U.S. Friend Case: The defense at court questioned the method of evidence and the procedure for filing cases

The guidance

On August 24, 2026, the “American Friend” case entered the proof-and-proof phase.The first sudden change in the court: the first accused, who had previously denied guilt, changed his confession the day before the hearing, signed the confession of guilt.

The lawyer then pulled the time back to the day before. The prosecutor had come to the detention center for questioning, almost three hours before, and produced a new interrogation record. The lawyer asked the court: “Who went to the detention yesterday to deal with the matter?”

Subsequently, the defense party officially to the court: the first defendant's confession has changed, the court questioning has formed new evidence, requesting the prosecutor to present the record of the interrogation, submitted by the defendants and defenders to be consulted and questioned.

This new record before the court has not been specifically unfolded in the evidence of the day, another unusually fast case chain has entered the court: the applicant's official application, the public security case, the decision to file the case and related notifications are completed on January 26, 2024; the case opinion bar lists the names of 14 civilian police, the case registration, the return and the decision to file the case and the detective brigade, the three teams and the terminal branch etc. In the report account, there is also a "center" that has not been clearly indicated.

The prosecutor responded that the complainant had arrived at the end-state fraud center on January 4 to consult and submit the transfer records, and only on January 26 officially filed the case; the domicile and property of the complainant were infringed in the end-state, and the end-state public security has jurisdiction; the names of many people in the case materials, the public security case system automatically selected, the system defaulted the relevant prosecutors of the counter-fraud center.

Judge Zhu Ming Yong and others continuously asked in court: How did the material received on January 4 translate into the official criminal case on January 26? who actually received, verified in advance and produced the case documents? who reviewed and approved the case? how did the 14 system names correspond to the actual case behavior?

The case background

U.S. friends, wholly known as Hangzhou U.S. friends network technology Co., Ltd., is a company engaged in social software development and operation, under the company is interesting dating, honeycomb dating and other APP platform, the company is headquartered in Zhejiang, Hangzhou West Lake District. In January 2024, a man in Hangzhou in the U.S. friends dating app rewarded not received a woman user contact form, then to Guangdong Province of Zhejiang City, claiming that he suffered fraud. In April 2024, the Guangdong Zhejiang City Public Security Bureau end-state branch established a special group to investigate U.S. friends, then, Zhejiang public security agency across the province to arrest several employees of the company, and suspected of fraud to carry a number of employees, to the company

A sudden confession on the day before the trial: how did the new confession form after three hours of questioning?

During the morning hearing, the lawyer directly asked the first defendant about the question of confession of guilt.

The lawyer said: “Then you were not guilty.Then now, that is, yesterday, you suddenly confessed your guilt.I want to ask, who went to the detention yesterday, and the certificate you signed?”

Around the timing, the lawyer continued to ask the first defendant about when he had seen the prosecutor and the prosecutor leave, and asked, "Does it take three hours to complete the confession?

Later, the lawyer submitted three applications to the court. First, the first defendant's testimony has changed, and the prosecutor interrogated for three hours at the detention center and produced a record, which is part of the new evidence, and should be presented by the prosecutor and submitted to the defense for consultation;

Second, Hao Ming, Jiang Jin and other associated persons have arrived in the case and have been prosecuted, the defense has previously applied for the merger of the case, asking the court to respond; Third, the defense learned from the consultation that Liu Ji, the head of the operation, had returned to the case, and applied for his arrival in the case to accept the question of the defendant and defense.

Lawyer Zhu Mingyun: “Because the first defendant’s confession has changed, and the confession has been signed, and the prosecutor has been in custody for three hours ... now this case produces new evidence.”

After the application was submitted, the trial continued.Until the afternoon of the suspension of the trial, the public prosecutor did not specifically read and display the new interrogation record formed before the court, and the defense party's request for consultation and criticism of the record still remains to be processed.

(2) Submit only names, volumes and proof purposes: no specific submissions, new notes and testimony changes.

The prosecutor then, according to the categories of evidence, read the case registration form, the case decision, the seizure, the business information, the interrogation notes, the name of the evidence, the location of the volume and the purpose of proof. The lawyer Zhang Yong quickly objected: this information could explain "what is in the volume", but did not let the defendant and the audience know "what the evidence specifically wrote."

