**Observe a case, observe a reason, and understand a method.**The so-called "viewing the case" is not about watching the case, nor is it about discussing the matter - it is about looking at the wrestling of facts and evidence through the folds of the file; it is about exploring the scale and temperature of the judgment between the law and common sense. Every case is a test of the rule of law in reality: the confrontation between guilt and innocence, the balance of public rights and private rights, and the heavy breaths related to fate and justice behind the legal documents. **Use the case as a mirror, do not avoid difficult points,**and do not cover up complexities. dismantles the offense and defense of the court trial, sorts out the legal context, and makes the judgment more than a conclusion, but a public text that can be scrutinized and thought through. When the cases are read carefully, the texture of the rule of law becomes clear. *
In the first issue of "Viewing Cases", we follow the defense process of the "Illegal Business Crime, Guilty and Non-Prosecution Case" in which Beijing lawyer Wang Dianxue participated in the defense, and review the landmark case that was included in the "2026 Supreme People's Procuratorate Work Report".
A technology company based in Beijing was arrested by the Public Security Bureau of a small county in Jiangxi Province thousands of miles a way. The money involved in the case was as high as 20 billion yuan. The charges range from illegal business operations to cheating, but there is only one controversy throughout: Is this company "informed"? The more than 30 G core data proving this key fact were never submitted to the court until the end of three court sessions.
At the beginning of 2023, in an office building in Beijing, employees of a technology company were working as usual.
Suddenly, the office door was pushed open. The Public Security Bureau of Jishui County, Jiangxi Province took many people away.
Jishui. A small county in Jiangxi that many people have never heard of. It is more than a thousand kilometers away from Beijing.
They came to arrest people, seize the company, and take away the hard drive data.
The reason is: This company is suspected of operating illegally, and the money involved in the case is more than 20 billion yuan.
01How did the lottery business become a crime?
What this technology company does is not complicated to say.
Lottery players bet on lottery tickets on the app they developed, but the money is not given directly to the platform. They still need to go to the lottery store to make specific bets. They just make a registration, and the store owner will issue the tickets.
Note that the company does not issue lottery tickets, draw prizes, or play bankroll.
It only plays the role of an information link.
It sounds like the boundaries of compliance are fairly clear.
But the crack in the problem lies with offline store owners.
It is common sense that the lottery winning rate is inherently low. These stores took the initiative: when the quantity was large, they directly deducted the money without actually issuing the ticket. If the lottery player does not win, the money quietly falls into the pocket of the shop owner. What if you win the lottery? The probability is too low, if it happens you will have to make up the money yourself.
The jargon is called "eating tickets".
02"Knowledge" becomes the key to conviction, but the core evidence is "invisible"
The case was moved from the Public Security Bureau to the Procuratorate.
The crime changed.
At the beginning it was "illegal business crime". However, the prerequisite for illegal operation is "engaging in business activities without permission" - this company does not issue lottery tickets, but only facilitates lottery players to register with the shop owner. In fact, it is the shop owner who is issuing the tickets, so it is difficult to apply.
Later it was changed to "the crime of assisting information network criminal activities".
The key to the crime of trust lies in the fact that the technology company knew that the shop owner was cheating and still provided him with the convenience of placing bets online.
There is a big difference in the composition of these two crimes. The crime of illegal business operations is much more serious than the crime of helping the letter. The maximum penalty is 15 years, while the crime of helping the letter is 3 years.
So here comes the question – how can we prove this “knowledge”?
The core evidence submitted by the procuratorate is several pieces of verbal evidence.
A shop owner said, "I think the platform should be able to see the ticket sales," and an employee said, "I can see some situations from the platform."
That's all.
There is no time, no place, no specific amount, and no background operation log.
The most critical physical evidence, the more than 30 gigabytes of hard drive data that the police seized from the company, was not handed over to the court from beginning to end.
There are a lot of original records about "eating tickets", and every order and every node is traceable. Whether there is any problem with the data can be known at a glance.
Defense lawyer Wang Dianxue proposed in court:
"Whether the data can prove 'knowledge' can be seen at a glance. If it cannot be proved, the accusation will not be established."
The judge granted the request.
Until the end of three court sessions, Jishui County Public Security Bureau never submitted the hard drive data to the court.
03Ocean fishing: Where does the jurisdiction over a thousand kilometers come from?
In this case, there is a further question that has not been avoided.
The company is in Beijing, the shop owners are all over the country, and the lottery players are all over the world. Funds, servers, and transaction behavior have nothing to do with Jiangxi Jishui.
Why do the police from Jishui go across provinces to come to Beijing to arrest people?
This kind of operation has a vivid name-"Ocean Fishing".
It is said that in order to fine and confiscate the funds involved in the case, some places do not hesitate to travel long distances to arrest people and seal up property.
In this case, Jishui has no actual connection point with the case, but he was forced to create "jurisdiction".
The real purpose may be to deal with the huge fines and confiscations that may occur behind the more than 20 billion in turnover.
The defense lawyer continued to raise "jurisdictional objections" and reported issues such as jurisdiction of the case through 12309 and the relevant websites of the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security.
After a long game——
In October 2025, after withdrawing the prosecution, the Procuratorate made a "decision not to prosecute" against eight defendants including Wang Moumou, Chen Moumou, and Yang Moumou.
In 2026, this case was included in the work report of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, becoming an iconic example of rectifying profit-seeking law enforcement in other places.