Wanmou Company's extortion and damage dispute case
Turning the tables by using a trick to "borrow a path to destroy Guo"
Silently shutting down the illegal "gift-giving channel"
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 strong interactivity of online media, whether it is the early portal websites, the once-popular microblogs from two or three years ago, the currently hot WeChat Moments, or the niche forums and bulletin boards where like-minded people gather, even small, so-called "professional" websites, all 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 be forwarded hundreds of thousands of times within just a few hours, with netizens, including some major influencers, sharing them on Weibo and WeChat Moments... Although the publishers or publishing platforms quickly gain click-through rates and attention, they also soon cause a sharp decline in sales and significant commercial losses for the brands or well-known products involved in the rumors, severely damage consumer trust, greatly infringe on the right to reputation, and plunge the relevant companies into a whirlpool of public opinion...
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 have a low ability to distinguish truth from falsehood. As hot online topics continuously attract netizens' comments, "cyber violence" often emerges amid a cacophony of voices and the power of collective opinion.
"Cyber violence" refers to online comments made by some netizens about certain events that have gone beyond normal rationality. This not only results in a moral judgment of the parties involved in the virtual space but, more seriously, may even lead to real-life penalties for them. Many government departments have been hijacked by online public opinion, imposing punishments on the protagonists of hot events that are not based on laws and regulations—such reports 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-Gate' Incident" 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 Moukang Net" first broke the news online with the sensational headline "Shenzhen Wanmou Company's Gift Card List Exposed, Officials Involved," revealing the company's undisclosed "commercial secrets." Subsequently, websites such as Shanmou Government Legal Net, China Economic Net Hunan Channel, and Jingmou Net reposted and hyped the story, leading to coverage by multiple comprehensive portal sites like Fengmou Net, Xinmou Net, Sohu, NetEase, and Tencent. This further triggered widespread reporting by Shenzhen local TV media and authoritative outlets like Guangdong's "Xinmou Daily" and "Southern Moumou Daily," sparking heated public discussion and high attention.
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 Wanmou Company's executives restless, but also relevant personnel from various government departments and units with business ties to the company were in a state of panic...
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.
Three years later, Zuo Moumou took a position at the Hubei branch of China's Moukang Network. In April 2013, Zuo suddenly harbored malicious intent and conspired with the branch's supervisor, Liao Mou, to use the "evidence" of Wanmou Company's "alleged bribery" in his possession to extort a large sum from the company.
They first sent copies of the "leverage" to Wan Company via fax and email, then used phone calls, text messages, emails, and QQ to relay messages demanding that Wan Company pay between 5 million and 50 million yuan to redeem the "leverage."
The top management of Wan Company was extremely shocked but unwilling to easily compromise. They urgently verified the authenticity of the documents internally while frequently negotiating with the blackmailer holding the "leverage," repeatedly stalling on the exorbitant demands.
Seeing that Wan Company did not immediately surrender, the blackmailer widely and repeatedly promoted the "leverage" (the card delivery list) under the theme "Exposure of Shenzhen Wan Company's Card Delivery List, Over a Hundred Officials Involved" on platforms such as the Hubei channel of China Kang Net, the legal website of a certain provincial government, the Hunan channel of China Economic Net, and Jingchu Net, leading to reprints by many well-known domestic media outlets like Phoenix Net and Xinhua Net. This sparked the nationally watched "Wan Company Gift-Giving Scandal."
The "Wan Company Gift-Giving Scandal" erupted in early April 2015 and escalated to a fever pitch by the end of May, with the blackmailer and Wan Company locked in a relentless struggle—Wan Company mobilized all its resources to defend itself: from media to public security, from the central propaganda and public security departments down to local governments, Wan Company continuously filed complaints and sought help, leveraging personal connections at every level, hoping relevant authorities would take measures to crack down on and arrest the blackmailer...