Zhu Ming Yong lawyer: "You just say there is evidence, the evidence on which page, it's not called showing evidence."

Zhu Ming Yong lawyer emphasized that the court review was solved in defence preparation, and the public trial was solved in which evidence and content the prosecutor demonstrated which accusation.Ro had more than a dozen interrogation notes, the prosecutor selected the seventh note in this group, but it was not clear whether the first to the sixth and subsequent notes continued as evidence of the accusation.

Zhu Ming Yong lawyer: "Dozens of notes, you only presented the seventh, or other notes as evidence? if the other not as evidence, can be clear; if not withdrawn, but not presented in court, how will the court review, the defence comment comment comment?"

The lawyer further pointed out that the contents of multiple notes are not completely consistent, or even contradictory. The dispute is not "the summary of how much a note is read", but which evidence really entered the court investigation, which evidence can still be used in the case. If this scope is unclear, the defense cannot judge how the confession before and after changes, and the court should not use the contents of the unreported, questioned evidence in the review.

The chief judge replied that the amount of material in the whole case is huge, it is impossible to read by page; the defense has been read before the court, the prosecutor also explained the name of the evidence, the volume of the page and the content of the proof, if a certain core evidence needs to be read specifically, can be clearly put forward.

The lawyer obeyed the court order, but retained objections.After entering the case's evidence, the defense continued to question the specific content of 14 civilian police, the same day's case, different cases and "centres".

Reporting, receiving and filing the case on the same day: from “End State Mode” to “End State Speed”

Prosecutor's reading of the case registration content said that the reporting person in the hobby dating app with the nicknamed "little" user chat, according to the other party's claim, the value of upgrading, hoping to obtain contact or online meeting, finally failed to realize; the app has shown the chat user "violation" hint, the reporting person has also contacted the platform customer service.

The report describes first the specific accounts and their promises, which are referred to as “flawless”, and the platform interface has indicated that the accounts are illegal. The lawyer asked the court what is the relationship between the accounts used by who, the promises made by who, individual behavior and the platform rules.

The documents presented together with the contents of the report also show that the official report, the case, the case and related notifications were completed on 26 January. The lawyer asked, before making a decision on the criminal case, whether the criminal facts occurred, whether the state has jurisdiction, whether criminal liability must be investigated, etc. by who verified; whether the case was produced after the filing of the submitted material, which person in charge approved the consent.

The prosecutor added after the afternoon re-trial: the applicant had arrived at the End State District Fraud Center on January 4 to consult, submit relevant transfer records and receive evidence materials list; January 26 officially filed.

After the prosecutor explained the above situation, Zhu Ming Yong lawyer continued to question: who received, what kind of consultation or alert record was formed on January 4th? how the material was delivered to the criminal investigation department? who submitted the case opinion, completed the case review and approval on January 26th? he also applied for the original flow record.

Fourteen printed names are listed in the case column: the system automatically selects, who is the actual contractor?

At the same time, the names of 14 civilian police officers were printed on the comments bar.

These names were all systematically printed, not 14 people hand-written signatures. Hu Jintao lawyers and Zhu Ming Yong lawyers were asked who actually received the applicant, who made the registration form, who submitted the case opinion, and who is responsible for the content of the document.

The lawyer said in court that he had worked as a criminal police officer and had not seen dozens of civilian police accept a single person's report. The lawyer further applied for 110 records and recordings to verify the source of the case, police, distribution and handling.

The prosecutor responded that the names of 14 civilian policemen belonged to the automatic selection within the case management system of the public security organs, and the relevant system will implicitly bring out the counter-fraud center personnel, which does not mean that 14 civilian policemen were sitting on the scene at the same time to receive the reporting persons.

Zhu Ming Yong lawyer continued to ask: the system automatically brings out the list of department staff, the member of the case team, or the legal contractor? if not 14 people jointly suffered the case, the document separately indicates the actual reception, review and approval of the personnel? he applied for electronic process records, verify the correspondence of 14 printed names and actual handling of the case.

Fifth, from the "centre" to the detective brigade (three regiments) and then to the end-state division: how can the three levels of funding be completed in a day?

