[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"public-home":3,"news-detail-regulation-817":396},{"entity":4,"seo":348},{"siteConfig":5,"banners":28,"branches":48,"honors":81,"cases":113,"caseTypes":188,"caseIntro":223,"latestLawyerNews":224,"lawyerNews":239,"lawyerNewsMonthCount":292,"serviceTags":293,"serviceCategories":294,"subSlogan":12,"serviceIntro":324,"homeStats":325,"serviceProducts":338},{"id":6,"siteName":7,"siteDomain":8,"logoUrl":9,"faviconUrl":10,"slogan":11,"subSlogan":12,"aboutSummary":13,"aboutImage":14,"teamPhotoUrl":15,"hotline":16,"email":10,"headquartersAddress":17,"headquartersLng":18,"headquartersLat":19,"foundingYear":20,"creditCode":10,"sameAs":10,"wechatQrcode":21,"videoQrcode":22,"douyinQrcode":23,"xiaohongshuQrcode":24,"icpNumber":25,"psbNumber":26,"createdAt":27,"updatedAt":27},1,"四川卓安律师事务所","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F07\u002F083753d8-b587-4105-a0e2-9da8eacdcfd5.png",null,"为生命辩护，为自由辩护","一家专注刑事，走「专门」路线的律师所","卓安律师事务所由执业近30年的成安博士于2013年发起设立，是全国最早一批专注刑事的刑事专业律师事务所之一。一心一意，只做刑事，不做综合所，不接非刑事业务。以专业化、精品化、一体化运营为全国客户提供刑事辩护、刑事控告、企业刑事合规与风险防控法律服务。","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F07\u002Fffef6a8d-e19d-44df-a8f1-08ece0042bd7.jpg","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F06\u002F87a0be21-3874-4f87-8586-63a62fd10a31.jpg","4000-148-149","四川省成都高新区天府二街蜀都中心1号楼19楼1902-1904室",104.06749,30.5524575,"2003","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F06\u002Fb86da287-bc41-4285-aa3c-0602065190d2.jpg","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F06\u002F77233542-14b7-4884-a78f-8c0d531d096d.png","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F06\u002F616aa748-5454-49dd-a09d-a73925d672fe.png","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F06\u002F4b5bc9ea-d513-4287-8aca-0a589e539381.png","蜀ICP备2026035071号-1","川公网安备51019002009895号","2026-06-22 21:30:32",[29,34,39,42,45],{"id":6,"createdAt":30,"updatedAt":30,"deleted":31,"title":32,"subtitle":32,"imageUrl":33,"linkUrl":32,"sort":6,"status":6},"2026-06-22 21:33:46",0,"","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F14\u002Ff8e758a5-0784-4769-aa52-97ec64cc1216.jpg",{"id":35,"createdAt":36,"updatedAt":36,"deleted":31,"title":32,"subtitle":32,"imageUrl":37,"linkUrl":32,"sort":38,"status":6},3,"2026-07-14 14:39:20","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F14\u002F557b3e37-70b1-4aa8-88d6-9a07b61969b1.png",2,{"id":40,"createdAt":30,"updatedAt":30,"deleted":31,"title":32,"subtitle":32,"imageUrl":41,"linkUrl":32,"sort":35,"status":6},5,"\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F14\u002F7512d49c-e31a-4bd1-a436-00de2d2d960f.png",{"id":43,"createdAt":30,"updatedAt":30,"deleted":31,"title":32,"subtitle":32,"imageUrl":44,"linkUrl":32,"sort":43,"status":6},4,"\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F14\u002F27e2b0bf-cf18-4dd0-bb77-5853e0673a1b.png",{"id":38,"createdAt":46,"updatedAt":46,"deleted":31,"title":32,"subtitle":32,"imageUrl":47,"linkUrl":32,"sort":40,"status":6},"2026-07-14 14:39:06","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F14\u002F3c8f1908-114d-44bf-9e33-2818d8bfce89.png",[49,55,60,65,70,75],{"id":35,"createdAt":50,"updatedAt":51,"deleted":31,"code":52,"name":53,"address":17,"phone":16,"thumbnail":32,"lng":10,"lat":10,"sort":54,"status":6},"2026-06-16 13:55:38","2026-08-24 21:29:48","chengdu","成都总所",-1,{"id":6,"createdAt":56,"updatedAt":56,"deleted":31,"code":57,"name":58,"address":59,"phone":32,"thumbnail":32,"lng":10,"lat":10,"sort":31,"status":6},"2026-06-22 21:46:09","kunming","昆明","云南省昆明市五华区和谐广场和谐B座第49层4909室",{"id":38,"createdAt":61,"updatedAt":61,"deleted":31,"code":62,"name":63,"address":64,"phone":32,"thumbnail":32,"lng":10,"lat":10,"sort":31,"status":6},"2026-06-22 21:46:31","shenzheng","深圳","广东省深圳市龙华区民塘路328号龙华区数字创新中心A座14层04、05号",{"id":43,"createdAt":66,"updatedAt":66,"deleted":31,"code":67,"name":68,"address":69,"phone":32,"thumbnail":32,"lng":10,"lat":10,"sort":31,"status":6},"2026-06-26 13:55:59","chongqing","重庆","重庆市渝北区湖山路虹陶大厦22层13-17号",{"id":40,"createdAt":71,"updatedAt":71,"deleted":31,"code":72,"name":73,"address":74,"phone":32,"thumbnail":32,"lng":10,"lat":10,"sort":31,"status":6},"2026-06-26 13:56:12","dazhou","达州","四川省达州市通川区永兴路146号恒基大厦二楼",{"id":76,"createdAt":77,"updatedAt":77,"deleted":31,"code":78,"name":79,"address":80,"phone":32,"thumbnail":32,"lng":10,"lat":10,"sort":31,"status":6},6,"2026-06-26 