(Written in the front)

 

This is a new type of case suspected of stealing shared cars.

 

The new economic model, the new state of rights, and the emergence of new forms of crime. New, indeed new, the judicial authorities also feel new and have promoted it as a new type of case. Often, new types of cases have some controversy in their nature, and if there is controversy, there is room for defense.

 

A few years ago, when shared bicycles were popular, some people brought their bikes home during the Chinese New Year, which led to widespread media coverage of suspected theft. In this case, does driving a shared car away and enjoying it alone constitute theft?

Case Engagement

According to the family statement, the person was arrested a week ago. I don't know the specific situation, but I only know that the suspect is working at a shared car company. During his work, he used his position to help a friend open the door lock of a shared car. My friend drove the car from Foshan to Huizhou and was later arrested.

 

The case is not specific, and we have provided a defense strategy:

1. Subjective aspect: theft or embezzlement?

2. Objectively: What is the value of a vehicle? Have you reached a huge amount?

3. In terms of plot: principal accomplice, whether it constitutes voluntary surrender, whether compensation and understanding can be provided, etc.

1. The issue of qualitative analysis, whether crime or non crime; 2 and 3 are quantitative and the possibility of obtaining bail.

 

After listening to the preliminary analysis, the family members recognized our professional abilities and decided to entrust us. We will start our defense work immediately, and the first step is to meet and have a detailed understanding of the case.

Case Review

In early July 2020, A's former colleague and friend C stated that they wanted to drive a shared car to visit relatives in Huizhou for a few days. Due to the kindness of a friend, A assisted C in opening the shared car door lock of the company. C removed the commonly used GPS positioning device from the car and smoothly drove the shared car to Huizhou for fun.

 

After three or four days, the company employee discovered that the car's location could not be found and suspected it had been stolen, so they called the police. The police authorized the company's senior management to check the third-party positioning system and arrested C in Huizhou, who had just filled up with gas and was about to return the car to Guangzhou.

 

A saw missed calls and text messages, took the initiative to call back and follow the instructions to go to the police station to cooperate with the investigation, but did not come back as soon as he went. After appraisal, the vehicle involved in the case is worth 80000 yuan.

Effective defense

The defense during the investigation stage mainly grasps three opportunities: the first one is to apply to the public security organs a few days before the arrest to change the compulsory measures; The second time is to review the arrest period and submit legal opinions to the procuratorate; The third case is a case that has not been transferred for review and prosecution after one month of arrest, and can apply for a review of the necessity of detention.

 

In this case, the situation of the defender's application for changing the compulsory measures is not ideal. After receiving the application materials, the police handling the case think that the criminal facts of the case are clear, the evidence is sufficient, and the suspect is unlikely to be guaranteed. Sure enough, a few days later, the defense received the "no change notice", and the payment was made on the day the application materials were submitted.

 

Next, closely monitor the progress of the case and ask the case management of the procuratorate every day whether they have reviewed the arrest. Once transferred, submit legal opinions immediately. Seven days, absolutely not to be neglected, not to miss a day.

 

Review and arrest legal opinions

The writing of legal opinions on criminal cases should be based on the composition of the crime, and according to the legal provisions, which I habitually refer to as "deconstruction" - dismantling each element and knocking out one of them, then it does not constitute a crime.

 

Theft, with the purpose of illegal possession. In this case, our main focus is on acquittal, with the aim of 'no illegal possession':

 

Firstly, conceptual clarification: We believe that 'embezzlement' is not 'theft'.

Secondly, the consensus between A and C is "embezzlement". They drive it out for a few days and do not want to pay sharing fees, which is a civil infringement. (With proof of chat records)

Thirdly, 'theft' is not intended to be returned, and C had already filled up with gas and was ready to drive back to the Guangzhou return point when he was caught. (Proof of chat records, refueling records, routes, etc.)

Fourthly, C really drove his relatives to Huizhou for a few days.

Fifth, A knows that there is a third-party positioning system on the vehicle involved, but in fact, the police found the location of the vehicle involved through the third-party positioning system provided by the company. That is, A knows that the company cannot lose control of the vehicle involved, even if a GPS is removed, it can still be retrieved, and there is no possibility of theft.

Sixth, A and C subjectively do not have any intention to sell, destroy, or abandon the vehicles involved, and objectively, the vehicles involved have been under C's control and have not been lost. According to judicial interpretation, driving a motor vehicle without causing its loss does not constitute theft.

 

The purpose of illegal possession, an abstract concept, requires us to prove it with evidence item by item, rather than summarizing it in a single sentence. Defenders seeking to break the situation also require evidence and facts to prove 'I don't have'.

outcome

We contacted the case management of the prosecutor's office by phone and found that the prosecutor accepted the defender's opinion. Currently, the evidence cannot prove that A and C have the "purpose of illegal possession" and do not approve the arrest.

 

Although we know the result, without a written and stamped document, we will not promise our family members to say "they will definitely come out today", but rather let them wait for the recipient's notification. During the epidemic, the waiting time has been much longer. That night, the family members of the parties involved did not receive any notification until 2 o'clock in the morning.

 

It is still necessary to accompany family members to the detention center (police station) to pick up people during criminal defense, so that you can truly feel the significance of defense work.

 

After 12 months, A was released from bail pending trial and the investigation was terminated.