What to do if someone is detained in a case involving illegal fundraising under the Banking Law? First, analyze the reasons for escape, collusion, destruction of evidence, and the necessity of detention.

First, detention cannot be established simply because "the case looks serious".

Article 101 of the Criminal Procedure LawThe basic architecture is:

After questioning the defendant,

If you believe:

The suspect is highly suspected of committing a crime.

Moreover, there are legal grounds for detention.

and:

Without detention, it would be difficult to prosecute, try, or enforce the charges.

Only then was he detained.

Therefore, there are at least different levels of detention:

First:

Is there a strong suspicion of a crime?

second:

Is there any legal reason such as fleeing, colluding with others to obtain evidence, or destroying evidence?

third:

Is detention truly necessary?

It cannot be based solely on:

"Banking laws have very severe penalties."

Skip directly to:

"So you absolutely have to bet."

For the legal grounds and procedures for general detention, please refer to [link/reference needed].Criminal detention and release on bail.

II. What are the main reasons for detention under Article 101 of the Criminal Procedure Law?

Banking law cases typically fall into three categories.

First, there is a risk of escape.

For example, the prosecution might argue:

Those who had planned to leave the country; those who have overseas assets; those who reside overseas for an extended period; and those whose travel history before and after the search were unusual.

He attempted to evade the summons.

However, having a passport, doing cross-border business, or having a company with overseas connections should not automatically be equated with fleeing.

A concrete factual judgment is still needed.

Second, destroying, falsifying, or altering evidence.

Large-scale illegal fundraising cases may include:

Company server; investment agreement; LINE group; business reports; ERP; bank information;

Accounting books.

If the following occurs after the incident:

Delete data; modify files; wipe your phone; ask someone to delete a group;

Re-update old documents.

This could become a very unfavorable fact of detention.

Third, collusion with accomplices or witnesses.

Illegal fundraising cases may typically include:

Manager; Director; Senior Executive; Finance; Business Supervisor; Salesperson; Referrer;

Investors.

The prosecution may therefore argue that:

The company still maintains a hierarchical structure.

The defendant had the ability to influence the statements of others.

But the real question is:

Whom can I still influence now?

The facts of collusion cannot be replaced by simply stating "he is the chairman" or "he is the manager".

III. What is the relationship between Article 125 of the Banking Law, which stipulates severe penalties, and detention?

Article 125 of the current Banking Law stipulates:

violationArticle 29 of the Banking LawThe first one,

The basic statutory penalties are:

Imprisonment for a term of not less than three years but not more than ten years.

if:

The amount of money or property obtained through crime exceeds NT$100 million.

The statutory penalty has been increased to:

A sentence of 7 years or more in prison.

This difference is very important in detention procedures.

Because Article 101, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Criminal Procedure Law involves:

The crimes committed were punishable by death or life imprisonment.

or:

Crimes punishable by imprisonment of five years or more at the lightest level

The situation.

Therefore, if the prosecution argues that Article 125 of the Banking Act applies to cases involving 100 million yuan, which constitutes an aggravated offense...

The case could then fall under the serious crime category with a minimum sentence of 7 years or more.

However, please pay special attention to the following:

Serious crimes are not automatically grounds for detention.

The current Criminal Procedure Law still requires:

There are considerable reasons to believe that there is a risk of fleeing, destroying, falsifying, altering evidence, or colluding with accomplices or witnesses.

It cannot be simply said:

"The punishment is very severe, so they will definitely escape."

IV. If it is only the basic type of Article 125 of the Banking Law, will they also be detained?

Possibly.

The basic type is:

3 to 10 years

It is not a crime for which the lightest sentence is five years or more.

However, it may still be handled under Article 101, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 or Subparagraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

against:

Escape; collusion;

Destroy evidence

Request for detention based on specific facts.

so:

It's not only the case of a fine exceeding 100 million yuan that could lead to detention.

The real difference lies in:

The prosecution must establish the reasons for detention based on the specific facts of the case.

V. Why are "collusion of evidence" frequently cited in banking law cases?

Because large-scale money-grabbing cases usually involve multiple people.

For example, a company might have:

One person in charge; several supervisors; a dozen or so business personnel;

A large number of investors.

Moreover, different people have different information.

The prosecution may want to compare:

Who designs the plan; who determines the returns; who attracts investors; who collects commissions; and who controls the account?

Who knows the company's true financial situation?

If not all of these people have been interviewed yet

The prosecution may argue:

Once the defendant is released,

Possibly through:

Telephone; LINE; Company meetings;

Other supervisors

It affects the confession.