Apart from the persons, the subject of the document also appears.

The story of the report is written to the "center" report, the source of the case is also recorded as 110 directives; the case registration involves the criminal investigation group of the End State Branch, the case returns to appear three squads, and the decision on the case is finally made by the End State Branch.

Zhu Ming Yong lawyer: “The reporting material is written to the ‘center’. is this center exactly 110 command center, counter-fraud center, or other centre of criminal investigation inside? if the center reporting, why the three teams are the case; the case returned and why the three squads appeared; when the decision to file the case turned into the end state division?”

When the prosecutor responded in the afternoon, the applicant went to the end-state district counter-fraud center on January 4 and said that the official report was handled by the end-state public security organs in accordance with the law.

Zhu Ming Yong lawyer continued to ask: to decide whether a request report was formed before the case was filed, which person was responsible for approving the consent, where the report, approval records and signatures were located; who made the response, who sent it, whether there was a person in charge of signing information.

Six, from a reporting person to a foreign platform, can the jurisdiction support the "distant ocean" investigation?

The case extended from one reporting person’s chat and behavior to local platform companies and multiple employees.

The public prosecutor responded that this case belongs to the telecommunications network fraud case implemented using the network platform; the domicile, current address and property infringement are in the end of the state, and the public security organ of the state has jurisdiction in accordance with the law, and does not belong to the law enforcement in violation of other places.

After the prosecutor's judicial response, the lawyer continued to question who used the so-called "sluggish" account, who made specific promises, where the money flowed, and what behavior the products, operations, technology, markets, customer service, financial and association personnel performed.

Zhu Ming Yong lawyer: “First of all, we should find out who ‘lightly’ is, where the promise comes from, and whether the platform has set the corresponding rules, not from one account directly to thousands of miles away platform companies and employees.”

Zhu Ming Yong lawyer: “Who is the platform to recruit the female broadcaster? who decides, who is specifically implemented? is the recruitment of the female broadcaster fraud? how is the recruitment of the female broadcaster and the fraud related?”

“I usually go on weekends, only part-time for the front page.”

After the prosecutors concentrated on reading the notes of several defendants and associates, Liu Xiao himself clarified the content of the meeting and the post. He said that he could not remember the entire content that the prosecutor had just read, but had a clear objection to the part involved in him.

I remember meeting never said ‘woman chat’ three words ... I usually go on weekends, and also part-time development, mainly to do some front-end pages.”

Liu Xiao said that he later heard the "main broadcaster", in his understanding is the user of the live broadcast, is not of course equal to the "woman chatter" alleged to be implemented fraud. he did not participate in the operation discussion, nor understand the operation business, only according to the product and design requirements to complete the front-end page.

“In my concept, the broadcaster is the user of the live broadcast. I don’t know that the broadcaster is the female chatter who is deceiving.”

Mr. Wang: "The public security combined the answers to several questions into one sentence"

Wang Xi Jinping subsequently issued a commentary on a demand review meeting and his own questionnaire. he said that before the development only participated in a demand review meeting, the first part was not heard, and the midway left early, so it could not prove this incomplete attendance to hear the so-called value-added scale, female recruitment or operational arrangements.

Wang said: "I participated in a demand review before the development, and it was the only time I did not hear at the beginning, and the midway left early."

He further said that the investigators later asked about software cold launch, user access and how to make a profit, he replied separately to the need for initial users, voice video chat and virtual gifts to form revenue; but the note combines the answers to the different questions, recording the adult female party asks men to send gifts to scam money.

“The public security combined what I answered several questions into one word ... this is just the public security completely misunderstood my meaning, you can adjust the video at the time.”

Wang said that the relevant chat record is expressed by his understanding of the product as a live broadcast, voice and video chat software; he did not know what the user specifically talked about, and mentioned the platform setup or plan to set up the text, video content audit function.

(7) Admitted guilty person prosecution in another case, admitted guilty person remains in this case: guilty confession can be entered, why the entire case cannot be examined simultaneously.

