Wanmou Company's extortion and damage dispute case
Turning the tables by using the enemy's own strategy against them, seeking a public relations "borrowing a path to conquer Guo."
Quietly shut down the illegal "gift-giving loophole."
I'm ready to help translate your Chinese legal content into professional English for the Shenzhen Zhiming Law Firm website. Please provide the Chinese text you'd like me to translate.Case Review:
With the rapid development of the internet, various media relying on it have emerged, and their influence has grown increasingly significant.
Online media has gained widespread popularity due to its diversified channels of dissemination, the immediacy of its effects, and the universality of its audience. Traditional media is no longer the only channel for audiences to obtain information. The audience scope and dissemination space of newspapers, television, and radio have been attacked, encroached upon, and damaged by online media to varying degrees. More and more people are obtaining information from internet media.
Due to the highly interactive nature of online media, whether it's the early portal websites, the microblogs that were popular two or three years ago, the currently hot WeChat Moments, or the forums and bulletin boards where like-minded people gather, or even small-scale websites claiming to be "specialized," all of them have a wide audience.
However, success and failure come from the same source. Although online media is widely sought after and has broken the previous state of highly asymmetric information, it is often criticized for the chaotic and exaggerated nature of its information, leading to some highly negative and fabricated false dissemination incidents.
In simple terms, audiences can rarely clearly distinguish the truth of the various pieces of information they obtain from these online media, making them susceptible to widespread and profound harm caused by false information and infringement incidents.
It can be said that most online media editors, especially those of self-media accounts like WeChat public accounts, often do not hesitate to use methods such as taking quotes out of context or misattributing them, using exaggerated and sensational headlines to achieve shocking effects and grab attention. Over time, while the information they disseminate gains high click-through rates and attention, its uncertainty, ambiguity, and even falsity often cause immeasurable trouble and damage to the subjects of the information, especially in terms of commercial reputation or personal credit, leading to the occurrence of malicious incidents.
Such hard-to-verify online information or rumors, once they appear, can amass hundreds of thousands of shares within just a few hours, with netizens, including some major influencers, quickly reposting them on Weibo and WeChat Moments.
Although the companies involved have taken legal action against the rumor-mongers and the operators behind the WeChat accounts suspected of spreading rumors, demanding substantial compensation, the damage to the reputation and credibility of the brand products or well-known goods involved is incalculable and may never be fully eliminated for a long time. In some cases, it has even led to the destruction of the relevant enterprises.
So, what is the root cause of the generation and spread of these highly destructive online information or rumors? It is, of course, the interests behind the click-through rates, forwarding volumes, or attention levels!
The immense influence of online information dissemination and rumor spreading mainly stems from the interactivity of the internet. Traditional media rarely allow audiences to voice their opinions on the media platform, whereas the internet opens up channels and interactive platforms for netizens to comment and speak out—the more controversy, the better; the livelier the discussion, the more attention it attracts.
Without having to reveal their names, netizens are eager to express themselves and seek agreement and attention from others, thus they do not hesitate to create sensational online topics. Moreover, many unscrupulous advertising and public relations companies leverage the limitless power of the internet to fabricate and publish eye-catching topics or information for their own enormous gains.
The online world is complex and chaotic, and netizens often lack the ability to discern truth from falsehood. As hot topics continuously attract comments and follow-ups, it is often amidst the clamor of voices and the weight of collective opinion that "online violence" takes shape.
"Cyber violence" refers to online comments made by certain netizens about certain events that have gone beyond normal rationality. This not only results in a moral trial of the individuals involved in the virtual space, but more seriously, the individuals may even face punishment in real life as a result. Many government departments have been held hostage by online public opinion, imposing penalties on the protagonists of hot-button events that are not based on laws and regulations. Reports of this nature are not uncommon.
In such incidents, the biggest beneficiaries are undoubtedly online platforms or self-media that spread false information or rumors, while the victims are the products and their operating companies involved in the rumors, some of which even suffer devastating blows.