However, this still requires specific analysis.

6. Does the "company's person in charge" necessarily have the ability to collude on documents?

You can't simply draw an equal sign.

The position of the person in charge is certainly an important fact.

However, confirmation is still required:

Is the company still operating normally after the search?

Have I been suspended from my post?

Should the company account permissions be suspended?

Have the cell phones and computers been seized?

Have the key employees been interviewed?

Has the business owner left the company?

Does the defendant still have actual management authority?

If the prosecution simply says:

"He's the company's head, so he might have been involved in the fraudulent use of credentials."

The defense should further demand:

Specifically, indicate who might be colluding with you and which piece of evidence might be affected.

7. Now that all company employees have been questioned by the investigation bureau, will the risk of collusion be reduced?

possible.

if:

The main business inquiries have been completed; financial personnel have taken statements; investors have provided substantial testimony; mobile phones, servers, and computers have been seized.

Bank information can be obtained by financial institutions.

Therefore, some of the evidence has been secured.

At this point, we can further argue:

The potential for evidence manipulation or destruction was originally present.

The number has decreased as the investigation progresses.

but:

Is there absolutely no risk?

We still need to see what important evidence in the case has not yet been obtained.

8. Is bank cash flow one of the most difficult pieces of evidence to be destroyed?

Official bank transaction records are typically highly objective.

Moreover, prosecutors and investigators can directly obtain information from financial institutions.

For example:

Investor inflows; company receipts; payment of compensation; refunds; commissions;

Inter-account transfers

All of these could be reconstructed from bank records.

Therefore, if the main evidence in a case heavily relies on:

Formal bank cash flow,

Further analysis is possible:

Even if the defendant is not detained,

How else can these objective records that already exist in financial institutions be erased?

This does not mean that having bank information necessarily precludes detention.

Instead:

Whether the evidence has been secured is a crucial point of contention in the debate over the necessity of detention.

9. What impact will the confiscation of mobile phones and computers have on the defense of detention?

If the main electronic equipment has been seized

It can be confirmed that:

Which LINE accounts; email addresses; investment briefings; company documents; accounts;

Communication Records

It has been obtained by the prosecutors and investigators.

This may reduce the following:

Delete; Modify;

Annihilation

The possibility of data.

But if the company still has:

Other servers; cloud accounts; shared folders; unseized devices;

The system can be modified remotely.

The prosecution may still argue that there is a risk.

Therefore, a defense cannot simply say:

My phone has been taken.

Instead, it should be explained in more detail:

What information can I still access now, and what information has completely slipped out of my control?

10. Why is it so dangerous to delete LINE accounts or ask employees to leave groups after a search?

Because this type of behavior itself may become:

Destroying evidence

or:

Serial certificates

Important facts.

Especially if a large-scale money-grabbing case appears in the search results:

Numerous messages were deleted; groups were suddenly closed; investment data was modified; employees received a "uniform statement";

File backdating date,

Even though the actual crime itself remains controversial

The risk of detention may also increase significantly.

So after the company was searched

One of the most important first principles is:

Do not delete the data yourself.

The relevant procedures can be found in the document.Company executives summoned by the investigation bureau or company searchedThe key points of evidence preservation and processing.

11. After the search, what happens when the company holds a meeting to discuss "how everyone should answer"?

This is a very high-risk approach in cases involving multiple people.

Of course, a company can hold regular meetings to maintain operations.

But if the meeting content becomes:

What did the investigator ask you?

How would you answer?

Everyone should agree on who made this decision; how to explain this money; and that this matter should not be mentioned in this group again.

This could be interpreted by the prosecution as:

Coordinated statements.

In multiple major criminal cases:

The transcripts should not be uniformly taken by the company.

The criminal liability of each defendant must be handled individually.

12. What do you usually look at when assessing the "escape risk" in banking law cases?

The prosecution may raise the following:

Previously evaded summons; suddenly left the country before the search; booked a flight after the search; sold assets; resided overseas for a long period; had substantial assets overseas; held multiple citizenships or long-term visas.

They attempted to hide.

However, some facts cannot be equated with escape alone.

For example:

The company already has overseas business; it used to travel frequently for work; its children live abroad; and it has foreign currency accounts.

They all need to be understood within the context of normal life.

A truly compelling judgment about escape.

It should have:

Specificity is related to time.

13. Does having a fixed residence, family, or company guarantee immunity from detention?

no.