13:56:31","xining","西宁","青海省西宁市城东区南山东路创新创业大厦A座15楼",[82,88,94,100,105,109],{"id":6,"createdAt":83,"updatedAt":83,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"title":84,"thumbnail":85,"content":10,"publishTime":86,"sort":87,"status":6},"2026-06-26 14:01:11","四川卓安律师事务所党支部—“四川省律师行业党建标准化律师事务所党组织”","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F26\u002F15b73500-33d0-4eae-ae82-192e3f44d1c3.jpg","2026-07-27 21:53:52",-3,{"id":38,"createdAt":89,"updatedAt":89,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"title":90,"thumbnail":91,"content":10,"publishTime":92,"sort":93,"status":6},"2026-06-28 22:22:47","四川卓安律师事务所——\"四川省律师行业文化名所\"","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F26\u002F3e628c5a-4df8-42d2-8667-d107a295f786.jpg","2026-08-26 17:05:47",-2,{"id":95,"createdAt":96,"updatedAt":96,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"title":97,"thumbnail":98,"content":10,"publishTime":99,"sort":54,"status":6},24,"2026-09-01 14:02:47","“司法云庭荟”法律职业共同体线上交流平台建设的全新创新做法入选最高人民检察院政治部《全国检察机关教育培训创新100例》","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F09\u002F01\u002F03c5415b-2799-4097-8c6b-95a6089d5a3c.jpg","2026-09-01 14:01:51",{"id":35,"createdAt":101,"updatedAt":101,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"title":102,"thumbnail":103,"content":10,"publishTime":104,"sort":31,"status":6},"2026-06-28 22:23:01","成安律师被评为“成都市优秀律师”","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F26\u002Fdae82b8c-327b-437e-8c37-bc241a6bf780.jpg","2026-08-26 17:07:20",{"id":43,"createdAt":101,"updatedAt":101,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"title":106,"thumbnail":107,"content":10,"publishTime":108,"sort":31,"status":6},"成安律师被聘请为“成都市人民政府第一届行政复议委员会委员”","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F27\u002F92313a8b-8b6e-4cff-9c80-ec82331e9bc0.jpg","2026-08-27 14:01:26",{"id":40,"createdAt":101,"updatedAt":101,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"title":110,"thumbnail":111,"content":10,"publishTime":112,"sort":31,"status":6},"成安律师被聘请为“日知公益学习社团青年刑辩人才计划特聘导师”","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F27\u002Fb8c6c1f9-16e5-4f16-b3c3-a8833b9d4275.jpg","2026-08-27 14:03:31",[114,121,125,129,134,140,144,148,150,157,161,165,170,175,180],{"id":115,"title":116,"thumbnail":117,"summary":118,"caseTypeId":38,"caseTypeName":119,"caseTypeCode":120},668,"X某涉嫌贪污罪一案，四川卓安律师事务所律师为其辩护，获从轻处罚","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F23\u002Fb40331c5-0aeb-4e4d-bce7-3e6dee0fe939.png","一、案件结果、亮点、焦点、封面语 罪名：贪污罪 结果：被告人X某（原医保局审核股股长）被判处有期徒刑三年六个月，罚金二十万元。 亮点： 1. 成功将被告人定性为 从犯 ，减轻处罚 2. 排除部分涉案金额（证言中的两笔资金未被认定） 3. 全","职务犯罪优秀案例","duty_crime",{"id":122,"title":123,"thumbnail":10,"summary":124,"caseTypeId":38,"caseTypeName":119,"caseTypeCode":120},667,"周某某涉嫌贪污罪、受贿罪一案，四川卓安律师事务所律师为其辩护，成功核减犯罪数额并获从宽量刑","一、案件受贿罪结果、亮点、焦点、封面语 罪名：贪污罪、受贿罪 结果：数罪并罚判处有期徒刑18年，罚金530万元（起诉指控贪污7099.5482万元，辩护后法院采纳部分意见核减数额）。 亮点： 1. 成功论证部分阶段不构成贪污罪主体资格，核减",{"id":126,"title":127,"thumbnail":10,"summary":128,"caseTypeId":38,"caseTypeName":119,"caseTypeCode":120},666,"L某涉嫌贪污罪、受贿罪、巨额财产来源不明罪，四川卓安律师事务所律师团队为其辩护，获轻判","律师工作： 阅卷阅卷，不停的阅卷 案件焦点： 案件程序问题：本案监委是否有管辖职权； 犯罪数额计算，这些数字对不对 案件结果： 做到了每个罪名的法定最低档量刑了 1.犯 贪污罪 ，判处 有期徒刑 一年，并处十 罚金 万元; 2.犯 受贿罪 ",{"id":130,"title":131,"thumbnail":132,"summary":133,"caseTypeId":38,"caseTypeName":119,"caseTypeCode":120},665,"陈某涉嫌贪污罪二审改判一案，四川卓安律师事务所律师为其辩护，刑期由13年改判为11年","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F23\u002F3afa7596-457f-43b0-93e2-8c05f101c723.png","一、案件结果、亮点、焦点、封面语 罪名：贪污罪（二审改判） 结果：刑期由13年改判为11年，罚金100万元维持 亮点： 成功挑战贪污罪定性争议，推动法院对\"公共财产\"性质进行专项审查 通过精细化数额计算辩护，核减指控金额达76%（1353万",{"id":135,"title":136,"thumbnail":10,"summary":137,"caseTypeId":40,"caseTypeName":138,"caseTypeCode":139},664,"王某某涉嫌非法买卖制毒物品罪、洗钱罪、出售假币罪、非法拘禁罪一案，四川卓安律师事务所律师为其辩护，获从轻处理","一、案件结果、亮点、焦点、封面语 罪名 ： 非法买卖制毒物品罪 、 洗钱罪 、出售假币罪、 非法拘禁罪 结果 ：部分罪名指控不成立，法院依法作出二十年 有期徒刑 判决，并处 罚金 六千零十万元 亮点 ：成功击破犯罪集团认定标准，非法买卖制毒","毒品犯罪优秀案例","drug_crime",{"id":141,"title":142,"thumbnail":10,"summary":143,"caseTypeId":38,"caseTypeName":119,"caseTypeCode":120},663,"X某涉嫌受贿罪，四川卓安律师事务所律师团队为其辩护，获从轻判决","案情简介 2013年至2019年，X某利用担任某县委书记的职务之便，为多人在某县承建项目、借款、退还已缴土地滞纳金等事项上提供帮助，先后十余次收受多人现金等礼品。 