer information systems – Non-prosecution (Bin Jian Xing Bu Su (2025) No. 70) 2. Hong某某: Originally suspected theft amounting to 32000 RMB; defense reduced it to 7500 RMB leading to non-prosecution (Hang Xiao Jian Xing Bu Su (2025) No. 405) 3. Wang某某: Suspicion of aiding information network criminal activities – Procuratorate did not approve arrest (bail granted) after 37 days (Xiao Gong (Chengxiang) Qu Bao Zi (2026) No. 125) 4. Wang Mou: Suspicion of fraud – Procuratorate did not approve arrest (bail granted) after 37 days (Xiao Gong (Yiqiao) Qu Bao Zi (2026) No. 225) 5. Jiang Mou: Suspicion of occupational embezzlement – Procuratorate did not approve arrest (bail granted) after 37 days (Mi Gong (Jing) Qu Bao Zi (2026) No. 16) 6. Liu某某: Suspicion of aiding in organizing prostitution – Procuratorate did not approve arrest (bail granted) after 37 days (Tunxi (Zhi) Qu Bao Zi (2025) No. 119) 7. Chen某某: Suspicion of illegal business operations – Procuratorate did not approve arrest (bail granted) after 37 days (Xiao Gong (Zhi) Qu Bao Zi (2026) No. 675) 8. Liu某某: Suspicion of theft (multiple thefts) – Directly granted bail during the public security stage (Hang Gong Linping (Chong) Qu Bao Zi (2026) No. 339)