These are the favorable factors that can be asserted.

But it's not absolute.

For example:

Long-term residence; spouse and children; stable employment; company; real estate;

Responsibility to take care of family

Both may be supported:

There is no need to flee.

But if both of the following are true:

Actual escape preparations; deletion of evidence;

Contacting accomplices,

Simply emphasize:

"I have a family."

This is usually insufficient to address the real issue of detention.

Therefore, a good defense of custody cannot simply consist of:

Family and work.

You should also answer directly:

The specific risk that the prosecutor is arguing about.

14. In banking law cases, is a substantive not-guilty plea important in the detention hearing?

Very important.

The first prerequisite for detention remains:

The suspect is highly suspected of committing a crime.

Therefore, if the case itself has obvious disputes regarding the elements constituting the crime...

For example:

Whether the target of the fundraising is truly a large number of people or an unspecified group; whether there is truly an undue remuneration; whether the defendant is merely an introducer; and whether the defendant was aware of the complete fundraising scheme.

Do the companies have different real transaction structures?

These can all have a direct impact on:

The suspect is highly suspected of committing a crime.

The judgment.

It cannot be done by only:

"I will not run away."

And do nothing at all:

"Why exactly am I suspected of violating banking laws?"

Further details on the entity dispute can be found in the following documents.The elements of Articles 29, 29-1 and 125 of the Banking ActThe reasons for detention should be handled in a tiered manner.

15. Conversely, does the detention hearing have to debate the entire banking law case?

Not necessarily.

The timeframe for the declaration of intent is usually very tight.

The lawyer needs to determine:

Which points of contention are most useful right now?

Possible includes:

The defendant's role differs from the prosecution's assessment; key evidence has actually been seized; company employees have been questioned; account information is readily available; and the defendant shows no signs of fleeing.

Safeguards and restrictions can reduce risk.

The detention hearing is not a formal trial.

It's also not necessarily possible to process all thousands of pages of cash flow at once.

Strategically, the following is required:

Focus on the most important points of contention.

16. Why is the risk of having to submit a pledge higher in banking law cases involving amounts exceeding 100 million yuan?

Article 125 of the Banking Law stipulates that the minimum penalty for aggravated offenses involving 100 million yuan is:

More than 7 years.

This makes the case carry a higher procedural risk within the felony detention framework of Section 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The prosecution may argue:

The higher the severity of the punishment,

The higher the incentive to flee.

However, the law still requires:

There are considerable reasons to believe that there is a risk of absconding, collusion, or destruction of evidence.

Therefore, a defense must avoid two extremes:

First:

Pretending that the severity of the punishment is completely unimportant.

second:

Accepting that "a very high sentence equals certain detention" is a valid reason for detention.

What really needs to be done is:

Separate the factors of criminal punishment from the actual risks of the behavior.

17. The charge of "obtaining property or benefits of 100 million yuan through crime" is controversial. Can the detention court raise this issue?

Can.

If the prosecution directly uses:

Total amount raised; Total amount remitted by all investors;

Total inflow into company accounts

The amount has been determined to be 100 million yuan.

However, the calculation of "property or property benefits obtained through crime" is still controversial under the law.

This may have the following effects:

It is suspected to be the basic model or the enhanced model.

Therefore, in appropriate cases,

You can propose it first:

Amounts cannot be directly equated.

However, is the application for detention procedure suitable for a detailed calculation of all proceeds of crime?

The decision will depend on the case details and procedural timeline.

18. If I am just a salesperson, is the risk of detention relatively low?

uncertain,

But the differences in roles are very important.

For example, a typical salesperson:

Not involved in scheme design; not controlling company accounts; not determining revenue; not managing other business operations;

Only attract a small number of customers.

and:

The actual person in charge of the company

Their control ability may be much worse.

Therefore, if the prosecution uses the entire company level:

Evidence tampering; evidence destruction;

Controlling employees

The risk is shifted onto the average salesperson.

It should be broken down into specific parts.Personal criminal liability of bank loan officers and intermediariesIt must also be confirmed separately whether the individual still has the ability to control data, personnel, or funds.

19. Is it normal for some people to be detained and others to be released on bail in the same case?

normal.

The determination of detention is:

Individualization.

The same case may occur:

The person in charge was detained; the finance manager was released on bail; the salesperson was released.

Other defendants are restricted from residing in certain areas.

The reason may be:

Different roles; different evidence; different abilities to collude; different risks of escape.

The statements made differed from the progress of the investigation.

