After placing their order at Jinding Xuan, the food still hadn’t arrived—perhaps because their loud and disruptive behavior had already caught the attention of a nearby table: two men and one woman who clearly weren’t pleased with the commotion. They began glaring in Li’s direction, instantly setting him off. In a fit of anger, Li stood up and erupted into a tirade, snapping, "What are you staring at? If you’ve got the guts, come over here!" To everyone’s surprise, the two men didn’t back down—they actually stepped forward, undeterred by the larger group. What followed was chaos: both sides grabbed chairs and tables, swinging them wildly as the brawl broke out. But after just a few moments, six of Li’s men found themselves hopelessly outnumbered and forced to flee in panic. Fortunately, the restaurant’s video surveillance captured the entire chaotic exchange.

The cases and individuals or events described in this article are entirely fictional, created solely to help the author convey their intended message. However, anyone who might choose to relate these elements to real-life situations can interpret them as if they actually occurred in specific contexts.

First, spend a few words introducing the case background, as well as the basic facts that can be gleaned from documents such as case files, meeting transcripts, courtroom records, and public opinion.

Fast forward seven or eight years, and a creative buzzword—“Li Momo”—emerged in the media. In this particular story, however, we’ve opted for “Li Mou,” deliberately avoiding any overlap with that popular term. Li Mou is remarkably young, barely an adult yet, but he already orchestrated the first act of what has become a sensational real-life drama. And now, it’s his young mother who’s stepping into the spotlight for the second act. This tale unfolds like a sprawling American epic—long, intricate, and deeply layered. It stretches from early in the year all the way through to its dramatic conclusion at year-end, weaving together an astonishingly diverse cast of characters: from wealthy second-generation heirs and powerful elites, to glamorous hostesses, police officers, lawyers, judges, even pop stars and media reporters. At the same time, the narrative brims with all the classic elements that define such high-stakes dramas—beauty, ambition, violence, money, and even shadowy conspiracies. One particularly intriguing twist? The storyline itself seemed to defy a fixed script, evolving unpredictably as events unfolded. At times, the plot took unexpected, almost surreal turns—so much so that later on, an outside lawyer named Li himself chimed in on Weibo, claiming the entire saga was masterminded by some mysterious foreign force, designed to smear our country’s own privileged youth. Of course, this lawyer clearly failed to grasp how far society has evolved—and how absurd it would be to suggest that such a scenario could still play out today. His wild claims were swiftly dismissed as baseless nonsense, and he eventually faced official disciplinary action, though details of the punishment remain undisclosed.

Due to its bizarre nature, this case sparked intense online debate throughout the investigation, prosecution review, and courtroom proceedings—so much so that thousands of posts emerged daily. As a result, numerous amateur "Sherlock Holmes" enthusiasts emerged, eagerly following the case's developments, crafting countless speculative theories, and engaging in lively, often heated debates over logic and differing viewpoints. These discussions even led to the formation of rival factions, each passionately debating and competing against one another across various online forums, creating a surprisingly vibrant and animated atmosphere for a time.

Why has this situation arisen? The primary reason is that the case falls under two legally mandated non-disclosure scenarios: one involves rape, which touches on sensitive privacy issues, and the other pertains to a minor, requiring protective measures. These two factors prevent law enforcement and judicial authorities from issuing public clarifications in the media—unlike in other cases—where they could present comprehensive evidence and factual details to address concerns and counter misinformation. Instead, they are left with no choice but to allow certain parties involved and their lawyers to selectively share pieces of evidence and factual information online. This imbalance in information has only fueled public confusion, becoming the root cause behind many people’s inability to form a clear and informed judgment about the case.

Now, let me tell you the story behind this case. In fact, after hearing it, you might find it’s not as complicated as it seems—it’s just that public opinion has made it seem more convoluted than it really is.

The incident occurred late one night, about seven or eight years ago, shortly after the Spring Festival. At the time, Li—a high school student—invited an adult and three minors to head out to a bar for some fun. So, what exactly are their backgrounds? Apart from Li, who comes from a family of celebrity lineage, the others are all children of ordinary citizens. Among them, the second-oldest adult is in his twenties; his parents were laid-off factory workers, and he currently works as a hotel clerk. Several years ago, taking advantage of his position, he helped Li—then just 12 or 13 years old and without proper identification—check into a hotel room, which ultimately led to the two becoming close friends. Next up is Jia, whose family runs a small business. Jia himself attends high school at one of Beijing’s most prestigious institutions. Rounding out the group is Yi, Jia’s classmate, whose parents are both coaches and educators—this is my client. Finally, there’s Bing, who’s currently studying in middle school back in his hometown, far away from the city.

