An internal investigation is underway regarding a case where police, while investigating a counterfeit Wuliangye Yibin Co.,Ltd. liquor case, seized 159 bottles of Kweichow Moutai Co.,Ltd. product, which later showed signs of missing items and empty bottles.
In 2023, police from Gong County, Yibin, Sichuan, traveled to Shenyang to investigate counterfeit Wuliangye. However, they seized 159 bottles of Moutai from merchant Mr. He. The police later referred the case to prosecutors, alleging Mr. He was involved in selling counterfeit alcohol. In May of this year, during an inspection at the Gong County Public Security Bureau's Food, Drug, and Environment Crime Investigation unit, Mr. He discovered several high-value Moutai bottles were missing, and some had been opened and emptied. On June 17, staff from the Yibin Public Security Bureau's Supervision and Audit unit responded that an "internal investigation is being conducted."
Initial Point of Contention: The Seizure Itself
Firstly, the Moutai liquor should not have been seized. The merchant's alleged involvement in selling counterfeit liquor is a separate matter warranting investigation and potential penalties. However, police must strictly adhere to legal regulations and procedures. Since the investigation targeted counterfeit Wuliangye, the Moutai bottles lack the necessary "relevance" in an evidentiary sense and should not have been confiscated.
As early as 2017, joint regulations issued by the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security mandated that authorities must not "exceed their authority, scope, amount, or time limits in sealing, seizing, or freezing assets." In 2021, the Ministry of Public Security's "Seven Provisions" prohibiting profit-driven law enforcement further required strict distinction between illegal gains, legitimate property, and other involved assets.
Illegal proceeds should be confiscated, and evidence of crimes should be seized. However, legitimate property belonging to involved parties should not be subject to abusive seizure measures. Employing a "catch-all" approach in investigations can disrupt normal business operations, potentially causing enterprise failure before a case is concluded. This undermines a healthy business environment and constitutes an extra-legal penalty for the companies involved.
Subsequent Issue: The Missing Inventory
Secondly, the Moutai liquor should not have gone missing. According to procedural rules for criminal cases handled by public security organs, seized items must be counted and registered on-site, sealed throughout the process, and stored in dedicated facilities under specialized custody. No one is permitted to privately open, use, or dispose of seized evidence. The reality, however, is that the 159 seized bottles of Moutai were stored haphazardly, with some opened and emptied. Who opened the bottles? Was the liquor consumed? The implementation of seizure measures by police is a serious matter, carrying responsibility for the security of the items and accountability to their rightful owners.
The integrity of material evidence is a cornerstone of judicial fairness. Legitimate property unrelated to a case should not be seized; once seized, authorities are responsible for that property, strictly following procedures for inventory, storage, registration, and preservation. The 159 bottles of Moutai represent significant value and should not "disappear" from a serious law enforcement setting.
The initiation of an internal investigation by local police is the first step in restoring public trust. The public expects a comprehensive investigation to clarify the reasons for the missing liquor and empty bottles, fully disclose warehouse management and personnel performance, clarify potential responsibilities for dereliction of duty, and hold relevant individuals accountable according to the law.
Law enforcement power is granted by the people and must not be used for private gain. The red lines against profit-driven enforcement previously outlined by the Ministry of Public Security serve as both constraint and promise—prohibiting the abuse of seizure measures and, more importantly, any improper handling of seized items. This case of the missing Moutai tests the true standard of standardized law enforcement at the grassroots level.
Comments