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 blackmailer threatened Wan Company through phone calls, emails, QQ, and websites. Seeing that Wan Company refused to comply and pay for peace, the blackmailer, enraged, collaborated with a media public relations firm to mobilize multiple media outlets for a relentless barrage of hype. These unwitting journalists and commentators, guided by the blackmailer and its PR team, continuously wrote inflammatory articles, directly accusing the relevant party committees, discipline inspection commissions, and judicial organs of inaction, aiming to pressure the discipline inspection commissions, courts, and legal authorities into taking decisive measures to pursue "corrupt behavior" or "legal responsibility" against Wan Company and all individuals listed on the so-called "card delivery list"!
For a time, truth and falsehood were hard to distinguish, public opinion surged like turbulent waves, and the immense pressure along with the "anti-corruption" sword 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 to the brink of collapse.
At the beginning of the confrontation with the blackmailer, around early May, when the "Wanmou Company Gift Card List" first broke out, Wanmou Company hired a lawyer and entrusted him to negotiate with the blackmailer and their media public relations team. As a result, the lawyer aggressively and crudely accused and threatened the blackmailer, demanding a public apology and the elimination of the impact.
This counterattack, stemming from a self-righteous belief in legal knowledge and a lack of awareness of their own situation, instead fueled the blackmailer's attacks, intensifying media operations, leading to nationwide sensationalism over the "Wanmou Company Gift Card List" incident.
Under the heavy blow of nationwide media coverage, disciplinary inspection agencies at all levels were forced to initiate investigations and verifications of each person involved in the so-called "Gift Card List"...
In China, where the rule of law and market economy are not yet fully developed, for business operators, "verification" is always a crisis trigger that could potentially "blow" the company to pieces...
In the midst of the crisis, the senior management of Wanmou Company sincerely invited the team of lawyer Wang Tengfeng from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm to act as the company's legal representative, fully authorized to resolve the serious legal crisis they faced...
Upon accepting the commission from Wanmou Company, we immediately arranged a meeting with the so-called intermediary—the head of a media PR company, Liu Mou—to "negotiate" a resolution to the "Wanmou Company Gift-Gate" incident.
During the "negotiation" with Liu Mou, we determined that he was likely an accomplice of the extortion-attempting whistleblower. Thus, we played along, using the pretext of entrusting an intermediary to coordinate with the media and help Wanmou Company with crisis PR to eliminate negative publicity. We earnestly requested cooperation with Liu Mou's media PR company, indicating that only Liu Mou and his company could help Wanmou Company overcome its current difficulties, and that generous compensation would be provided.
After Liu Mou received the substantial bait thrown by our lawyer on behalf of Wanmou Company, he immediately reduced the media attacks against Wanmou Company that very night. Clearly, Liu Mou and his media PR company had high expectations of reaping significant profits from cooperating with Wanmou Company...
Seizing on Liu Mou and the behind-the-scenes "whistleblower's" willingness to cooperate with Wanmou Company for legitimate and generous compensation, I deliberately engaged in repeated bargaining with Liu Mou. Ultimately, in mid-June, Wanmou Company and Liu Mou's media PR company reached a cooperation agreement: Wanmou Company commissioned Liu Mou's PR company to help eliminate negative media and public opinion impacts on Wanmou Company, with total compensation of one million RMB. An advance payment of 200,000 RMB was made, entrusting Liu Mou's media PR company to first clear all negative reports about Wanmou Company remaining on websites. After these negative reports were fully cleared and all possible negative documents and materials were retrieved, the remaining balance would be paid in installments.
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 Mou and his media PR company did their best to remove negative news about Wanmou Company from many websites. However, a small portion of 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 told Liu and his media PR company that if they wanted to receive the final payment from Wanmou Company, they must expose the behind-the-scenes whistleblower and retrieve all original "leverage" materials that might exist in his possession. Otherwise, not only would they fail to receive the final payment, but they would also be reported and prosecuted for suspected conspiracy to commit extortion.
At first, Liu was fearless, believing we had no evidence to report him to the police for extortion. We sternly pointed out to him that from the moment he accepted Wanmou Company's commission, promised to find the behind-the-scenes whistleblower and retrieve the "leverage," and formally received a 200,000 RMB advance payment from Wanmou Company, he had already exposed his suspicion of conspiring with the whistleblower to commit extortion! If he did not stop and pull back from the brink, we would follow the clues and hold him and the behind-the-scenes whistleblower criminally responsible.