Before the incident, Li had been on vacation in Hainan with his parents. Upon hearing that his friend Bingsheng was coming to Beijing, he immediately flew back to the capital alone. That afternoon, he first joined a group of friends at a bar in Wangfujing for drinks, and then, at around 10 p.m., headed to the airport to pick up Bingsheng. On their way back, Li invited everyone to head to another bar in Zhongguancun. Once they arrived, the five of them settled down, and Li asked server Z—acting exactly as he’d instructed—to bring in one of the club’s hostesses to join them for drinks and conversation. The term "hostess" here is actually quite nuanced; even I didn’t fully grasp its meaning until working on this case. Only then did I realize how rich and layered Chinese vocabulary can be—it essentially refers to what’s legally known as a “three-companion girl.” These women spend an entire evening entertaining guests by drinking and singing together, earning a modest 300-yuan tip for their services. That particular night, however, things didn’t go smoothly. Since it was shortly after the Spring Festival holiday, many hostesses hadn’t yet returned to work. After much effort, Li and his companions finally managed to secure two: Hostess A and Hostess B. Among the two, Hostess B turned out to be more particular—about halfway through the evening, she abruptly left, complaining that Li was being overly domineering, constantly pressuring her to drink despite her reluctance. Meanwhile, Hostess A, who worked part-time while also being officially employed by a contracting company and simultaneously pursuing adult education at a local university, remained for the rest of the night.

After finishing their drinks and singing, Li and the others decided they still needed to give their out-of-town "little brother" Bing Sheng a more thorough welcome—to help him broaden his horizons. So, they approached A, the lone woman who seemed uneasy about being with such a group of imposing figures, each standing well over 1.80 meters tall. A was clearly growing increasingly uncomfortable and hesitant to go out. Seeing no other way to persuade her, Li turned to Z, the experienced waiter who often catered to their needs. Knowing full well that Li was one of Z’s regular, almost sacred, customers—and realizing that the hostess’s business depended heavily on Z’s favor—Z quickly stepped in. With a sly smile, he suggested to A that he’d join them instead, proposing they head out together first for dinner. After all, Li was practically a deity to Z, and the hostess’s livelihood relied on Z’s support. With this clever maneuver, around 3 a.m., the seven of them split into two cars and headed off to the 24-hour Jin Ding Xuan restaurant for a late-night meal.

By the way, this time Li drove the car himself. When you really count it up, that night—from Wangfujing Bar to the airport, then from the airport to Zhongguancun Bar, and finally from Zhongguancun Bar back to Jindingxuan—this was already Li’s third time driving under the influence. But that’s not all; there were two more incidents afterward, though I’ve lost track of exactly how many. Anyway, before this, Li had already been sent to re-education through labor for a year after being caught drunk and physically assaulting someone. Somehow, he managed to get released six months early, only to find himself embroiled in tonight’s incident shortly thereafter. If, according to regulations, he’d served his full re-education term and genuinely reflected on his actions, none of this would have happened today.

After placing their order at Jinding Xuan, the food hadn’t arrived yet—perhaps because their loud and disruptive behavior had already caught the attention of a nearby table: two men and one woman who clearly weren’t pleased with the commotion. They started glaring in李某’s direction, which instantly set李某 off. In a fit of anger,李某 stood up and burst into a tirade, snapping, "What are you staring at? If you’ve got the guts, come over here!" To everyone’s surprise, the two men didn’t back down—they actually approached, undeterred by the larger group. What followed was chaos: both sides grabbed chairs and tables, swinging them wildly as the brawl erupted. But after just a few moments, six of李某’s men found themselves hopelessly outnumbered and forced to flee in panic. Fortunately, the restaurant’s video surveillance captured the entire chaotic exchange.

During this time period, Ms. A, because she had drunk too much, went to the restroom once. When she came back from outside, she dozed off on a nearby table. Later, when she looked up, she saw everyone fighting, and then looked up again to find that people were gone, all had run away. She quickly followed and ran out, afraid that the others would beat the remaining her. Then, these two cars drove one after another to the underground garage of a residence belonging to the Li family. The attendant Z got out of the car and said he had already told the girl and that he was leaving first. Only five people and Ms. A were left in the garage. Everyone got back into the car and started looking for a hotel. On the way to find the hotel, Ms. A gradually sobered up and asked attendant Z that she wanted to go back. But the five people did not allow her to get off the car; some held her hands, some touched her body, and some slapped her mouth. The scuffle almost caused the car to crash into a tree and overturn. Finally, they arrived at a certain building. Mr. Jia used a fake ID to book a room, and everyone helped Ms. A into the room.

After entering the room, Ms. A was unwilling to cooperate in undressing. The five people worked together, using punches and kicks among other means, to remove her clothes. The subsequent process involved someone skillfully having intercourse with Ms. A, while others watched and learned on the spot, both watching porn on their phones and the live scene, finally taking turns to complete the entire process.

After the incident, around 7 a.m., Mr. Li took money from his pocket and found only 500 yuan. He had already spent two to three thousand yuan at the bar earlier, so he asked Mr. Jia for 1,500 yuan and put a total of 2,000 yuan into Ms. A's handbag. Because he was afraid of trouble, he also required Ms. A to leave the hotel with everyone by car. They dropped Ms. A off at an intersection outside. After Ms. A took a taxi and left, she cried nonstop and contacted colleagues from the bar to accompany her to the hospital for an examination, leaving medical evidence.

