To dispel suspicions of "profit-driven law enforcement," more clear and convincing evidence is required.
Recently, a cross-provincial anti-counterfeiting case has drawn public attention. In May 2023, police from Gongxian County in Yibin, Sichuan, traveled to Shenyang, Liaoning, to investigate a case involving counterfeit Wuliangye Yibin Co.,Ltd. (000858) products. However, without finding any fake Wuliangye, they seized 159 bottles of Kweichow Moutai Co.,Ltd. (600519) from a shop owned by a Mr. He. Under police arrangement, Mr. He paid 220,000 yuan to Wuliangye Yibin Co.,Ltd. to reach a settlement, yet he was still prosecuted two years later. During the trial, Mr. He repeatedly applied to inspect and authenticate the seized liquor, but all requests were denied. It was not until May this year that Mr. He was finally permitted to inspect the police storage facility, where he discovered that nearly one-third of the seized Moutai bottles were either missing or had been opened with liquor missing. To his further surprise, an auxiliary police officer involved in the case admitted that the operation was actually "profit-driven law enforcement," tied to police performance metrics.
In response, the Yibin Municipal Public Security Bureau quickly issued a statement, announcing the formation of a special working group to investigate. The statement briefly outlined the case handling process and the inspection of the seized goods, noting that "detailed case facts and results are subject to court adjudication." It also stated that issues such as "non-standard language" in the handling process would be rectified immediately, and that any personnel found to have violated rules or discipline would be held strictly accountable.
The Yibin Public Security Bureau's direct response to media scrutiny is commendable. However, a careful reading of the statement reveals that it largely does not directly address the contents of the report, or the responses provided are insufficient to refute the report's claims, with some aspects even raising new questions. To completely clear suspicions of "profit-driven law enforcement," the Yibin Public Security Bureau, or a higher-level investigation team, must provide more clear and convincing proof.
Based on the report and the official statement, at least the following four questions remain unanswered:
Key Questions
First, why was the case officially registered three months after the enforcement action? The report indicates that the criminal investigation case file submitted by the procuratorate shows the official case registration date was August 8, 2023, but Gongxian police had already conducted cross-provincial enforcement in May of the same year. The official statement describes the case handling process but does not deny the key fact of "enforcement before registration," merely clarifying the registration date as August 7. The Criminal Procedure Law and related regulations explicitly prohibit the seizure, impoundment, or freezing of property before a case is officially registered. What is the reason for this "act first, formalize later" approach?
Second, why did police negotiate compensation on behalf of a company, and why were police names listed on the company's authentication document? The report shows that despite not finding counterfeit Wuliangye, the handling police allegedly threatened the shop owner with "detention for interrogation" and then negotiated a settlement compensation of several hundred thousand yuan on behalf of Wuliangye Yibin Co.,Ltd.. Furthermore, the authentication certificate issued by Wuliangye Yibin Co.,Ltd. listed police officers' names in the authenticator section. Additionally, an officer initially involved in the case who directly negotiated the price with the shop owner was absent from the "list of handling personnel" in the investigation case file. The official statement did not respond to these suggestive details, only stating that "during the case handling process, the suspect He reached an agreement with the company on bearing infringement liability, and the compensation was not transferred into a public security organ account."
Third, can the authenticity and legality of the case materials withstand scrutiny? According to the report, the shop owner and his defense lawyer raised doubts about the authenticity and legality of several case documents. These include: the lack of audio or video evidence to support the police interrogation record of Mr. He; a version of an evidence extraction record presented during the trial that had added witness signatures and fingerprints compared to the original; discrepancies in Mr. He's signature across multiple records; and the indictment accusing Mr. He of "knowingly" selling counterfeit goods despite a supplier's statement that Mr. He was unaware of the adulteration. The Yibin Public Security Bureau's statement did not address these challenges, which directly concern the factual basis of the charges and procedural justice.
Fourth, why are the accounts of the seized liquor's missing or damaged status so vastly different? According to the report, on May 20 this year, Mr. He and his wife, accompanied by their lawyer, went to the police warehouse to inspect the seized liquor. "Under the witness of police officers, they discovered multiple bottles of high-value Moutai were missing, some Moutai bottles had been opened and were empty, and others only contained half the liquor... nearly one-third of the 159 bottles of Moutai were either missing or had been opened with liquor missing." The inspection process was recorded on video. However, the official statement indicates that at the original search scene, the authenticating unit only examined the external packaging of all seized items and retained 6 bottles as samples for authentication, with the remaining 153 bottles packed and transported back to the Gongxian County Public Security Bureau. The statement now claims that upon "verification," during the recent unpacking and inspection, "the batch of liquor remained in the packaging state from the time of seizure." The two accounts are clearly contradictory. Does the statement that "the batch of liquor remained in the packaging state from the time of seizure" refute the shop owner's claim, implying that "missing or damage never occurred"? Or is it a "technical expression," with the truth being that "the missing or damage occurred before the goods were packed and transported back to Sichuan"?
Need for a Clear Verdict
These four questions do not allow for ambiguous interpretations like "different understandings"; there can only be one truth. If the shop owner's account is accurate and case handlers indeed violated rules, then all relevant personnel should be held strictly accountable to protect the shop owner's interests and judicial integrity. If the shop owner intentionally distorted facts or the media reported false news, they should bear the respective consequences and clear the police's name. Regardless of the final investigation conclusion, one point remains clear: police must not illegally seize property in any case, and they cannot arbitrarily dispose of seized property.
Regulations, including the 2017 Supreme People's Procuratorate and Ministry of Public Security's "Several Provisions on Handling Economic Crime Cases by Public Security Organs" and the 2021 Ministry of Public Security's "Seven Provisions Prohibiting Profit-Driven Law Enforcement in Public Security Organs," explicitly prohibit exceeding authority, scope, amount, or time limits in sealing, seizing, or freezing涉案财物 (property involved in a case). The 2012 "Regulations on the Procedures for Handling Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs" require that sealed or seized property, its fruits, and documents be properly preserved by public security organs for verification, and that no unit or individual may use, exchange, damage, or dispose of them without authorization. The actions of the Gongxian police in seizing the shop owner's Moutai, and whether they fulfilled their duty of proper custody afterward, also await an authoritative conclusion.
Undoubtedly, this cross-provincial enforcement incident has attracted public attention primarily because it is suspected of being another instance of "profit-driven law enforcement" or "distant-water fishing." Without clarifying the above four疑点 (doubtful points), it is difficult to dispel such suspicions. "Profit-driven law enforcement" and "distant-water fishing," which aim to generate revenue through fines and confiscations, abuse public power to target businesses. This not only damages the business environment but also undermines government credibility, acting as a毒瘤 (cancerous tumor) that harms the economy. Central authorities have repeatedly prohibited such practices, and local governments must remain highly vigilant. It is expected that relevant departments will promptly ascertain the truth of this incident, address any violations of laws and regulations, restore clarity to the rule of law, and provide an explanation to the public.
Comments