Under the deterrence of our legal arguments and evidence, the intermediary entrusted by the whistleblower—the head of the media PR company, Liu—found himself in a dilemma with no way out. Although he was extremely unwilling, he could only helplessly and grudgingly accept reality.
In the end, the noisy and heavily criticized "Wanmou Company Gift-Giving Incident" was skillfully resolved by me and faded away. Now, the skies have cleared, and it has vanished without a trace.
At this moment, Wanmou Company is fully committed to transformation and development, striding confidently on the broad path of lawful and compliant operations.
Proxy Art:
In handling this dispute, we borrowed the strategy of "Borrowing a Path to Conquer Guo" from the fourth set of the "Thirty-Six Stratagems," the "Chaos Stratagem," to apply legal pressure on the intermediary (suspected accomplice) entrusted by the "whistleblower," thereby intimidating and striking at the "whistleblower" to force them to retreat and desist!
The reason "Wanmou Company's Gift-Giving Scandal" managed to escape the fierce social舆论 vortex and the menacing legal crisis, quickly reversing the dire situation and freeing Wanmou Company and its key leaders from the quagmire of anti-corruption efforts, restoring a state of calm and safety, was entirely due to our grasp of the blackmailer's criminal psychology—both immensely greedy and deeply fearful. The whistleblower—the blackmailer—knew that obtaining huge sums of money by threatening to expose others' weaknesses was illegal, so they dared not reveal their identity or show their face. The intermediary they entrusted, Liu, head of a media PR company, was fully aware that the whistleblower's actions were suspected of being criminal, yet, driven by the prospect of sharing substantial profits, willingly abetted the crime. Once an opportunity arose to gain legitimate and generous returns, Liu immediately abandoned the alliance based on illegal interests with the blackmailer, ultimately turning against them, thus easily thwarting their scheme to extort huge sums from the listed company under the guise of anti-corruption!
Our lawyers, representing Wanmou Company, stated that to mitigate the negative public opinion impact on the company and improve its image of illegal business practices, they reached a tactical compromise agreement with Liu and his media PR company. This gave both the visible and hidden opponents a sense of reassurance, making them see the "hope" of victory, and thus they shifted to private negotiations with us, fully relaxing their subsequent frontal "attacks." Consequently, the media coverage they had been continuously fueling like adding firewood to a blaze quickly and completely "died down." In the end, we forced the intermediary Liu, who had greedily swallowed the bait we threw out, to avoid imprisonment and thus no longer dared to assist the whistleblower or push the media to continue纠缠 and pursue the "Wanmou Company Gift List." A grand, greed-driven farce suddenly vanished into silence...
In this case, we observed carefully and accurately judged that Liu, the head of the media PR company, was clearly a suspected "accomplice" of the behind-the-scenes "whistleblower." Therefore, on behalf of Wanmou Company, we first engaged with him insincerely, skillfully maneuvering, waiting for an opportunity to break apart his interest alliance with the whistleblower. After all, any alliance based on the goal of illegal profit is easily shattered by the chance to obtain legitimate benefits, as seeking gain and avoiding harm is human instinct.
Indeed, when our Wanmou Company extended an "olive branch" to Liu and his media PR company—"entrusting them to coordinate with the media to help Wanmou Company with crisis PR to eliminate negative public opinion, in exchange for generous compensation"—Liu's media PR company quickly accepted the somewhat stringent cooperation terms we proposed 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, forcefully hinting or explicitly demanding that he persuade or force the behind-the-scenes "whistleblower" to back off. Otherwise, even if the "whistleblower" remained hidden in the shadows, he, as the "public relations person," had already stepped into the spotlight, suspected of conspiring with the behind-the-scenes "whistleblower" in extortion. The evidence was the receipt for the 200,000 yuan prepayment he had accepted as the "public relations person." That small transfer receipt was the "criminal clue" tying him to the behind-the-scenes "whistleblower," making them partners in crime, and the charge of conspiracy to commit extortion would be hard to escape!
