The "Mei Ge Peng You" Case Enters the Evidence Presentation and Cross-Examination Stage

The "Mei Ge Peng You" case entered the evidence presentation and cross-examination stage on August 24,

1. The first unexpected change in the courtroom was that the first defendant, who had previously pleaded not guilty, changed his statement the day before the trial and signed a guilty plea.

The defense immediately questioned the prosecution about the interrogation of the first defendant by the prosecutor at the detention center the day before, which lasted nearly three hours and resulted in a new statement. The defense asked the prosecution to produce the interrogation record and requested that it be provided to the defendants and their lawyers for review and cross-examination.

The prosecution responded that the informant had consulted with the Anti-Fraud Center of the Duanzhou District on January 4 and submitted the transfer records, and formally reported the case on January 26.

Lawyer Zhu Mingyong and others asked questions in court, including how the materials received on January 4 were converted into a formal criminal case on January 26, who actually received the report, and who reviewed and approved the case.

The case involves a company called "Mei Ge Peng You" (Beautiful Friends), which operates social software and has platforms such as "Qu Lian" (Fun Love) and "Mi You" (Honey). In January 2024, a man from Hebei Province reported to the police in Guangdong Province's Zhaoqing City that he had been cheated after paying for a female user's contact information on the "Mei Ge Peng You" app.

The prosecution presented evidence, including the informant's statement, the case handling process, and the seizure of the company's assets. The defense questioned the prosecution's evidence presentation method, arguing that it was unclear and did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the defendants' guilt.

The trial will continue, with the defense requesting that the prosecution provide more detailed evidence and clarify the handling of the case.

Seven:

The informant reported the case to the police on January 26, 2024, and the police received the case, decided to file it, and notified the parties involved on the same day. The defense questioned the speed of the case handling process, asking how the materials received on January 4 were converted into a formal criminal case on January 26, and who actually received the report and reviewed and approved the case.

The prosecution responded that the informant had consulted with the Anti-Fraud Center of the Duanzhou District on January 4 and submitted the transfer records, and formally reported the case on January 26.

Lawyer Zhu Mingyong asked questions, including how the materials were transferred to the criminal investigation department, who proposed the case handling opinion, and who reviewed and approved the case.

The defense also questioned the automatic selection of 14 police officers' names in the case handling system, asking who actually received the report, who made the case handling decision, and who was responsible for the content of the documents.

The prosecution responded that the 14 police officers' names were automatically selected by the system and did not mean that all 14 officers were present at the scene.

Eight:

The prosecution presented evidence, including the statements of the defendants and related personnel, and the chat records. The defense argued that the evidence presented was unclear and did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the defendants' guilt.

Lawyer Zhu Mingyong asked questions, including how the prosecution could prove that the defendants had committed the crime, and how the evidence presented could be used to prove the defendants' guilt.

The defense also requested that the prosecution provide more detailed evidence and clarify the handling of the case.

Nine:

The trial involved two speeds: the speed of the case handling process, which was completed on the same day, and the speed of the interrogation, which resulted in a new statement from the first defendant.

The defense argued that the speed of the case handling process and the interrogation were both questionable and required further clarification.

The prosecution responded that the case handling process was lawful and that the interrogation was conducted in accordance with the law.

The defense requested that the prosecution provide more detailed evidence and clarify the handling of the case.

The trial will continue, with the defense requesting that the prosecution provide more detailed evidence and clarify the handling of the case.