案发后，被告人X某于2019年8月8日主动到四川省监察委员会投案，交代了部分",{"id":145,"title":146,"thumbnail":10,"summary":147,"caseTypeId":38,"caseTypeName":119,"caseTypeCode":120},662,"Z某涉嫌受贿罪、行贿罪、挪用公款等罪一案，四川卓安律师事务所律师团队为其辩护，获轻判","案情简介 2015年至2017年，被调查人Z某 伙同 时任某某公司董事长、总经理L，利用L职务上的便利， 私自使用某某公司20000万元定期存款存单质押担保贷款29400万元，用于营利活动。同时涉及受贿罪、行贿罪。 辩护思路 一、Z某单独受",{"id":149,"title":146,"thumbnail":10,"summary":147,"caseTypeId":38,"caseTypeName":119,"caseTypeCode":120},661,{"id":151,"title":152,"thumbnail":153,"summary":154,"caseTypeId":43,"caseTypeName":155,"caseTypeCode":156},660,"H某涉嫌生产销售有毒有害食品罪四川卓安律师事务所律师团队为其辩护，成功取保候审","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F23\u002Fd0544967-0fd4-44ce-b977-8c6b2c0bf3e4.png","【案情简述】 H某因涉嫌生产销售有毒有害食品罪被羁押于遂宁市公安局某区分局。 【办案过程】 针对本案的定性无异议，但是本案于一般的生产、销售有毒有害食品以及狭义的“地沟油”犯罪而言，其社会危害性极低；H某在本案中虽然为相关涉事门店的股东之一","经济犯罪优秀案例","economic_crime",{"id":158,"title":159,"thumbnail":10,"summary":160,"caseTypeId":43,"caseTypeName":155,"caseTypeCode":156},659,"Z某涉嫌生产、销售有毒、有害食品罪一案,四川卓安律师事务所律师团队经过不懈努力，未变更罪名减轻处罚","一、案情简介 z某涉嫌在其公司旗下的多家知名火锅连锁店中制造销售回油，也就是俗称”地沟油“火锅底料给食客食用，未造成人体健康损害后果。 二、辩护思路 1、刘某制作的《2019年汇总表》、《XX出库年度详表》未按照法律规定获取，与在案的其他证",{"id":162,"title":163,"thumbnail":10,"summary":164,"caseTypeId":43,"caseTypeName":155,"caseTypeCode":156},658,"S某涉嫌生产、销售伪劣产品罪一案，四川卓安律师事务所律师为其辩护，获减轻处罚","一、案件结果、亮点、焦点、封面语 罪名：生产、销售伪劣产品罪（公诉机关指控）→ 非法经营罪（辩护意见） 结果：法院认定构成生产、销售伪劣产品罪，判处S某有期徒刑15年，罚金350万元。 亮点： 1. 证据链突破：成功质疑检测报告合法性，推翻",{"id":166,"title":167,"thumbnail":168,"summary":169,"caseTypeId":43,"caseTypeName":155,"caseTypeCode":156},657,"涂某某涉嫌生产、销售伪劣产品罪一案，四川卓安律师事务所律师为其辩护，成功将指控罪名从\"既遂\"辩护为\"未遂\"，显著降低刑期","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F23\u002Fa9d1a426-12fb-492a-a4be-f36bc5ad280e.png","一、案件结果、亮点、焦点、封面语 罪名：生产、销售伪劣产品罪（未遂） 结果：有期徒刑一年五个月（较检察院量刑建议降低50%），罚金五万元 亮点： 1. 成功将指控罪名从\"既遂\"辩护为\"未遂\"，显著降低刑期； 2. 通过证据对抗推翻74万元销",{"id":171,"title":172,"thumbnail":173,"summary":174,"caseTypeId":43,"caseTypeName":155,"caseTypeCode":156},656,"H某涉嫌生产、销售不符合安全标准食品罪，四川卓安律师事务所律师团队为其辩护，获取保候审","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F23\u002F1ae54d80-b6b0-42f3-9eb4-5628548c7c21.png","一、案情简介 2020年12月，成都市某地区爆发新冠疫情，该地区的生鲜经营冻库被要求全部关停。冻库关停的通知一出，则意味着商家库房里的全部冻货，将全部无法销售，只能废弃。 部分商家为保住自己的货物，冒险继续销售冻货，其联合找到冻库房东H某，",{"id":176,"title":177,"thumbnail":178,"summary":179,"caseTypeId":43,"caseTypeName":155,"caseTypeCode":156},655,"J某涉嫌涉嫌侵犯商业秘密罪一案，四川卓安律师事务所律师团队为其辩护，免于刑事处罚","\u002Ffile:\u002F\u002F\u002FC:\\Users\\徐艳\\AppData\\Local\\Temp\\ksohtml10556\\wps493.jpg","一、案件罪名、结果、封面语 罪名：侵犯商业秘密罪 结果： 免于刑事处罚 封面语： 某生物科技企业机密案，J 某离职后涉嫌有偿披露信息，律师介入后从本案侦查管辖权有误、阅卷权遭侵，经营信息是否为商业秘密存争议，J 某行为未达犯罪情节严重标准，",{"id":181,"title":182,"thumbnail":183,"summary":184,"caseTypeId":185,"caseTypeName":186,"caseTypeCode":187},654,"D某侵犯公民个人信息罪，四川卓安律事务所律师团队为其辩护，获轻判","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F23\u002Fe43eb26b-6e6e-452b-ad54-ddd659fc49be.png","一、【案情简述】 2020年初，被告人D某在四川某大学读书期间，在网上申请注册（需要邮箱号、手机号、手机短信验证、姓名及身份证号等）、实名认证（本人微信、QQ扫码或人脸认证）“腾讯云网络帐号、购买和使用云服务器过程中，发现贩卖腾讯云账号（云",7,"网络新型犯罪优秀案例","cyber_crime",[189,192,197,200,203,208,211,217],{"id":38,"code":120,"name":119,"summary":190,"keywords":191},"覆盖贪污罪、受贿罪、行贿罪、挪用公款罪、滥用职权罪、玩忽职守罪等。","监察留置｜公职人员辩护｜数额认定",{"id":35,"code":193,"name":194,"summary":195,"keywords":196},"gang_crime","涉黑涉恶优秀案例","覆盖组织、领导、参加黑社会性质组织罪，以及寻衅滋事、敲诈勒索、聚众斗殴等。","黑恶性质认定｜组织层级｜罪数认定",{"id":43,"code":156,"name":155,"summary":198,"keywords":199},"覆盖诈骗罪、合同诈骗罪、非法吸收公众存款罪、非法经营罪、虚开增值税专用发票罪等。","企业家辩护｜涉案金额｜刑民交叉",{"id":40,"code":139,"name":138,"summary":201,"keywords":202},"覆盖走私、贩卖、运输、制造毒品罪，非法持有毒品罪及制毒物品犯罪。","毒品数量认定｜主观明知｜死刑辩护",{"id":76,"code":204,"name":205,"summary":206,"keywords":207},"property_crime","财产犯罪优秀案例","覆盖盗窃罪、抢劫罪、诈骗罪、敲诈勒索罪、职务侵占罪、挪用资金罪等。","非法占有目的｜涉案金额｜退赔谅解",{"id":185,"code":187,"name":186,"summary":209,"keywords":210},"覆盖帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪、电信网络诈骗、侵犯公民个人信息罪、开设赌场罪等。\n","电子数据审查｜主观明知｜资金流水",{"id":212,"code":213,"name":214,"summary":215,"keywords":216},8,"corporate_compliance","性犯罪优秀案例","覆盖强奸罪、强制猥亵罪、猥亵儿童罪、组织卖淫罪、传播淫秽物品罪等。