The 2013 "Shenzhen Wanmou Company 'Gift-Giving Scandal'" nearly destroyed a once-powerful listed real estate company.
The origin of the matter is as follows:
In early April 2013, the Hubei channel of "China Some Health Network," based in Hubei, was the first to publicly expose and leak the undisclosed "commercial secrets" of Wanmou Company online, under the sensational headline "Shenzhen Wanmou Company's Gift Card List Exposed, Officials Implicated." Shortly thereafter, websites such as Shanmou Government Legal Network, China Economic Network's Hunan channel, and Jingmou Network successively reposted and hyped the story, sparking widespread coverage and reposts by major comprehensive portals including Fengmou Network, Xinmou Network, Sohu, NetEase, and Tencent. This subsequently drew extensive reporting from local television media in Shenzhen and authoritative outlets such as Guangdong's "Newmou Daily" and "Southern Some Newspaper," triggering heated public discussion and significant attention across all sectors of society.
For a time, the senior management of Wanmou Company, accused of bribery and under heavy criticism, were on pins and needles, scrambling like ants on a hot pan.
Not only were the senior executives of Wanmou Company restless and uneasy, but the relevant personnel from various government functional departments and units that had business dealings with Wanmou Company were even more fearful for their own safety.
The top leadership was in a precarious situation, fraught with anxiety and fear, and the entire Wanmou Company nearly ceased all normal operations and administrative affairs. Every day, they had to nervously hold meetings to deal with the overwhelming tide of public criticism, online scolding, and relentless questioning and criticism from the media. The company, which had always maintained a good image, faced an unprecedented crisis of trust and legal risks.
How was this crisis and risk triggered?
The story must start from the beginning.
In March 2008, Wanmou Company welcomed a glib, shrewd, and capable job applicant named Zuo Moumou. Zuo, a native of Hubei Province, was in his prime, with extensive work experience and adept interpersonal skills. Thus, he naturally joined the company and served as the office director. Over the next two years, Zuo performed normally and adequately. By March 2010, Zuo left the company for some reason.
When this office director of Wanmou Company resigned in March 2010, he took advantage of his position in charge of important company documents to pocket and keep many confidential documents signed by the company's chairman and stamped with the company seal.
After three years, Zuo Moumou came to work at the Hubei channel of China Moukang Net. In April 2013, Zuo Moumou suddenly harbored malicious intentions and, conspiring with Liao Mou, the supervisor of the website's Hubei channel, used the "leverage" they held over Wan Mou's company regarding "suspected bribery" to extort a substantial sum from Wan Mou's company.
They first sent copies of the "leverage" to Wan's company via fax, email, and other means, then followed up with phone calls, text messages, emails, and QQ through multiple channels, demanding that Wan's company pay anywhere from 5 million to 50 million yuan to buy back the "leverage."
The senior executives of Wanmou Company were utterly shocked, yet unwilling to yield easily. While urgently verifying the authenticity of these documents internally, they frequently negotiated with the blackmailer who held the "leverage," repeatedly stalling on the exorbitant demands.
Seeing that Wanmou Company did not surrender immediately, the extortionist took the "leverage" (the list of card deliveries) and, under the theme of "Shenzhen Wanmou Company's card delivery list exposed, over a hundred officials implicated," repeatedly and aggressively promoted it on Hubei channel of China's Moukang Net, as well as Shanmou Government Legal Net, China Economic Mou Net's Hunan channel, Jingmou Net, and others, triggering reprints by numerous well-known domestic media outlets such as Fengmou Net and Xinmou Net. This led to the nationally watched "Wanmou Company Gift-Giving Scandal" incident.