The afternoon trial involved Hoi Ming, Liu Ji and other related persons. Zhu Ming Yoon lawyer proposed that Hoi Ming has arrived in the case and was prosecuted, and some of its interrogation notes were also used by the prosecutor to prove the platform operation of the case, the female broadcaster recruitment and the division of personnel, but Hoi Ming himself did not merge with the case, and the entire volume of the case was not provided to the defense.

“This is not a two-related case, but the same criminal fact, the same case.We do not convict, we do not convict, this is not conducive to the fact of the case and does not comply with the law.”

Zhu Mingyun continued to question: the associated persons who confessed guilt were dealt with in another case, and the accused who did not confess guilt remained in the case to be tried; the former disapproved of the defendant's part of the confession can enter the court, the confession, the synchronous video and other materials can not be entered in full.

The advocates of the army clearly stated that Hao Ming and Liu Ming's materials may generally be more favourable to the accusation, but still insisted that the full volume of the case and the merger of the case should be processed. The reason is not only the selection of favorable materials, but the common crime case must judge each person's status and role in the same evidence; even if the material is unfavorable to the defense, the defendant and the defendant should be asked.

The advocate of the army said: “These evidence are generally unfavorable to the defense, and more favorable to the accusation. But why do we still insist on the merger? because the merger is not only efficient, but also considered fair, it is more conducive to identifying the overall facts of the case, and to comprehensively judge the position and role of everyone.”

Around the seventh note of the Ro Small Army, Zhu Ming Yuan page by page summarized the questioning content: Ro Small Army talked about his own responsibility for logistics, part-time assistance, operations and female broadcast recruitment is responsible by others, Yuan Shu Dong only verbally promised to earn money after the project to give a bonus; the note had not previously unveiled how the Ro Small Army participated in fraud, but at the end there was a confession statement.

The lawyer: "You say he confessed guilt, then how did he confess guilt? at what point? the seventh note did not confess the substance of guilt, but the final conclusion said 'I confess guilt', do you not find it strange?"

Zhu Mingyun also pointed out that the interrogation spans the mid-afternoon time period, and applied for synchronous recording video to determine whether the original words of the interrogation, the record and the confession conclusions can correspond.

The proof can be raised on the "house", but each "pillar" must fall to a specific person.

The prosecution is based on the constitution of the crime and the facts pending evidence, with the testimony of several defendants, the notes of associates and the conversation records combined. The prosecution is based on the “building a house” comparison: a set of evidence may be just a few pillars, and can not be denied because a single pillar is not enough to prove the whole house, its role in the overall evidence structure.

Zhu Ming Yong lawyer followed this parable and asked: who is the platform to recruit female broadcasters, who decides, who specifically implements, and how recruitment behavior is linked to fraud?

The court consulted the defendants and defenders about the method of proofing. Two defenders and four defenders believed the existing method was not clear enough, and most believed it could be continued. The court therefore decided to proof in the existing way, and stated that the request was merely a measure of the court’s organization and not a vote to determine the effectiveness of the evidence or the conclusion of the case.

The lawyer said: “In such circumstances, it is absolutely impossible to obey the majority in accordance with the minority ... as long as there is an accused or a lawyer who considers that this method cannot be adequately expressed, the method of proof should be adjusted.”

The chief judge replied that the existing evidence meets the legal requirements, and the defense's "one vote veto" is unfounded.

The lawyer: “Which law says that the evidence is to respect the opinion of the majority? what about the opinion of the majority? you ask the listener, this case is guilty or innocent? we vote on the spot.”

The court explained that the consultation was only to determine whether the trial could continue, and not to vote on the legal issue by the number. Zhu Ming Yong once again asked the prosecutor to clarify whether the portion of the Ro's more than a dozen notes that were not presented in the court still served as evidence for the accusation.

* Technicians complete the page and code, who decides on demand, acceptance and approval?

Zhang Chongqing's second defense lawyer, Hui Yui, according to Hoi Ming, Liu Ying's notebook, tailored the software development process: the entrepreneurial and operational strategy is determined by Yuan Huongdong and the operating personnel, the product department forms the demand documentation, the design and technical personnel realize the front-end and back-end functions separately; after the function is completed, it must still be accepted by the product, operations and agreed on the line.

