Relevant Legal Provisions

Criminal Code Article 304, Paragraph 1：Whoever compels another to do something not obligated or obstructs another from exercising rights by means of violence or threats shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years, short-term detention, or a fine of not more than nine thousand yuan.

Criminal Code Article 305：Whoever threatens another with harm to life, body, freedom, reputation, or property, thereby endangering safety, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years, short-term detention, or a fine of not more than nine thousand yuan.

Criminal Code Article 339-4, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2：Whoever commits the fraud offense under Article 339 under any of the following circumstances shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than one year but not more than seven years, and may also be fined not more than one million yuan: (2) Where three or more persons jointly commit the offense.

Facts and Reasons

The complainant had a dispute with a client of his company (who is also a co-defendant in the same case). The client complained to the defendant (the party represented by this firm), and the defendant then went to the complainant's residence to understand the situation. There was a serious car trade dispute between the complainant, the company boss, and the client, so the defendant assisted in mediating and negotiating between them. Unexpectedly, the complainant later filed complaints alleging intimidation endangering safety, coercion, and aggravated fraud.

Prosecutor's Disposition

The above-named defendant and others, for fraud and related cases, after the investigation concluded, were determined to merit a disposition of non-prosecution.

Although the recordings and transcripts provided by the complainant contained disputatious words, a careful reading of the context shows that the meaning differed from typical threatening language. It appeared more like a reminder to the complainant not to deceive others, which seems beyond doubt. Moreover, the defendants did not clearly and specifically state how they would harm the complainant's legal interests. Considering that a dispute already existed between the parties, it is difficult to expect the wording and tone used under such circumstances to be thoroughly thoughtful, calm, and gentle. Thus, whether the defendants had the intent to intimidate is doubtful, making it hard to impose criminal liability. Furthermore, upon review, no other positive evidence was found sufficient to prove that the defendants committed the alleged acts. Therefore, it should be determined that the defendants lack sufficient suspicion of having committed the crimes.
 

(Some details of the case have been adjusted or omitted to protect the parties' rights.)