\n","言词证据｜未成年人案件｜隐私保护",{"id":218,"code":219,"name":220,"summary":221,"keywords":222},9,"criminal_complaint","人身权利犯罪优秀案例","覆盖故意杀人罪、故意伤害罪、非法拘禁罪、绑架罪、过失致人死亡罪等。","正当防卫｜因果关系｜伤情鉴定","多年来，卓安专注刑事领域，累计办理刑事案件8000余件，依法为当事人争取无罪、取保候审、缓刑、不起诉、从轻及减轻处罚等结果。",{"id":225,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":226,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"lawyerId":227,"city":228,"caseType":229,"title":230,"thumbnail":231,"content":10,"publishTime":232,"sort":10,"status":10,"lawyerNames":233,"lawyers":234,"lawyer":238},790,"2026-10-13 13:51:35",78,"白山中院+吉林省看守所","受贿罪","2026年10月12、13日 彭栖伟 受贿罪——卓安（重庆）律师事务所","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F13\u002Faeff63f5-4734-44b5-83fc-4fe483db46a8.png","2026-10-13 14:12:39","彭栖伟",[235],{"id":227,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":233,"position":236,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":237,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},"专职律师","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F18\u002Fe7e138d0-374e-40f4-8a64-17f2eaa16ca6.jpg",{"id":227,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":233,"position":236,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":237,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},[240,243,256,268,280],{"id":225,"createdAt":226,"updatedAt":226,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"lawyerId":227,"city":228,"caseType":229,"title":230,"thumbnail":231,"content":10,"publishTime":232,"sort":31,"status":6,"lawyerNames":233,"lawyers":241},[242],{"id":227,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":233,"position":236,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":237,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},{"id":244,"createdAt":226,"updatedAt":226,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"lawyerId":245,"city":246,"caseType":247,"title":248,"thumbnail":249,"content":10,"publishTime":250,"sort":31,"status":6,"lawyerNames":251,"lawyers":252},789,43,"宣汉县看守所","诈骗罪","2026年10月13日 晏建强 诈骗罪——卓安律师事务所","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F13\u002F9784a2ad-b503-4c72-8998-7d785f08998c.png","2026-10-13 14:11:53","晏建强",[253],{"id":245,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":251,"position":254,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":255,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},"刑事四部 部长","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F18\u002Fab5ccf97-3ef1-4db5-a101-a5f001ec2350.jpg",{"id":257,"createdAt":226,"updatedAt":226,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"lawyerId":258,"city":259,"caseType":260,"title":261,"thumbnail":262,"content":10,"publishTime":263,"sort":31,"status":6,"lawyerNames":264,"lawyers":265},788,84,"重庆永川区看守所+永川区检察院","寻衅滋事罪","2026年10月12日 罗杨 寻衅滋事罪——卓安（重庆）律师事务所","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F13\u002F3df2920f-f2e5-4b8d-ae33-50efa7329c5d.png","2026-10-12 13:59:59","罗杨",[266],{"id":258,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":264,"position":236,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":267,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},"\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F20\u002F71393bb0-30d8-4028-ad17-529bfa81f91d.jpg",{"id":269,"createdAt":226,"updatedAt":226,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"lawyerId":270,"city":271,"caseType":272,"title":273,"thumbnail":274,"content":10,"publishTime":275,"sort":31,"status":6,"lawyerNames":276,"lawyers":277},787,98,"深圳市宝安区看守所","非法经营罪","2026年10月12日 彭乐程 非法经营罪——卓安（深圳）律师事务所","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F13\u002Fd8cbbe6b-17e3-472d-8660-19788cf7258d.png","2026-10-12 13:59:15","彭乐程",[278],{"id":270,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":276,"position":236,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":279,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},"\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F09\u002F09\u002F3e3833d3-0396-48d7-9b5f-7729393a0976.jpg",{"id":281,"createdAt":226,"updatedAt":226,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"lawyerId":282,"city":283,"caseType":284,"title":285,"thumbnail":286,"content":10,"publishTime":287,"sort":31,"status":6,"lawyerNames":288,"lawyers":289},786,10,"深圳市罗湖区人民检察院","猥亵儿童罪","2026年10月12日 陈志伟 猥亵儿童罪——卓安（深圳）律师事务所","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F13\u002F8b14a2f4-88d1-4d09-a2e1-385982107474.png","2026-10-12 13:58:30","陈志伟",[290],{"id":282,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":288,"position":236,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":291,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},"\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F06\u002Fd8b580fc-0c38-493a-aa21-2e3b581a7b9e.png",40,[],[295,300,305,310,315,320],{"id":40,"createdAt":296,"updatedAt":297,"deleted":31,"code":298,"name":299,"summary":32,"displayTags":10,"icon":32,"thumbnail":10,"content":10,"sort":31,"status":6},"2026-08-17 