The "Wanmou Company Gift-Giving Scandal" erupted in early April 2015 and had escalated to a fever pitch by the end of May, with the extortionist and Wanmou Company locked in a relentless struggle. Wanmou Company mobilized every resource at its disposal to defend itself: from the media to public security, reaching as high as the central propaganda and public security departments, and down to local governments at all levels. The company tirelessly filed complaints and sought help everywhere, leveraging personal connections at every level to smooth things over, hoping that the relevant authorities would take action to crack down on and arrest the extortionist.
Wan Company initially considered reporting to the police, but as a publicly listed company, it feared that once embroiled in controversy, it would be difficult to clear its name, severely damaging its corporate image and potentially triggering stock market turmoil, harming both the company and its investors. Thus, it was hesitant, afraid of courting disaster. As a result, it failed to effectively curb media exposure and public criticism, while the blackmailer, not receiving the expected huge sum, naturally refused to let the matter rest.
The extortionist used various methods such as phone calls, emails, QQ, and websites to intimidate Wanmou Company. Seeing that Wanmou Company refused to yield and pay for peace of mind, the extortionist, frustrated and enraged, teamed up with a media public relations firm to mobilize multiple media outlets, launching a relentless wave of sensational coverage. These deceived journalists and commentators, led by the extortionist and their PR team, continuously produced inflammatory articles, directly accusing the relevant party committees, discipline inspection commissions, and judicial authorities of inaction, with the intent of pressuring the discipline inspection commissions, courts, and legal institutions to take decisive measures and pursue "corrupt practices" or "legal liability" against Wanmou Company and all individuals implicated in the so-called "gift card list"!
For a time, truth and falsehood became indistinguishable, and public opinion surged like turbulent waves. The immense pressure and the sword of "anti-corruption" hanging overhead destroyed the public image of Wanmou Company as a listed company, disrupted its market trading order, and pushed both its business operations and the psychological endurance of its senior management team to the brink of collapse.
At the outset of the confrontation with the blackmailer, around early May, just as the "Wan Company's card delivery list" had been exposed, Wan Company hired a lawyer and entrusted him to negotiate with the blackmailer and their media public relations team. However, this lawyer, in an aggressive and blunt manner, accused and threatened the blackmailer, demanding a public apology and the mitigation of the impact.
This counterattack, born of self-assumed legal knowledge and a lack of awareness of their own predicament, only fueled the blackmailer's aggression further. The media machinery intensified once more, and thus the "Wan Corporation Card Delivery List" incident became a nationwide sensation.
Under the overwhelming wave of public criticism from nationwide media, disciplinary inspection agencies at all levels were compelled to launch a thorough investigation and verification of each individual implicated in the so-called "card-giving list."
In China, where the rule of law and the market economy are not yet fully developed, for business operators, an "inspection" at any time can be the spark that triggers a crisis, potentially blowing the company to pieces.
In times of crisis, the senior management of Wanmou Company sincerely and earnestly requested the services of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm.LawyersThe team, acting as the company's counsel, is fully responsible for resolving the severe legal crisis it faces.
Upon accepting the commission from Wanmou Company, we immediately arranged a meeting with the so-called intermediary on the other side—Liu, the head of a media public relations firm—to "negotiate" a resolution to the "Wanmou Company Gift-Giving Scandal."
During the "negotiation" process with Liu, we determined that he was likely an accomplice of the blackmailer who had attempted extortion. So, we turned the tables and, under the guise of entrusting an intermediary to coordinate with the media and help Wan's company with crisis public relations to counter negative publicity, we sincerely requested a partnership with Liu's media PR firm—indicating that only Liu and his company could help Wan's company overcome its current predicament, and that as long as they could help tide the company over, a handsome reward would naturally follow.
After Liu received the huge bait thrown out by our lawyer on behalf of Wan's company, he immediately toned down his media campaign against Wan's company that very night. Clearly, Liu and his media PR company held high expectations of reaping substantial profits from cooperating with Wan's company.
