Recently, a certain internet company (pseudonym "Feishu Company") discovered that its network service platform system had been "hacked" and recharged by the internet, and reported the case in Shanghai. Shanghai public security filed a case of fraud, and preliminary statistics showed that more than 200 people were involved in the case across the country, with a total amount of money exceeding 100 million. After a suspect involved in the case was detained by criminal law, his family entrusted lawyers Lin Tengyu and Wu Shengze from Beijing Gaopeng (Shenzhen) Law Firm as defenders. After defense, the suspect was decided not to be arrested by the prosecution.

Feishu Company provides customers with an internet platform system for advertising placement services (hereinafter referred to as "Feishu Platform"). Customers need to register an account on Feishu Platform with their business license and recharge the account, which can be used for advertising placement. Recently, Feishu Company discovered that the recharge amount is disproportionate to the advertising placement, resulting in a situation of "theft and brushing" that can continue to advertise even after malicious refunds from backend recharge, with a particularly large amount of money. The company where the suspect in this case is located has registered multiple accounts on the Feishu platform and used them for advertising. The investigation authorities believe that the company also has the above-mentioned "theft and brushing" situation, and have arrested multiple employees of the company. The suspect is the advertising team leader of the company, which is why they are involved in the case.

According to the general judicial practice of determining the crime of fraud, it can be concluded that the conviction for fraud is due to the perpetrator committing fraudulent behavior, the other party generating or maintaining incorrect understanding, the other party disposing of property based on the wrong understanding, the perpetrator obtaining property, and the victim suffering property losses. From the analysis of the above elements, the two lawyers believe that the suspect is suspected of fraud in this case, with unclear facts and insufficient evidence. There are two common types of crimes related to property infringement (hereinafter referred to as "property crimes"). One type is the crime of acquisition, which refers to the crime of illegally obtaining the property of others, such as theft, fraud, and extortion. In addition, financial fraud, contract fraud, and corruption crimes are also offenses; Another type is the crime of destruction and abandonment, which refers to the intentional destruction of property and the destruction of production and operation. (From Zhang Mingkai's Lecture on Criminal Law). The crime of fraud involved in this case belongs to the crime of acquisition, which requires the victim to dispose of their own property due to misconceptions after being defrauded by the perpetrator, and the perpetrator illegally obtains the property. This type of victim often manifests as a loss of property, and in this case, there are doubts about whether Feishu Company's property has been acquired by the suspect, and whether the network system is the target of fraud. At the current stage of this case, it cannot be confirmed whether the corresponding advertisements were actually placed after the account on the Feishu platform was recharged and refunded. Recharge and refund, if the advertisement has not been placed yet, why does Feishu Company suffer losses? The system also shows that the recharge amount is not a criminal act, which is a network system error, and the error is caused by the victim themselves and not by the suspect. The two lawyers believe that in this case, it is unclear whether Feishu Company has actually suffered any external property damage from the suspect.

After review by the procuratorial organs, the defense opinions of the two lawyers were fully adopted, and on July 14th, the suspect was made a decision not to arrest and released.