Hurey lawyer: "Whether this function is on-line, it requires product, operator acceptance, consent, approval to be on-line ... From the point of view of the business process, the technical department has no decision."

The second advocate, Zhang Ray, further differentiated front-end pages from business rules. He argued that front-end development is only reserved for display locations in the page; which users can display, meet what conditions, who can see or use the "one-tast" and other functions, depending on the business logic of products and operations settings, can not only be achieved by the page technicians, to assume its design, decide or know how to operate later.

Zhang Rui, lawyer: “The front end of the company is only responsible for booking and displaying this pitch. As for which users can show up, how the conditions are displayed, which female users can see this button and use, the logic is the responsibility of the product department and the operations department.”

The lawyer also countered the note of the Roosevelt Army and Liu Xiaobo: both said that during the start-up period mainly went to the studio on the weekend; the Roosevelt Army said it was unclear whether Yuan Huangdong had spoken to the start-up to invite the broadcast, had Liu Xiaobo said he heard his colleagues say the platform was looking for a female broadcaster after taking office.

Can advertising directly prove subjective knowledge by exposure, retention and channel data?

Zhang Yoonxian's defense lawyer Yang Yoonxian commented on the market placement, noting that Liu Yoonxian's note mentioned that Zhang Yoonxian was based on the daily placement amount, the amount of exposure of different platform materials, the time period of placement, the retention and active data, judging which promotional channel is effective and the cost is higher.

Yang Yuey lawyer: "Zhang Yueyi advertising, is entirely in the perspective of the market and advertising marketing ... is based on the data reflected in the market to put, and not around the so-called fraud, consumer trap to put advertising and design speech ".

The lawyer also pointed out that Zhang Zhang's record also involves the platform's blocking of illegal accounts, and the company invites lawyers to conduct compliance training.

A group planned to present 30 and read 11 suspensions: what exactly did the defendant remember?

After the comments of several defenders, Mr. Zhiyeong's lawyer returned to the evidence structure again: the prosecution was originally intended to present 30 evidence in the group, but was suspended after reading 11 items.

The lawyer: “How many of the first set of evidence in the second part? 30? why did you stop by only eleven? ... even eleven, the defendant was embarrassed, at least I can’t remember.”

“Is it like a stage, today played a play, sang a red song, and tomorrow there is another murder, do you blame the stage?”

He then asked, "Which of these notes can prove the facts of Wang's fiction, and which can prove that he cheated on other people's money?"

Both speeds ultimately answer the same question: Where is the original evidence?

The trial took place at two speeds.

One, after consultation and submission of materials on January 4, the official reporting, receipt, filing and notification on January 26 was completed on the same day; 14 civilian police names were taken out of the system once, the "Center", the detective brigade (three regiments) and the End State Branch continued to appear in the documents. The other, after three hours of questioning before the court day, the first accused's confession and confession of guilt changed, and a new questioning record was formed.

The previous speed launched and supported the criminal investigation of offshore platform enterprises, the latter speed could change the proof structure of common crime cases. Neither can be concluded by “system-automated selection” “has been jurisdicted” “has confessed guilt” alone, but to return to the public court for the same set of checks: where the original record was, who produced, who signed, who approved, whether the process formed continuously, whether the content can be mutually validated with other evidence.

The prosecution has responded to the preliminary receipt of materials, the loss of jurisdiction and the system of automatic selection of the fraud center; the defense still demanded to call for 110 alert recordings and flow records, clarify the nature of the fields of the 14 names and the actual contractors, verify the case, approval and filing documents, and present the first defendant's family newly formed interrogation notes and related synchronous audio recordings.

Whether the so-called "end-state speed" has a complete and verifiable procedural basis, whether the so-called platform "total model" is sufficient to implement to each defendant, can not be answered by the title, seal or catalogue of evidence. Criminal justice supervision is to ask, exactly what every conclusion is drawn from the facts, and each fact can be demonstrated by the evidence that can be presented, identified and questioned in the court.

The original information *

Original title: "American friend" trial record of the first defendant signed the confession of guilt the night before the trial, the defense questioned the filing of the case, the first day prosecutor's proof of dissatisfaction

Source: WeChat Public Number "Ice Language"