Seizing on Liu's and the behind-the-scenes "tipster's" willingness to cooperate with Wan's company in exchange for legitimate, generous compensation, I deliberately engaged in repeated bargaining with Liu. Ultimately, in mid-June, Wan's company and Liu's media public relations firm reached a cooperation agreement: Wan's company commissioned Liu's PR firm to help eliminate negative media and public opinion coverage about Wan's company, with total compensation set at one million RMB exactly; an advance payment of 200,000 RMB was to be made first, with Liu's media PR firm tasked to first remove all negative reports about Wan's company remaining on various websites. After these negative reports were completely cleared, the remaining balance would be paid in installments once all potentially existing negative documents and materials were recovered.
After this cooperation agreement was signed, Wanmou Company immediately paid the advance to Liu Mou's media PR company. Upon receiving the advance, the media PR company promptly began work to eliminate negative news about Wanmou Company on major websites.
In about half a month, Liu and his media public relations company did their best to remove negative information about Wan's company from many websites. Of course, a small portion of the negative information could no longer be completely eliminated.
With all previous negative news about Wanmou Company having dissipated and no new scandals surfacing, I saw the time was ripe and immediately shifted from defense to offense, deliberately picking a quarrel with Liu and his media PR company.
We made it clear to Liu and his media PR company that in order to receive the final payment from Wanmou Company, they must expose the person behind the leaks and retrieve all original copies of any potential "leverage" materials in that person's possession. Otherwise, not only would the final payment be withheld, but they would also face being reported and prosecuted for suspected conspiracy to commit extortion.
At first, Liu remained unafraid, believing we had no evidence to report him to the police for suspected extortion. We sternly pointed out to him that the moment he accepted the commission from Wan's company, promised to find the behind-the-scenes whistleblower and recover the "leverage," and formally received the 200,000 RMB advance payment from Wan's company, he had already exposed himself to suspicion of conspiring with the whistleblower in extortion and blackmail! If he did not stop right there and pull back from the brink, we would inevitably follow the trail and hold both him and the behind-the-scenes whistleblower criminally accountable.
Under the deterrence of our lawful actions and the evidence we presented, the intermediary entrusted by the whistleblower—Liu, the head of the media PR firm—found himself in an impossible position, caught between a rock and a hard place. Despite his utmost reluctance, he had no choice but to grudgingly and helplessly accept the reality.
In the end, the uproarious and widely condemned "Wan Company Gift-Gate" incident was quietly resolved through my clever maneuvering, and now it has long since blown over, with clear skies and scattered clouds!
At this moment, Wanmou Company is going all out in its transformation and development, striding confidently along the broad path of lawful and compliant operations.
Proxy Art:
In handling this dispute, we borrowed the strategy of "Borrowing the Road to Conquer Guo," the 24th stratagem from the fourth set, "Stratagems for Chaotic Situations," in the "Thirty-Six Stratagems of the Art of War." By applying legal deterrence and pressure on the intermediary (suspected accomplice) entrusted by the "whistleblower," we aimed to intimidate and strike at the "whistleblower," forcing them to back down and cease their actions!
The reason "Wan Corporation's gift-giving scandal" managed to escape the fierce storm of public opinion and the deadly legal crisis, and quickly turned the tide in an extremely short period, freeing Wan Corporation and its top executives from the mire of anti-corruption investigations and restoring a calm and secure state of existence, is entirely because we seized upon the blackmailer's criminal psychology of being both insatiably greedy and deeply fearful. The whistleblower—the blackmailer—knew full well that using threats to expose others for huge sums of money was illegal, so he dared not reveal his identity or show his face. His intermediary—the head of a media PR firm, Liu—was well aware that the blackmailer's actions constituted a crime, yet willingly aided him due to the prospect of substantial profits. However, once he saw an opportunity to gain legitimate and generous returns, he immediately abandoned his alliance with the blackmailer based on illegal interests. In the end, I turned the tables on him, effortlessly dismantling their scheme to extort massive sums from a listed company under the guise of anti-corruption!