Soon, someone from the bar called Mr. Li, saying he had raped someone and urged him to come over to discuss. Mr. Li, who had not had a chance to sleep all night and was dozing off at home, angrily cursed, asking why they still wanted money and how shameless they were, saying he had already paid everything and settled the matter, then hung up the phone and turned off his phone to continue sleeping.

Seeing that Mr. Li was unreasonable, the bar staff quickly found Mr. Li's father, a respected veteran artist, and sent a text message saying his son had committed rape and asked to meet and talk. The veteran artist couple were vacationing in the warm climate of Hainan and thought the message was a common scam, so they ignored it. The bar staff then contacted the veteran artist's driver, who said to wait until the leader returned to discuss. The next day, the driver still asked them to wait. On the third day, the driver was unreachable. Losing patience, Ms. A and others went to the police station to file a report. Just as they entered the station and were about to start the report, the veteran artist's driver finally called, saying their leader wanted to meet with them urgently. The bar staff replied that it was already too late and they were filing a report. This less than 10-minute time difference decided the fate of the five young people.

On the midnight of the day the victim filed the report, the police launched an operation to arrest the suspects and surprisingly caught almost all of them easily. It turned out that Mr. Li had brought these people from the airport and picked up another girl, and they were almost all together looking for a hotel.

After being caught, all minors had their parents come over. When the parents arrived, the suspects were interrogated separately but simultaneously. These people basically admitted to the main acts, including the assault. Subsequently, they were interrogated every three to five days, with parents present. Each suspect had at least seven or eight interrogation records, some content repeated, but everyone admitted multiple times to beating the victim.

The above is the basic plot of this story. Before discussing the lawyer's defense strategy and professional ethics, a brief explanation of the issues people care about and discuss is provided below, with more detailed content to be mentioned later.

— What exactly is the victim Ms. A's occupation? As mentioned earlier, she was a part-time hostess who earned money by accompanying customers. A waiter confirmed that she had previously engaged in prostitution. But regardless of her occupation, if she did not consent to sexual transactions at that time and place, the defendants could not force her, so the key is whether there was a situation against her will.

— Why did Ms. A follow multiple men out at midnight and why didn't she escape? As mentioned earlier, due to various factors, perhaps ultimately because life was difficult. If she had been willing to go out voluntarily, the attendant would not have had to persuade and accompany her to eat first.

— Was it a honey trap? A honey trap is a scheme where a group designs for a woman to seduce a man, and after booking a room but before leaving, accomplices appear to catch the man red-handed and then extort money. There is no such scenario in this story. Many people confuse the act of wanting money afterward for a private settlement with a premeditated trap, which is a misunderstanding of the nature.

— Was there any assault on the victim? I asked my own client Mr. B this question during the first meeting. He said there were indeed two instances of assault: once on the way to the hotel and once in the hotel room. However, he himself did not physically participate. I made a meeting record.

— Was there later extortion of money from the Li family? The phone calls and messages only mentioned arranging a meeting to talk, with no mention of money, let alone 500,000 yuan. Moreover, even if money was requested, if it was based on the woman's actual losses (medical fees, lost wages, etc.) and mental damages, a high demand would not be considered extortion.

— Was there any torture or forced confession? This question mainly concerns the second-ranked adult defendant, Mr. Li, who also described it. But records show that during every interrogation, Mr. Li and Mr. Jia, Mr. Yi, and Mr. Bing had guardians present. We reviewed synchronized audio and video recordings, finding only some irregular questioning that did not reach the level of illegal evidence collection, and the interrogation records basically matched the lawyer meeting records.

— Does the defendants' retraction mean the previous evidence was illegally obtained? In some cases, this is possible. In this case, the situation is complicated. The five defendants retracted together during the review and prosecution stage, with almost identical reasons and new facts. When I asked my client why, he said someone in the detention center passed a message asking them to retract together. Parents also confirmed they received the same request. Later, three defendants retracted their retractions during the trial, basically returning to their original statements.

— Did the lawyer 'instruct' the clients to plead guilty? Based on facts and evidence, lawyers can, with the consent of guardians, suggest clients plead guilty and accept punishment. Whether to plead guilty is the client's own decision. Lawyers have no authority to require clients to make any choice.

— Is Mr. Li's ten-year prison sentence too harsh? That is a matter for the court. I also think it is somewhat heavy, considering he is a minor and the special circumstances. Perhaps there were circumstances at the time.

"– Is a not-guilty defense even possible? Setting aside the circumstances at the time, just looking at the initial evidence available then, we already have a complete chain of evidence leaving no room for innocence. No matter how much you try to speculate about the victim’s side, you can’t explain why they wouldn’t simply agree to go straight to the hotel—and certainly can’t justify why they’d hesitate over the daunting task of serving five people simultaneously, ultimately leading to one individual being repeatedly beaten."

"– Is it possible to charge them with a lesser offense, like public indecency or group sexual misconduct? No way. Because there’s no evidence anyone could rule out assault or coercive elements."

With the foundational content outlined above, we will now discuss the lawyer's defense strategy and the related ethical concerns in this case. (To be continued)