10:39:04","2026-10-13 16:28:19","XINGSHIHEGUI","服务品质",{"id":6,"createdAt":27,"updatedAt":301,"deleted":31,"code":302,"name":303,"summary":32,"displayTags":10,"icon":304,"thumbnail":10,"content":10,"sort":6,"status":6},"2026-10-13 16:28:13","criminal","服务范围","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F07\u002Fca98263c-68cd-4768-8c9e-ccc0086eade9.jpg",{"id":38,"createdAt":27,"updatedAt":306,"deleted":31,"code":307,"name":308,"summary":32,"displayTags":10,"icon":309,"thumbnail":10,"content":10,"sort":38,"status":6},"2026-10-13 16:29:23","key_crime","服务方式","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F07\u002F5df41c7a-813a-48db-8eb7-057f5019ab32.jpg",{"id":35,"createdAt":27,"updatedAt":311,"deleted":31,"code":312,"name":313,"summary":32,"displayTags":10,"icon":314,"thumbnail":10,"content":10,"sort":35,"status":6},"2026-10-13 16:29:52","corporate","服务流程","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F07\u002F40c30169-fc75-40bc-a144-8f9b4261f108.jpg",{"id":185,"createdAt":316,"updatedAt":317,"deleted":31,"code":318,"name":319,"summary":32,"displayTags":10,"icon":32,"thumbnail":10,"content":10,"sort":43,"status":6},"2026-10-13 16:30:32","2026-10-13 16:30:42","fuwutiyan","服务体验",{"id":212,"createdAt":321,"updatedAt":321,"deleted":31,"code":322,"name":323,"summary":32,"displayTags":10,"icon":32,"thumbnail":10,"content":10,"sort":40,"status":6},"2026-10-13 16:31:42","fuwushoufei","服务收费原则","卓安以刑事专业能力为企业提供风险识别、合规治理、专项培训与危机处置支持，帮助企业在复杂经营环境中守住法律底线。",[326,329,332,335],{"value":327,"label":328},"8000+","成功案例",{"value":330,"label":331},"600+","锦旗感谢",{"value":333,"label":334},"100+","法律服务产品",{"value":336,"label":337},"6","全国分所",[339,342,345],{"title":340,"desc":341},"刑事诉讼类服务","律师会见、法律咨询、专家论证、案件指导\u002F协作、立案\u002F取保\u002F不起诉\u002F无罪\u002F罪轻等全阶段辩护。",{"title":343,"desc":344},"刑事风控类服务","风控计划、风控评估、执法调查应对、企业全生命周期刑事风控与重点行业\u002F领域风控。",{"title":346,"desc":347},"刑事普法类服务","政策宣讲、知识付费、轻法服务（线上咨询、文书范本、解决方案）等上百项精准化产品。",{"title":349,"description":13,"keywords":350,"canonical":351,"image":10,"jsonLd":352},"四川卓安律师事务所 - 专注刑事辩护的专业律所","刑事辩护,律师事务所,四川卓安","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F",[353],{"@context":354,"@graph":355},"https:\u002F\u002Fschema.org",[356,362],{"@type":357,"@id":358,"url":351,"name":7,"inLanguage":359,"publisher":360},"WebSite","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#website","zh-CN",{"@id":361},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#organization",{"@type":363,"@id":361,"name":7,"url":351,"logo":364,"image":364,"description":13,"telephone":16,"email":10,"foundingDate":20,"taxID":10,"inLanguage":359,"address":365,"geo":368,"department":370},"LegalService","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F07\u002F083753d8-b587-4105-a0e2-9da8eacdcfd5.png",{"@type":366,"streetAddress":17,"addressCountry":367},"PostalAddress","CN",{"@type":369,"latitude":19,"longitude":18},"GeoCoordinates",[371,376,380,384,388,392],{"@type":372,"@id":373,"name":53,"image":10,"telephone":16,"address":374,"parentOrganization":375},"LocalBusiness","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#branch-chengdu",{"@type":366,"streetAddress":17},{"@id":361},{"@type":372,"@id":377,"name":58,"image":10,"telephone":32,"address":378,"parentOrganization":379},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#branch-kunming",{"@type":366,"streetAddress":59},{"@id":361},{"@type":372,"@id":381,"name":63,"image":10,"telephone":32,"address":382,"parentOrganization":383},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#branch-shenzheng",{"@type":366,"streetAddress":64},{"@id":361},{"@type":372,"@id":385,"name":68,"image":10,"telephone":32,"address":386,"parentOrganization":387},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#branch-chongqing",{"@type":366,"streetAddress":69},{"@id":361},{"@type":372,"@id":389,"name":73,"image":10,"telephone":32,"address":390,"parentOrganization":391},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#branch-dazhou",{"@type":366,"streetAddress":74},{"@id":361},{"@type":372,"@id":393,"name":79,"image":10,"telephone":32,"address":394,"parentOrganization":395},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#branch-xining",{"@type":366,"streetAddress":80},{"@id":361},{"entity":397,"seo":408},{"id":398,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":399,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":32,"seoDescription":32,"seoKeywords":32,"schemaExtra":10,"typeId":40,"title":400,"thumbnail":401,"content":402,"publishTime":403,"sort":10,"status":10,"newsType":404},817,"2026-10-15 10:28:02","一个人涉嫌犯罪，到底该不该先关进看守所？","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F15\u002F9a033bff-1087-4e5c-9d55-69754c8df754.png","\u003Ch2 style=\"text-align: justify;\">【摘要】在“轻罪时代”，我国判处三年（含）有期徒刑以下刑罚及不起诉的轻微犯罪占比已达85.2%，但侦查前端“先刑拘、再提捕”的办案惯性依然突出。