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 sentence shall be fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years, and a fine shall also be imposed; if the amount is especially huge or if there are other especially serious circumstances, the sentence shall be fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years, and a fine shall also be imposed."
After our strong legal deterrence, Liu, the "public relations person," obediently accepted my suggestion: to persuade or force the whistleblower to cease and desist. Thereafter, the "whistleblower" no longer dared to make any extortionate demands, and even completed the tasks under the "cooperation agreement" to remove harmful online information and negative impacts for our client, without daring to ask for the remaining service fees. Liu even worriedly said to us, "I can return the prepayment I received, right?"
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 diligently turn his efforts around, doing his utmost to work on the behind-the-scenes "whistleblower" on behalf of Wan Company. As for how he did it, we could not fully know. In any case, from then on, Wan Company's troubles of being extorted for money vanished into thin air.
The "whistleblower's" "firepower" has since "ceased." Our side skillfully and accurately used a "take away the firewood from under the cauldron" strategy to extinguish the extremely dangerous "flames" of this case, achieving the goal of "borrowing a path to destroy Guo."
The crisis of Wanmou Company's "gift-giving scandal" thus fizzled out and was completely resolved. Now, years have passed, and the scent of the former "battle smoke" is long gone.
Case conclusion insights:
Looking back at this case, the "Wanmou Company gift-giving scandal," initially, both sides were hesitant to act for fear of repercussions, not daring to resort to public security, procuratorial, or judicial authorities. Naturally, they used extra-legal "fire attacks" against each other. If the "fire" could not be extinguished in a timely and effective manner, at least they should not "add fuel to the fire"!
But the miscalculation was that Wanmou Company initially hired a lawyer with high legal status and expertise, yet he failed to understand that law is a tool used by people. Employing extremely conventional legal thinking and methods to resolve disputes, he simply and crudely approached the whistleblower (the suspected mastermind of extortion) directly, sternly ordering the other party to do the following three things: immediately publish an apology in the newspaper; immediately remove negative infringing information; immediately hand over the so-called "leverage" evidence of alleged guilt.
Facing an opponent full of loopholes, how could the whistleblower and their accomplices easily concede? Although they timidly agreed to these demands out of fear of being caught or beaten on the spot, once they left the scene and escaped the "danger," they immediately launched retaliatory actions, escalating by leaking more "explosive material" to newspapers and online media. Thus, "lighting a fire" turned into "setting a blaze," and media and public opinion loudly pressured disciplinary inspection and judicial authorities to strictly pursue "corruption" criminal liability against Wanmou Company and related personnel. It was a "raging fire" that showed no sign of stopping until Wanmou Company was completely burned to the ground.
That lawyer routinely abused legal weapons, nearly plunging Company Wan and its principal leaders into an irreversible disaster. Fortunately, at the critical moment, the boss of Company Wan wisely switched lawyers and hired me. I artistically combined litigation with strategic military tactics, skillfully implementing the "Borrow a Path to Conquer Guo" and "Remove the Firewood from Under the Cauldron" strategies. I firmly ensnared the accomplice of the blackmailer—the so-called "middleman," the head of a media PR company—then revealed the truth, clarified the stakes, and sternly warned them of the immense legal risks involved, trapping them in a dilemma with no way out. Ultimately, they had no choice but to obediently follow my advice, forcing their behind-the-scenes mastermind to back down... This quickly and effectively resolved public criticism, public doubts, and shareholder unrest, mitigating corporate risks and ensuring the company's stable operations and healthy development!
Imagine if we hadn't employed these appropriate strategies; the "conflict" between the whistleblower, their media PR company, and Company Wan would have continued to burn in the smoke of media and public opinion. Inevitably, it would have led to a terrible outcome where public consensus could melt metal, severely damaging the company's image, reputation, and business development!
Here, it must be noted that an excellent company, especially one run by a boss engaged in standard business operations, should be willing to spend a certain amount each year to hire a truly outstanding and professional legal advisor or legal advisory team. This will greatly avoid many legal disputes and personal judicial risks that could trap the company in difficulties or dead ends. At critical moments, it can save the company millions or even more in economic losses or personal harm...