Our attorney, representing Wanmou Company, stated that in order to defuse the negative public opinion impact on the enterprise and strive to improve its image of illegal operations, a tactical compromise agreement was reached with Liu and his media PR company. This reassured both visible and behind-the-scenes opponents, giving them a glimpse of "hope" for victory, and led them to shift to private negotiations with us in a state of anticipation and expectation, thereby completely relaxing their subsequent frontal "attacks." As a result, the media coverage "blaze" they had been continuously fueling with added kindling rapidly and completely "died down." In the end, we forced the intermediary Liu, who had greedily swallowed the bait we cast out, to refrain from continuing to aid the whistleblower like a jackal and from pushing the media to keep hounding and pursuing the "Wanmou Company gift list," all to avoid landing himself in prison. A grand, greed-driven farce suddenly vanished into a world of silence.
In this case, we read the situation carefully and accurately determined that Liu, the head of the media PR company, was clearly suspected of being an accomplice of the behind-the-scenes "whistleblower." Therefore, on behalf of Wanmou Company, we first engaged him with feigned cordiality, skillfully maneuvering while waiting for the right opportunity to break apart his interest alliance with the whistleblower. This is because any alliance based on the goal of illicit gains is easily shattered by the prospect of legitimate benefits—after all, seeking profit and avoiding risk is human instinct.
Sure enough, when our client, Wanmou Company, extended an "olive branch" to Liu and his media PR firm, offering to entrust them with coordinating media relations and assisting Wanmou Company in crisis PR to mitigate negative publicity, in exchange for generous compensation, Liu's media PR firm quickly accepted the somewhat stringent cooperation terms we had drafted and reached a cooperation agreement.
Greedy people often disregard the consequences when faced with immediate benefits, which is why many do not hesitate to embark on the path of illegal activities for money and personal desires.
In this case, Liu never expected that once he and his media PR company accepted the initial cooperation fee, our side would shift from defense to offense, taking a tough stance with explicit or implicit hints, forcing him to persuade or pressure the behind-the-scenes "tipster" to back off and stop. Otherwise, even if the "tipster" remained hidden in the shadows, he, as the "PR person," had already stepped into the spotlight, suspected of conspiring with the behind-the-scenes "tipster" in extortion. The evidence was the receipt for the 200,000 RMB "cooperation" advance payment he had accepted. That small transfer receipt was the "criminal clue" tying him, the "PR person," to the behind-the-scenes "tipster" in shared interests. Therefore, they were like grasshoppers tied to the same rope, and it would be hard to escape the charge of conspiracy to commit extortion!
According to Article 274 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, "Whoever extorts public or private property, if the amount is relatively large or if extortion is committed multiple times, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, or public surveillance, and shall also, or shall only, be fined; if the amount is huge or if there are other serious circumstances, the offender shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years, and shall also be fined; if the amount is especially huge or if there are other especially serious circumstances, the offender shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years, and shall also be fined."
After our strong legal deterrence, Liu, this "public relations specialist," obediently accepted my suggestion: to persuade or force the whistleblower to back down. From then on, the "informant" side no longer dared to make any extortionate demands, and even completed the task of removing harmful information and negative impacts from the website as stipulated in the "cooperation agreement" for our client, without daring to ask for the remaining service fee. Liu also said to us with concern, "I'll just return the advance payment I've already received to you, is that acceptable?"
Our lawyer took the opportunity to give Liu a legal lesson: "If it is verified that you conspired with the extortionist in a crime, even if you return the illicit gains, it is merely post-crime restitution, still considered a mitigating circumstance after the crime, and cannot be arbitrarily regarded as not having committed a crime!"
As a result, Liu had no choice but to vigorously turn his efforts around and do his utmost to help Wan's company persuade the behind-the-scenes "whistleblower." As for how he went about it, we cannot know the full details. In any case, from that point on, the trouble of Wan's company being extorted for money vanished into thin air.
