Precise defense promotes justice, leniency and severity demonstrate Warmth - Analysis of the Case where Liu Mou was Convicted of Infringing upon Citizens' Personal Information and received a relatively Non-prosecution

01. Case sketch

In July 2025, during an internal inspection of a company in Shanghai, it was discovered that an algorithm engineer named Liu Mou, by taking advantage of database query permissions, exported the order information of takeout customers (name, mobile phone number, and address) and sold it to overseas buyers via Telegram. The public security organ has initiated an investigation into the case on suspicion of infringing upon citizens' personal information, and after the investigation is concluded, it has transferred the case to the procuratorial organ for review and prosecution. Chen Shilei, a senior partner of the Shanghai office of Dehehantong, and Xu Yi, a lawyer from the Shanghai office, accepted the agency and shared their reference ideas for handling similar cases by taking this case as an example.

02. Key points of Defense

Objective: Strive for "minor crimes not prosecuted".

After accepting the case, the defense lawyer, centering on the critical conditions of "prosecution upon offense" and "non-prosecution for minor crimes", closely adhered to the discretionary space of "non-prosecution for minor crimes", and constructed a "four-step filtering" model, ultimately bringing the case to the prosecution stage:

Quantitative entry - Both the number of pieces of information and the illegal gains are far below the threshold for criminal prosecution and upgrading.

After meticulous review of the case files, the defense lawyer determined that there were 21 pieces of information involved in the case and the illegal gains amounted to 4,020 yuan, both of which were significantly lower than the "five thousand articles" and "five thousand yuan" standard for criminalization and upgrading as stipulated in Article 5 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringing upon Citizens' Personal Information".

Conclusion: It only meets the threshold for criminalization, but is two orders of magnitude short of the upgrade standard, directly locking in the quantitative basis of "minor circumstances".

Qualitative measurement - The information has not spread, there are no actual harmful consequences, and the infringement of legal interests is significantly minor.

The information has not been further disseminated, and there have been no reports from victims or secondary crimes. The company has promptly blocked it through technical means.

Conclusion: The infringement of legal interests by the act remains at the stage of "abstract danger" and has not yet transformed into concrete harm. The social danger is significantly low.

Sentencing circumstances - multiple layers of leniency circumstances such as immediate confession upon arrest, release on bail for supplementary evidence, compensation and forgiveness, and guilty plea and acceptance of punishment are superimposed.

(1) Confession: The first record is a comprehensive confession, which complies with Article 67, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Law;

(2) Evidence remediation: During the period of bail, if one actively recovers the USDT collection address and submits on-chain transfer records to make up for the evidence chain and save judicial resources, a lenient evaluation can be made in accordance with the spirit of the second paragraph of Article 1 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Self-Surrender and Meritorious Service".

(3) Refund and compensation forgiveness: Voluntarily compensate 4,500 yuan, which exceeds the actual profit, and obtain written forgiveness from the victimized entity.

(4) First-time offenders and occasional offenders: No previous criminal record, low risk of reoffending;

(5) Guilty Plea and Acceptance of Punishment: During the review and prosecution stage, Liu voluntarily signed the "Confession and Acceptance of Punishment Agreement" in the presence of his defense lawyer, clearly expressing his agreement with the proposed decision of the procuratorial organ to handle the matter of relative non-prosecution. This complies with the provisions of Article 15 of the Criminal Procedure Law, and the procedure is legal and the intention is genuine.

The process of taking the written agreement has fully explained to Liu the legal nature, legal consequences and rights and obligations of "relative non-prosecution", and provided him with written prompts. However, he still insisted on signing. The voluntariness, authenticity and legality of pleading guilty and accepting punishment have all been subject to substantive review and procedural solidification, highlighting the legislative intent of "confessing in exchange for leniency", and providing a procedural fulcrum for the legitimacy of the subsequent non-prosecution decision.

Policy application - Leniency and severity in combination, education first. Although the relative non-prosecution is declared innocent, according to Article 37 of the Criminal Law and Article 177, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Law, it still has the dual effect of "substantive evaluation + procedural constraints" : The perpetrator must confirm the criminal facts in the written commitment and undertake the obligations of returning the illegal gains, compensating for losses, and receiving legal education, etc., to form the legal effect of "quasi-criminal sanctions".

Taking the entire case into account, although Liu Mou meets the constituent elements of Article 253-1 of the Criminal Law, the circumstances of his crime are minor and the educational and preventive functions of the criminal penalty have been fully realized. In accordance with Article 37 of the Criminal Law and the second paragraph of Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Law, it is suggested that the procuratorial organ make a decision of relative non-prosecution against him.

03. Case outcome

The procuratorial organ adopted all the defense opinions and made a decision not to prosecute Liu Mou in November 2025.

04. Typical significance

The red line of data compliance must not be crossed, but "immediate prosecution upon offense" is not the only path. For minor crime cases, lawyers should make good use of the four yardsticks of "quantity + amount + actual harm + repentance" to precisely argue that the circumstances are "minor".

The multi-dimensional leniency circumstances such as compensation, forgiveness, guilty plea and acceptance of punishment, and evidence remediation are superimposed to achieve the unity of legal and social effects.

05. Lawyer's Tip

Data crimes are showing a trend of "high incidence of minor crimes". Enterprise executives and technical personnel must establish a sense of data compliance and strictly distinguish between "available permissions" and "copyable permissions". The number of items and the amount of money are no longer the only yardstick - "diffusion risk + attitude of repentance + remedial effect" have become the core parameters for procuratorial organs to measure the necessity of prosecution. Once a crime is suspected, professional intervention should be sought in a timely manner. Under professional guidance, evidence should be sealed, illegal gains returned, and damage consequences repaired at the first moment. The three-step process of "confession + compensation + remediation" should be completed in the early stage of investigation to create the greatest space for subsequent efforts to avoid prosecution or probation.