本文结合最高人民检察院最新司法统计数据、《刑事诉讼法》逮捕法定要件及四川卓安律师事务所首席律师成安博士团队的亲办案例，深度剖析审前羁押功能异化的成因，阐明“以自由为原则、以羁押为例外”的现代法治底线，并为涉案人员家属提供“黄金37天”与捕后救济的实操路径。\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">  \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">在中国，有超过2300个在用看守所。每年有数十万名犯罪嫌疑人走入高墙，但其中相当一部分人，最终等来的是不批捕、不起诉、缓刑，甚至是无罪判决。这意味着，从结果回溯，许多人原本不必被关进去，或者不该被羁押那么久。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">那么，人刚被带走，法院还没定罪，为什么不能先取保候审？审前羁押，究竟应当是刑事司法的“常态”，还是“例外”？\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cstrong>01\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh3>\u003Ch3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cstrong>“轻罪时代”的司法反差\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh3>\u003Ch3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(43, 45, 49); background-color: rgb(252, 252, 252);\">\u003Cstrong>85.2%的轻微犯罪与前端羁押惯性\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fh3>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">法学界与实务界早已达成共识：我国刑事犯罪结构已发生深刻变化，全面进入“轻罪时代”。最高人民检察院2026年3月发布的《刑事检察工作白皮书（2025）》显示，2025年全国检察机关受理审查起诉175.94万人；从案件处理结果看，相对不起诉、附条件不起诉、判处三年（含）有期徒刑以下刑罚共149.7万人，占全部审结人数的85.2%。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">然而，与轻罪高占比形成鲜明反差的，是长期存在的审前羁押惯性。回溯过往数据，我国提请逮捕后的批捕率曾长期徘徊在80%左右，早年审前羁押率一度超过60%。近年来，随着“少捕慎诉慎押”刑事司法政策的推进，检察环节的把关明显趋严——全国诉前羁押率已从2020年的42.1%降至30%以下；2025年，全国检察机关批准和决定逮捕66.42万人，不批捕32.56万人，不捕率保持在34.1%，其中因“无逮捕必要”不捕的达14.34万人，占不捕总人数的44.1%。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">尽管检察院阶段的羁押率显著下降，但刑事诉讼最前端的侦查羁押惯性依然顽固。多项法学实证调研表明，许多地区侦查机关在提请批捕时的先行刑事拘留率仍维持在90%以上。一边是占比超过85%的轻微犯罪，另一边却是侦查前端“先刑拘、再提捕”的路径依赖。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">最高检曾通报过一起典型案例：浙江临海某文化传播公司法定代表人周某，因涉嫌虚开增值税专用发票罪被批准逮捕，导致公司500余万元应收账款无法收回、员工工资无法支付，企业濒临倒闭。直到辩护律师申请羁押必要性审查，临海市检察院组织人大代表、政协委员及人民监督员开展公开审查，才认定周某系初犯，认罪认罚且已退回大部分违法所得，无继续羁押必要，遂建议公安机关将其变更为取保候审并获采纳。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cstrong>中国刑事司法“轻罪化”与审前羁押现状及辩护实务对照表\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ctable style=\"width: auto;\">\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">\u003Cstrong>核心指标维度\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">\u003Cstrong>权威统计数据（最新口径）\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">\u003Cstrong>数据来源与统计口径\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">\u003Cstrong>司法实务解读与辩护启示（成安博士团队视角）\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">\u003Cstrong>轻微犯罪整体占比\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">\u003Cstrong>85.2%\u003C\u002Fstrong>（相对不起诉、附条件不起诉、判处三年〔含〕有期徒刑以下刑罚共 149.7 万人）\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">最高人民检察院《刑事检察工作白皮书（2025）》（2026年3月发布）\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">我国已全面进入“轻罪时代”，绝大多数涉案人员在实体判决结果上并不需要长期监禁。\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">\u003Cstrong>侦查前端报捕刑拘率\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">\u003Cstrong>90%以上\u003C\u002Fstrong>（多地实证调研样本）\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">法学界关于刑事拘留制度运行实证研究\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">侦查最前端仍存在强烈的“先刑拘、再提捕”办案惯性，家属须在被带走第一时间寻求专业介入。\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">\u003Cstrong>检察机关审查不捕率\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">\u003Cstrong>34.1%\u003C\u002Fstrong>（2025年批捕 66.42 万人，不批捕 32.56 万人；其中“无逮捕必要”不捕 14.34 万人，占 \u003Cstrong>44.1%\u003C\u002Fstrong>）\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">最高人民检察院《刑事检察工作白皮书（2025）》（2026年3月发布）\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">超三分之一的提请批捕案件在检察院审查阶段被拦截；把握批捕前黄金窗口开展“社会危险性”抗辩极为关键。