Therefore, it cannot be solely because:

"The others have been detained."

They assumed they would definitely be detained as well.

in turn,

It is also not because:

"Someone else paid bail."

They concluded that they would definitely be able to get bail.

20. What is a guarantee?

If the court believes:

There is no need to continue detaining him.

Detention may be replaced by bail or other means.

The so-called guarantee,

Typically, the following requirements are made:

Guarantee;

And specify a certain guarantee amount.

The specific amount will depend on:

Case; financial resources; risk of escape;

Criminal circumstances

Judging from factors such as these.

Bail is not:

"Pay to buy freedom."

Rather, it is a measure to ensure that the defendant appears in court and complies with the proceedings.

21. Besides bail, what other alternatives are there to detention?

Depending on the circumstances of the case,

It may also involve:

Restricted residence; liability; restrictions on leaving the country or going to sea;

And other measures that can reduce procedural risks in accordance with the law.

In major corporate cases,

Defense can also be initiated on a case-by-case basis:

No contact with specific co-defendants; no contact with specific employees; suspension of company system access;

Appointed to a position temporarily

Objective facts,

illustrate:

Non-detention can still prevent the collusion or destruction of evidence.

What measures can actually be taken?

The court will still decide based on the law and on a case-by-case basis.

22. Can I apply for bail again after being detained?

Can.

Article 110 of the Criminal Procedure LawRegulation,

The defendant, or their assistant or defense attorney,

You can apply to the court for bail to stop your detention.

Therefore, the first detention ruling does not mean:

There was absolutely no chance to change it after that.

As the investigation progressed:

Key witnesses have been questioned; electronic documents have been identified; bank transaction records have been obtained; statements of co-defendants have been secured.

The lawsuit is complete.

The original reasons for detention may change.

Therefore, continuous evaluation is required:

Does the reason for detention still exist?

23. When is it appropriate to apply for a stay of custody?

There is no fixed answer.

The important thing is:

Compared to the previous detention ruling,

Are there any new developments?

For example:

Previously uninterrogated witnesses have given statements; all key equipment has been identified; the company is now managed by someone else; the defendant no longer has system access; the main cash flow is provided by banks; the case has been filed.

The testimonies of the accomplices have been confirmed.

If it's just a matter of repeatedly raising the issue:

"The defendant has a family and a job."

However, the reasons for the original detention ruling were not addressed.

The effects are usually limited.

24. After a banking law case is prosecuted, will the detention continue?

possible.

After the lawsuit is filed, the case proceeds to trial in court.

The court will still make its judgment according to the law:

Does the detention have any justification or necessity?

However, the conclusion of the investigation itself may alter some of the risks.

For example:

The prosecution has completed its main evidence collection; the indictment has defined the scope of the charges.

The interrogation of key witnesses has been completed.

therefore:

Indictment does not mean automatic release.

However, this is also an important time to reassess the necessity of detention.

25. In banking law cases where someone is detained, can the lawyer only handle "bail"?

no.

During the period of detention, the following are also true:

Substantive defense preparation period.

The lawyer still needs to organize the information:

Fundraising model; contract; investor sources; business structure; company operations; bank cash flow; proceeds of crime; personal role;

And other supporting evidence.

If you only repeatedly write bail statements

But no action has been taken at all:

Elements of a Bank Law

Even if the detention is later lifted,

The case itself has still not been truly defended.

26. What documents should family members assist with in organizing during detention?

You can organize it first:

Category 1: Program Materials

Search warrant; list of seized items; summons; detention order;

Court notice.

Category Two: Company Information

Company organization; personal position; authority;

Division of labor.

Category 3: Investment Plans

Contract; briefing; remuneration;

Risk disclosure.

Category 4: Cash Flow

Main company accounts; investment funds; refunds; returns;

commission.

Category 5: Evidence Preservation

Which mobile phones, computers, and ledgers have been seized?

Category 6: Lifestyle and Alternative Measures

Fixed residence; family members; employment; guarantees that can be provided;

Willing to accept procedural restrictions.

These materials can also support:

Substantive defense

and:

The necessity of detention: a battle of wits and arguments.

27. The worst thing a family member can do is to contact other co-defendants on behalf of the defendant.

When family members are very anxious

You might think:

Inquire about other business areas; contact company executives; confirm what everyone is saying;

Ask someone else to help explain.

But this could actually create:

Concerns about evidence collusion.

Especially if the defendant is currently in custody or has just been detained,

Family members should not mediate on behalf of the defendant.