The "whistleblower's" firepower has since been completely silenced. We skillfully and precisely employed the strategy of removing the fuel from the fire to extinguish the extremely dangerous flames of this case, achieving the goal of "seizing the opportunity by a roundabout route."
The "gift-giving scandal" crisis at Wanmou Company was thus quietly and completely resolved without any further consequences. Now, several years have passed, and the scent of the former "smoke of battle" has long since faded away.
Case conclusion insights:
Looking back at this case, the "Wanmou Company gift-giving scandal," initially both parties were hesitant to act, afraid to resort to public security, procuratorate, or court procedures, so naturally they resorted to extrajudicial "fire attacks" against each other. If they couldn't promptly and effectively extinguish the "fire," at the very least they must not "pour oil" on the "flames"!
The fatal mistake was that Wanmou Company initially hired a lawyer with impeccable legal credentials and expertise, yet failed to grasp that law is a tool wielded by people. Applying an utterly conventional, by-the-book approach to dispute resolution, the lawyer bluntly and heavy-handedly confronted the whistleblower (the alleged mastermind of extortion) directly, sternly demanding three things: an immediate public apology in the newspaper, immediate removal of all negative infringing information, and immediate surrender of the so-called "leverage" evidence allegedly implicating criminal liability.
Facing an opponent full of vulnerabilities, how could the whistleblower and their accomplices so easily concede defeat? Although they timidly agreed to these demands on the spot out of fear of being caught or beaten, once they left the scene and escaped the "danger," they immediately launched retaliation, escalating their efforts by leaking even more "explosive revelations" to newspapers and online media. Thus, a spark turned into a blaze, with media and public opinion loudly pressing disciplinary committees and judicial authorities to pursue criminal liability for "corruption" against Wan's company and its affiliated personnel. It was as if a "raging fire" had erupted, showing no intention of stopping until Wan's company was burned to the ground.
That lawyer routinely wielded legal weapons blindly and abusively, nearly plunging Company Wan and its key executives into an irredeemable disaster in an instant. Fortunately, at the final critical moment, the boss of Company Wan wisely switched lawyers and brought me in to handle the case. I artfully combined litigation with strategic thinking akin to military tactics, skillfully executing the strategies of "borrowing a path to conquer Guo" and "removing the firewood from under the cauldron." I firmly ensnared the suspected accomplice of the extortionist—the so-called "middleman," who was the head of a media PR firm—then laid bare the truth, spelled out the stakes, and issued a stern warning about the enormous legal risks of their misconduct, leaving them trapped in a perilous situation with no way out, caught between a rock and a hard place. In the end, they had no choice but to obediently follow my advice and, in turn, force the mastermind behind the scenes to back off.
Imagine if, without our proper countermeasures, the "flames of war" between the whistleblower, their media PR firm, and Wan's company continued to burn amid the smoke of media and public opinion, it would inevitably lead to a disastrous outcome where public criticism corrodes all, severely damaging the company's image, reputation, and business development!
Here, it should be noted that the owner of an excellent enterprise, especially one engaged in standardized commercial operations, should be willing to spend a sum of money each year to hire a truly outstanding and professional legal counsel or legal team for the company. This will greatly help avoid many legal disputes and personal judicial risks that could otherwise trap the company in difficulties or even desperate situations. At critical moments, it can also save the company millions, or even greater financial losses or personal harm.
Attachment: Relevant materials regarding the "gift-giving scandal" incident of Wanmou Company:
Letter Regarding Termination of Cooperation Agreement
Shenzhen XX Trading Co., Ltd.:
Our company signed a cooperation agreement with your company on June 20, 2013, entrusting our company to delete all negative news and information online related to the "Wan Mou Gift-Giving Incident," and to recover all stamped copies that had been circulated externally. The total cooperation amount was 3.8 million RMB.