\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">\u003Cstrong>全国诉前羁押率演变\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">从早年\u003Cstrong>超60%\u003C\u002Fstrong>、2020年\u003Cstrong>42.1%\u003C\u002Fstrong>，降至近年\u003Cstrong>30%以下\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">最高人民检察院历年工作报告及刑事检察白皮书\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">“少捕慎诉慎押”政策在检察环节成效显著，即便已被批捕，后续启动羁押必要性审查仍具充足制度空间。\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">\u003Cstrong>捕后无罪及不诉占比\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">\u003Cstrong>0.29%\u003C\u002Fstrong>（2025年捕后法定不起诉 285 人、证据不足不起诉 1585 人、判决无罪 107 人，合计仅 1977 人）\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">最高人民检察院《刑事检察工作白皮书（2025）》（2026年3月发布）\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"auto\">一旦被批准逮捕，“实报实销”考核倒逼压力剧增，捕后无罪化纠错难度呈指数级上升，防御重心必须前移。\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">在卓安团队承办的大量经济犯罪与职务犯罪案件中，这类因“构罪即押”惯性让企业与家庭陷入绝境的情况同样屡见不鲜。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">例如，我们曾承办某公司董事长涉嫌职务侵占案，以及某大型高科技企业涉嫌非法经营案，案发初期当事人均面临严峻的羁押与追诉风险，一旦长期关押，企业经营将瞬间停摆。团队介入后，第一时间会见核实案情，围绕核心书证与商业模式展开穿透式审查，证实当事人既无非法占有目的，亦无逃跑、串供的社会危险性，最终分别推动公安机关作出撤案决定、检察机关作出不起诉决定，保住了企业的正常运转。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">而在另一起信用卡诈骗案中，当事人在被批准逮捕后委托我们辩护，团队通过全面阅卷与证据抗辩，与检察官充分沟通，最终促使检方依法作出不起诉决定，让当事人走出看守所重获自由。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">实务经验反复证明：一旦启动实质性审查，许多在押人员根本不具备法定的羁押条件。这不禁令人追问：公权力究竟凭什么去关押一个尚未被定罪的人？\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"> \u003Cimg src=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F15\u002F8e693147-4c1d-489d-a893-ff4745152c34.jpg\" alt=\"\" data-href=\"\" style=\"\">\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cstrong>02\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh3>\u003Ch3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cstrong>被架空的法定门槛\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh3>\u003Ch3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cstrong>当“可能”沦为逮捕的万能口袋\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh3>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">我国《刑事诉讼法》第八十一条第一款明确规定了批准逮捕的三大法定要件：证据条件（有证据证明有犯罪事实）、刑罚条件（可能判处徒刑以上刑罚）以及社会危险性条件（采取取保候审尚不足以防止发生社会危险性）。前两个条件解决的是“够不够格”，第三个条件才真正决定“该不该押”。法律将“社会危险性”严格细化为五种具体情形：\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">1.可能实施新的犯罪的；\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">2.有危害国家安全、公共安全或者社会秩序的现实危险的；\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">3.可能毁灭、伪造证据，干扰证人作证或者串供的；\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">4.可能对被害人、举报人、控告人实施打击报复的；\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">5.企图自杀或者逃跑的。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">在占案件绝大多数的普通轻罪案件中（排除可能判处十年有期徒刑以上刑罚、曾故意犯罪或身份不明等特殊法定情形），只有确有证据证明犯罪嫌疑人存在上述五种情形之一，才具备逮捕的必要性。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">但在司法实践中，严格的举证责任常演变为办案机关的“反向推定”：外地户籍就推定“可能逃跑”；有前科劣迹就推定“可能再犯”；未达成赔偿谅解就推定“可能打击报复”；对部分指控提出辩解就推定“可能串供”。当抽象的“可能”成了无所不包的万能理由，法定的逮捕门槛便在无形中被架空了。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cstrong>03\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh3>\u003Ch3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cstrong>羁押功能的异化\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh3>\u003Ch3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cstrong>侦查工具、谈判筹码与“实报实销”\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh3>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">为什么办案部门总是倾向于先把人关起来？北京大学法学院陈瑞华教授在《未决羁押制度的理论反思》中指出：我国未决羁押的功能发生了严重的“异化”。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">本来，审前羁押唯一合法的目的是防止逃跑、串供，即“程序保全”。但在实践中，它却往往异化为“侦查工具”与“谈判筹码”：把人关进看守所，随提随审最为便利，不交代问题就继续押着，这叫“羁押侦查化”；人被关押后，家属心急如焚，办案机关借此督促退赃退赔，退了赃才好谈取保，这叫“羁押筹码化”。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">更隐蔽的阻力来自办案考核的倒逼。正如陈瑞华教授等学者所剖析的“实报实销”潜规则：若一名嫌疑人已被逮捕羁押，最终却宣告无罪、不起诉或判处缓刑，常会在内部评查中被视为办案质量存疑。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">《刑事检察工作白皮书（2025）》的数据也印证了这种高强度绑定：2025年全国捕后法定不起诉285人、证据不足不起诉1585人、判决无罪107人，合计仅1977人，占捕后审结人数的0.29%。在考核压力下，“押多久判多久”往往成为妥协的结果，审前羁押反过来绑架了终局量刑。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cstrong>04\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh3>\u003Ch3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cstrong>回到常识与法理\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh3>\u003Ch3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cstrong>不看罪名轻重，只看危险证据\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh3>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">扭转这种惯性，首先是因为现代法治的基石是“无罪推定”。