What is the nature of schemes that claim individuals can be released from custody in exchange for payment?

It appears that no other industry exhibits the same degree of inclusiveness as the criminal defense arena: there are diligent professional lawyers who rely on their technical expertise; performance-oriented lawyers with considerable acting skills who primarily “deceive” their clients; power-worshipping lawyers overflowing with a sense of “justice,” who frequently reprimand their own clients during meetings or court hearings and are eager to act as a second prosecutor; and broker-lawyers who readily boast that their “uncles, cousins, desk mates, or roommates” hold key positions in public security organs, procuratorates, courts, political and legal affairs commissions, and other authorities.

This may also reflect Attorney Liu’s “practitioner bias.” After being immersed in litigation practice, particularly criminal litigation, his observations have focused on the steadfastness and schemes within the criminal defense arena. Today, Attorney Liu will discuss the last category: in criminal cases, what is the nature of schemes that claim individuals can be released from custody in exchange for payment?

01

What Are Judicial Scalpers?

Judicial scalpers, also known as judicial brokers, are generally individuals without lawyer status who possess some knowledge of criminal law. They collect money, property interests, or other benefits from clients on the condition that they promise to influence the outcome of a case.

Judicial scalpers differ significantly from scalpers outside hospitals or those selling tickets to celebrity concerts: the latter sell buyers the opportunity to meet doctors or celebrities, whereas the former typically charge clients substantial fees based on promises of specific case outcomes (such as prevailing in civil cases, obtaining bail, having criminal cases dismissed, securing non-prosecution decisions, obtaining suspended sentences, or achieving acquittals). What happens if the promised results are not achieved?Ordinary judicial scalpers will issue refunds, “advanced” scalpers will fabricate new lies to cover their tracks, and “god-tier” scalpers will deceive clients into continuing to increase their investments.

Frankly speaking, judicial scalpers have become much more discreet and concealed following the “National Rectification and Education Campaign for Political and Legal Workforces.” Nevertheless, their existence has never been entirely eradicated. The underlying reason is the severe imbalance between the prosecution and the defense in litigation cases, especially criminal cases, which leads most clients and their families to believe that lawyers play a limited role. They feel that they must find the “right channels to manipulate the situation,” hoping that they might thereby receive leniency.

02

Judicial Scalpers Make Lawyers Feel “Ashamed by Comparison”

In fact, investigative confidentiality does not equate entirely to secret investigations; this is not the case in at least some countries, where rights such as the presence of counsel during investigative interrogations and the right to silence for criminal suspects are recognized. In China, suspects and lawyers do not enjoy the aforementioned rights. Lawyers may only accept engagement and intervene in a case after the public security organ conducts the initial interrogation of the suspect or imposes compulsory measures. During case handling, lawyers must constantly guard against being entrapped by charges such as “destroying evidence,” “forging evidence,” or “obstructing testimony.” From the clients’ perspective, lawyers may appear overly cautious and constrained.

Judicial scalpers, by contrast,Purely fraudulent scalpers can promise anything.—As long as you are willing to pay, they promise immediate release on bail, withdrawal of the case, non-prosecution, a suspended sentence, or even acquittal. “Ethical” intermediaries will charge based on outcomes or refund fees if the promised results are not achieved. There are also probability-playing intermediaries in society: in some cases, when the matter reaches the stage of approval for arrest, the procuratorate directly declines to approve arrest in accordance with the law and instead grants release on bail pending trial. This favorable outcome for the suspect is not due to any “efforts” by so-called judicial intermediaries, yet these intermediaries attribute such results to their own prowess. If arrest is approved, they will still find excuses (such as supervision by higher authorities or attention from leadership) to placate the family members’ emotions; if all else fails, they will simply refund the fees. In short, these intermediaries incur no losses whatsoever.

It is precisely because lawyers face various constraints during case handling, while judicial intermediaries appear omnipotent and capable of anything (drinking with a bureau director one day, dining with a chief procurator the next, and having tea with a judge the day after), that clients become more determined to “pull strings.” Meanwhile, judicial intermediaries seize the opportunity to console clients by saying, “We live in a society governed by personal connections...” In nine out of ten cases, impulsive clients will hand over money on the spot, followed by endless waiting for the intermediaries’ so-called coordination and communication regarding case outcomes.

There is another type of judicial intermediary who is also a lawyer,often referred to as a “lawyer-broker.” They can boast to clients, engage in lawful communications with judicial organs within legal boundaries, and further mislead clients. This type of judicial intermediary poses the greatest harm and is the most difficult to combat.

03

Risks Posed by Judicial Intermediaries

If a client encounters a fraudulent judicial intermediary, the client becomes a victim of fraud.If a client encounters a “reliable” judicial intermediary, the client is highly likely to be implicated in bribery offenses.

However, even these “reliable” judicial intermediaries or lawyer-brokers have limited influence: at most, they may obtain certain case details, but they cannot sway the direction of investigation, review for prosecution, or trial. Their role is not substantively different from that of lawyers engaged by clients through proper and lawful retention procedures—except for the significant legal risks these intermediaries impose on clients.

04

Conclusion

Those who truly uphold the rule of law, whether judicial personnel or lawyers, deeply detest any extralegal factors interfering with the normal operation of the legal system.
We cannot deny that incidents involving money or other interests corrupting the legal process do occur within the system (for example, in the Zhang Jiahui case at the Hainan High People’s Court, half of those who offered bribes were lawyers). However, anyone attempting to corrupt the legal process must understand one principle: wrongdoing cannot remain concealed forever. Any illegal or criminal act carries the risk of exposure. How can you guarantee a lifetime of peace of mind, especially in an era where lifelong accountability for case-handling quality is enforced?
At the same time, it is reassuring to note that there are many idealistic and ambitious individuals within the system. Consider this: if a case handled by a judicial intermediary happens to be assigned to a judicial officer with “idealistic convictions,” what would the outcome be? The answer is often that the presiding officer will handle the case strictly, and any opportunity for leniency that might otherwise have existed will be lost.
For parties involved in litigation disputes, particularly criminal cases, the most effective way to protect themselves and their families is to steer clear of judicial intermediaries (“scalpers”) and seek assistance from qualified legal counsel.