After signing the cooperation agreement, our company received a cooperation advance payment of RMB 200,000 from your company and promptly began actively carrying out online content removal work. To date, we have deleted over a thousand negative news items from Baidu sources, and the vast majority of negative news on forums has also been removed. Our company has reported the work progress to your company via email. At present, only some negative news on mainstream news portal websites remains undeleted. As for the reason why these have not been deleted, our company has already provided an explanation to your company.
Based on market rates for online post removal, this volume of deletions would typically cost over 600,000 RMB. However, our company actually spent approximately 170,000 RMB (we can provide a detailed breakdown of the expenses for the information removal).
Per the terms of the agreement, our company is also required to recover all negative materials regarding Mr. Wan held by the whistleblower. However, due to limited capabilities, despite extensive efforts, we have been unable to locate the actual whistleblower to date, and thus cannot fully fulfill the agreement. To ensure that your company's interests are not compromised, we hereby propose to terminate the agreement. Although we failed to identify the whistleblower, we did carry out substantial work in removing negative information for your company, which is verifiable. Therefore, we request to deduct the actual expenses incurred and refund 30,000 RMB to your company.
This is to formally notify you!
Guangdong XX Media Culture Development Co., Ltd.
July 5, 2013
Lawyer's Letter
Dear Guangdong New XX Newspaper
And Shenzhen Reporter Station:
Director of Guangdong Zhiming Law FirmLawyersAs legal counsel for Shenzhen Wanmou Real Estate Development Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Client"), and upon the Client's authorization, I hereby issue this lawyer's letter in response to your newspaper's correspondence dated August 13, requesting cooperation with your reporter, Mr. Dai, in conducting follow-up interviews regarding the relevant incident. The details are as follows:
Based on the information provided by the client and after necessary due diligence, I, as the attorney, am of the opinion that the "incident" described in your interview letter has been confirmed by multiple parties as a defamation case in which certain individuals employed unlawful means to fabricate false and defamatory content. Given that the so-called hot topic has largely subsided, the client, while retaining the right to pursue legal action, has resolved to reserve such right for the time being. Your newspaper, as a legitimate media outlet under a certain city evening newspaper group, has followed current affairs, paid attention to public concerns and hardships, and upheld justice while condemning wrongdoing—such actions are commendable and beyond reproach. However, given that the circumstances, context, and the incident itself have now passed, there appears to be no further necessity for any interview or reporting on this matter. The client believes, and respectfully requests that you also believe, that the defamation case your newspaper still wishes to cover today has been investigated and found to hold no substantive new developments. Should the matter be revisited and reported anew, the only effect would be to rehash an old topic to attract attention, potentially further steering uninformed audiences and netizens toward unwarranted public criticism, thereby aggravating the serious infringement upon the client's legitimate right to reputation. This would, in turn, severely disrupt and harm the normal business operations of the client's enterprise, ultimately resulting in substantial economic losses and possible broader social harm (such as employee pay cuts or layoffs if the enterprise suffers). I am of the opinion that the aforementioned potential harm is something that any media outlet, such as yours, which professes a sense of justice, would not wish to see, and that any conscientious media outlet, including yours, with a sense of justice and social responsibility, would neither wish nor be able to bear the consequences of such harm! Therefore, I, as the attorney, strongly urge your newspaper and its reporters to act in good faith and goodwill, set aside any "curiosity," cancel this interview plan, and completely abandon any plans for "follow-up reporting" on the related incident.
This allows the client enterprise to devote more effort to fulfilling its social responsibilities, benefiting the country, itself, and others, while also avoiding the pitfalls of being misled or exploited by others. This letter is issued in response, and we hope it will be handled with caution.
On behalf of my client, I sincerely state that, setting aside the so-called interview concerning this alleged reputational infringement incident, my client's company will, at a convenient and appropriate time, proactively invite and warmly welcome reporters from your newspaper to conduct public opinion supervision at the company. For the shared goal of a better society, let us cooperate amicably and work together!
Sincere gratitude!
Greetings!
Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm
Lawyers
August 18, 2013