Attachment: Relevant materials on Company Wan's "Gift-Gate" incident:
Letter Regarding Termination of Cooperation Agreement
Shenzhen XX Trading Co., Ltd.:
On June 20, 2013, our company signed a cooperation agreement with your company, entrusting us to delete all negative news and information related to the "Wan's Gift-Giving Incident" online, and to retrieve all stamped copies that had been circulated externally, with a total cooperation amount of 3.8 million RMB.
After signing the cooperation agreement, our company received a cooperation advance payment of 200,000 RMB from your company and actively carried out online deletion work. To date, we have deleted approximately over a thousand negative news items from Baidu sources, and most negative news on forums has been removed. We have reported the work progress to your company via email. Currently, only negative news on some major news portal websites remains undeleted. As for why they have not been deleted, our company has already explained this to your company.
According to market rates for online deletion, such a large volume of deletions would cost over 600,000 RMB, but our company actually spent about 170,000 RMB (we can provide a detailed account of the deletion costs).
As required by the agreement, our company also needs to retrieve all negative materials about Wan from 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 your company's interests are not harmed, we propose terminating the agreement. Although we failed to find the whistleblower, we have indeed performed substantial deletion work for your company, which is verifiable. Therefore, we hope to deduct the actual expenses incurred and refund 30,000 RMB to your company.
This letter is hereby issued for notification.
Guangdong XX Media Culture Development Co., Ltd.
2013-7-5
Lawyer's Letter
Dear Guangdong New XX Newspaper
and Shenzhen Reporter Station:
Wang Tengfeng, Director of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm, as the legal advisor (hereinafter referred to as the client) for Shenzhen Wan XX Real Estate Development Group Co., Ltd., is entrusted to issue this lawyer's letter in response to your newspaper's letter dated August 13 requesting cooperation with your reporter Dai XX in tracking and interviewing related incidents. The details are as follows:
Based on the information provided by the client and necessary inquiries, this lawyer believes that the "incident" described in your interview request has been confirmed by multiple parties as a case of reputation infringement involving the fabrication of false and defamatory content through illegal means by certain individuals. Given that the so-called hot topic has largely subsided, the client reserves the right to pursue legal action but chooses to hold it in abeyance. Your newspaper, as a legitimate media outlet under a certain city evening newspaper group, follows current trends, focuses on public concerns, and upholds justice by condemning wrongdoing—this is commendable. However, the circumstances of this matter have changed over time, and there seems to be no further need for interviews or reports. The client believes, and asks you to believe, that the reputation infringement incident your newspaper still wishes to cover has been investigated and found to lack substantive novelty. Revisiting and reporting on this old issue would only rehash the topic to attract attention, potentially misleading uninformed audiences and online commentators, further exacerbating the serious infringement on the client's legitimate reputation rights, severely disrupting the normal business operations of the client's enterprise, and ultimately leading to significant economic losses and possible social harm (e.g., employee salary cuts or layoffs due to enterprise damage). This lawyer believes that such potential harm is something no media outlet claiming to uphold justice, like yours, would wish to see, and no conscientious media outlet with a sense of social responsibility, including yours, would want or be able to bear the consequences of such harm! Therefore, this lawyer strongly urges your newspaper and its reporters to set aside a "curious mindset" in goodwill, cancel this interview plan, and completely abandon any plans for "follow-up reporting" on the related incident.
This is to allow the client's enterprise to focus more on fulfilling its social responsibilities, benefiting the country, itself, and others, while avoiding the trap of being misled or exploited by others. This letter is sent for your careful consideration.
On behalf of the client, this lawyer sincerely states that, aside from the interview regarding the alleged defamation incident, the client's company will proactively and warmly invite reporters from your newspaper to conduct public opinion supervision at a convenient time. For the common goal of a better society, we will cooperate amicably and work together!
Sincere thanks!
致礼!
Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm
Wang Tengfeng
August 18, 2013