意大利刑法学家贝卡利亚在《论犯罪与刑罚》中写道：“在法官判决之前，一个人是不能被称为罪犯的。”中国政法大学卞建林教授亦多次指出，受无罪推定原则制约，未决羁押所限制和剥夺的，是法律上应被视为无罪公民的基本人身自由权利；按照比例原则，能用取保候审解决的，绝不应动用羁押。联合国《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》第九条第三款同样明确规定：“等候审判的人受监禁不应作为一般规则。”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">著名的美国辛普森案便是最直观的例证。1994年，辛普森在杀妻案中携现金、护照和手枪上演公路驾车逃亡，因存在确凿的逃跑风险，法官裁定不得保释。而2007年9月，辛普森因涉嫌持枪抢劫和绑架等重罪在拉斯维加斯再次被捕，面临终身监禁。尽管罪名极重，但检方拿不出他企图逃跑或威胁证人的具体证据，法院仍准许他缴纳12.5万美元保释金回家候审，仅要求上交护照、禁止接触证人与同案犯；直到两个月后他试图通过担保人向同案犯传话、触碰“干扰证人”红线，法院才于2008年1月将其收监。一押一放再收监，底层逻辑只有一个：是否羁押，不看罪名有多重，只看有没有实打实的危险证据。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">即便算一笔现实账，过度羁押同样代价沉重：一是看守所内初犯与累犯同室，极易造成犯罪伎俩的“交叉感染”；二是一旦收押，当事人的工作、企业与家庭关系将遭受不可逆的“负面标签”损害；三是看守所运行全靠财政支出，把本可正常工作纳税、照顾家庭的人关押起来，既增加了司法成本，又减损了社会产出。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cstrong>05\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh3>\u003Ch3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cstrong>技术破局与权利救济\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh3>\u003Ch3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cstrong>在自由的博弈中走出误区\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh3>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">办案人员常有顾虑：万一把人放出去跑了、或者导致取证困难怎么办？如今，从浙江发源并推广至多地公检法系统的“非羁码”监管平台与电子手环，通过实时定位、电子围栏预警和人脸识别签到，实现了全天候“云监管”，证明了“不予羁押，也能管得住”。同时，司法机关广泛应用的大数据办案模型与电子证据分析中枢，让海量资金流水、通讯记录和行为轨迹自动交叉印证。当客观证据取代口供成为核心，靠羁押取证的理由也就彻底消失了。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">那如果家人真的被关进了看守所，家属究竟该怎么办？\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cstrong>首先，要走出“待宰羔羊”与“关系捞人”的心理误区。\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">很多家庭容易陷入“被抓就肯定有罪”的绝望，甚至病急乱投医去轻信所谓“花钱找关系捞人”，不仅虚掷钱财，更错失救济良机。事实上，在法院生效判决前，当事人完全有权依法申请变更强制措施。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cstrong>其次，要牢牢把握“黄金37天”与捕后救济权。\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">刑事拘留至检察院审查批捕的法定期限（最长37天，普通案件往往在10至14天内即见分晓），是阻击批捕的黄金救援窗口；哪怕已被逮捕，法律也明确规定了捕后的羁押必要性审查制度。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">在卓安的标准化办案流程中，我们针对此类案件坚持采用“控、辩、审、学四维办案视角”——在第一时间预约会见、核实到案经过与讯问情况后，由原检察官背景律师拆解控方批捕逻辑、辩护律师构建社会危险性否定证据体系、原法官背景律师校准裁判思路、法学博士与高校教授提供理论支撑，出具书面的案情研判意见与办案方案，指导家属收集固定住所、稳定工作、退赔谅解等扎实证据，去精准击碎“可能危险”的主观推定。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"> \u003Cimg src=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F15\u002F451ecbdf-e90f-497b-afc2-af0f41d815f7.jpg\" alt=\"\" data-href=\"\" style=\"\">\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">德国法学家耶林在《为权利而斗争》中写道：“法的目标是和平，而实现和平的手段是斗争。”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">审前羁押制度的变革，就是一场关于自由的法治博弈。当技术已能保障非羁押的安全可控，以自由为原则、以羁押为例外，就应成为司法的常态。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">为生命辩护，为自由辩护，守护审前自由的底线，守护的就是我们每一个普通人自己。\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">专注刑事，更专注人的价值——卓安律师事务所24小时刑事急救电话：18884125005\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: justify;\">地址：四川省成都市高新区天府二街138号蜀都中心1期1号楼19楼\u003C\u002Fp>","2026-10-15 10:26:55",{"id":40,"createdAt":27,"updatedAt":27,"deleted":31,"code":405,"name":406,"icon":407,"sort":40,"status":6,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10},"regulation","行业分类","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F14\u002F6090a22a-a741-4cbb-b6b7-164e2b87af4d.png",{"title":409,"description":410,"keywords":32,"canonical":411,"image":401,"jsonLd":412},"一个人涉嫌犯罪，到底该不该先关进看守所？ - 行业分类 | 四川卓安律师事务所","【摘要】在“轻罪时代”，我国判处三年（含）有期徒刑以下刑罚及不起诉的轻微犯罪占比已达85.2%，但侦查前端“先刑拘、再提捕”的办案惯性依然突出。本文结合最高人民检察院最新司法统计数据、《刑事诉讼法》逮捕法定要件及四川卓安律师事务所首席律师成安博士团队的亲办案例，深度剖析审前羁押功能异化的成因，阐明“以自由为原则、以羁押","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002Fnews\u002Fregulation\u002F817",[413],{"@context":354,"@graph":414},[415,422],{"@type":416,"@id":411,"url":411,"headline":400,"description":410,"datePublished":417,"dateModified":418,"author":419,"publisher":420,"articleSection":406,"inLanguage":359,"image":421},"NewsArticle","2026-10-15T10:26:55+08:00","2026-10-15T10:28:02+08:00",{"@id":361},{"@id":361},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F15\u002F9a033bff-1087-4e5c-9d55-69754c8df754.png",{"@type":423,"itemListElement":424},"BreadcrumbList",[425,428,430],{"@type":426,"position":6,"name":427,"item":351},"ListItem","首页",{"@type":426,"position":38,"name":406,"item":429},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002Fnews\u002Fregulation",{"@type":426,"position":35,"name":400,"item":411}]