Confession; Documents;

Witness testimony.

When it is necessary to confirm the facts,

It should be done through legal documentation and legal counsel.

28. The most common mistake made in detention hearings under banking law: only stating "I have not committed a crime".

If the court only says:

"This is a normal investment."

But they didn't answer at all:

Why won't there be any certificate fraud?

Are the company employees still under the control of the individual?

Have the documents been seized?

Is escape possible?

The court may still hold that:

Even if the crime has not yet been convicted

Program risks still exist.

Therefore, the court must handle the application for detention simultaneously:

criminal suspect

as well as:

Reasons for and necessity of detention.

29. Another mistake: only talking about family and work, without discussing the evidence in the case.

Another common way to write it is:

He has a wife; he has children; he owns a company; he owns a house;

I won't run away.

This information is certainly useful.

But if the prosecution has the following:

Delete the conversation; require employees to provide a unified account;

Preparing to leave the country,

Family information alone cannot truly answer the prosecution's questions.

Good detention offense and defense should be:

One risk, one answer.

The prosecution argued that evidence was colluded.

The answer is serial number verification.

Advocating the destruction of evidence,

Regarding the degree of fixation of the evidence.

Advocating escape,

The answer should specify the facts of the escape and the alternative measures.

30. In banking law cases, the real defense of detention lies in clearly explaining "what else can be done".

What the court really needs to determine is:

If this person isn't detained today

Can he still:

Escape?

Delete data?

Altering the accounting books?

Controlling the company's systems?

Will it affect employees?

Contacting investors?

Coordinate with co-defendants?

Therefore, the most effective defense for detention is usually not, in abstract terms:

"The defendant will cooperate with the judicial process."

Instead, provide a specific answer:

Mobile phone seized; computer seized; accounting books seized; bank information provided by financial institutions; company permissions suspended; employees have been questioned; willing to restrict exit from the country;

They agree not to contact certain people.

Reduce controllable procedural risks one by one.

31. Substantive defense in banking law and defense of custody must be conducted together.

Banking law cases carry serious criminal penalties.

And it may involve:

Years of capital; numerous investors;

Multiple defendants.

So from day one,

Cases typically require two parallel tracks:

Article 1: Detention Procedures

Escape; collusion; destruction of evidence;

Alternative measures.

Article 2: Substantive Crimes

Article 29; Article 29-1; Article 125; Target beneficiaries; Remuneration; Cash flow;

Personal role.

We cannot wait until we pay bail to start studying banking law.

We can't just focus on studying banking law.

However, he missed the first hearing to request the detention of his family.

32. How does Fidelity Law Firm handle bank-related detention claims and major financial criminal cases?

When Fidelity Law Firm handles banking law and major financial criminal cases,

Will include:

Program risks

and:

physical crime

Organize them separately.

Regarding detention,

confirm:

What are the prosecution's reasons for the detention; what evidence has been secured; and what people and information can the individual still control?

Are there any alternative detention measures?

On the physical side,

Then organize simultaneously:

Fundraising model; contract; compensation; operation; cash flow;

Personal role.

Attorney Li Yusheng, formerly the legal director of a large accounting firm, would examine corporate transactions, financial accounting, bank flows, and criminal case files simultaneously when handling major corporate financial criminal cases, rather than judging the entire case based on a single record.

When company duties intersect with financial transactions, one can understand...Defense in major financial criminal casesandCorporate Criminal and White-Collar Criminal LawyersServe.

This firm has other...Cases of Major Corporate Financial Criminal Cases Where the Second Instance Verdict Was Overturned and the Confession Was Not GuiltyThis case primarily involves company law, commercial accounting law, and related company registration crimes, and is not a banking law case.

The real question the debate surrounding detention under banking law must answer is, "What would happen if this person weren't detained?"

Cases of illegal fundraising involve severe penalties.

However, detention is not the same as early execution of a sentence.

What the court really needs to determine is:

If the defendant is allowed to remain outside today...

Does it really exist?

Escape; collusion;

Destroy evidence

Specific risks that could hinder criminal proceedings.

Therefore, the defense cannot stop there:

"I will not run away."

To organize in detail:

What evidence has been secured; who has been questioned; which companies have lost their authority; and what alternative measures are available?

And just how serious is the criminal suspicion surrounding the case itself?

If a company has just been searched, or its responsible persons, business personnel, and financial personnel have been transferred to the district prosecutor's office, the period before and after the detention application is usually one of the most urgent procedural stages in banking law cases.