The Full Story of the "Sea Palace" Administrative Litigation Case
The main floating island of the "Sea Palace" (2010)
[3] 1. Case Background
The Nan'ao Dongshan Bay in Longgang District, Shenzhen, has long been a fishing area for local fishermen, where generations have built fish rafts and dormitories for production and living. Around 2011, the nationally shocking "Sea Palace" in Shenzhen referred to the floating island on Dongshan Bay.
"Sea Palace" original state (2009)
"Sea Palace" main structure original state
As early as 2003, entrepreneur Guo, building on traditional fish rafts, began constructing a relatively large floating island (later dubbed the "Sea Palace" by the media). Since the floating island was a novelty, no unit was initially willing to issue a sea area use permit. By January 2008, the former Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Ocean Bureau) imposed a fine of 711,000 yuan on the "Sea Palace" and ordered it to restore the sea area to its original state within a set period. However, through active efforts by the "Sea Palace" side, Li Zhujiang, then director of the Guangdong Provincial Ocean and Fisheries Bureau, acting in the spirit of encouraging innovation, instructed the Longgang detachment to drop the case. Nevertheless, out of respect for the former Longgang District Ocean Bureau, the "Sea Palace" side still chose to pay the fine.
Development agreement between "Sea Palace" and Nan'ao
On January 13, 2010, some Shenzhen media published reports about this floating island's "illegal" use of sea areas, naming it "Sea Palace," which immediately sparked nationwide attention. Journalists from various outlets gathered at Dongshan Bay, creating a momentum to "flatten the Sea Palace." Amid the media's narrative of "collusion between officials and businessmen," the "Sea Palace" was dismantled into three large sections on May 13 and towed away from its original sea area, left adrift on the surface of Dongshan Bay pending rectification. Following active rectification by the "Sea Palace" side, on December 26 of the same year, the former Longgang District Oceanic Administration issued a "Aquaculture Registration Certificate" and approval for recreational fishing for the rectified "Sea Palace."
The "Sea Palace" dismantled into three large sections, awaiting comprehensive rectification by the former Longgang District Oceanic Administration (2010)
Rectification plan to convert the "Sea Palace" floating island into aquaculture and fishing rafts
The original Longgang District Oceanic Bureau issued the aquaculture and fishing certification approval to the "Sea Palace" side.
The original Longgang District Oceanic Bureau issued the aquaculture license to the "Sea Palace" side.
The fully renovated "Sea Palace" and the additional aquaculture rafts around it.
Just as the "Sea Palace" side was preparing to open the floating island to the public, renewed media intervention forced the Shenzhen Oceanic Administration and Longgang District to issue a joint notice on March 2, 2011, declaring the "Sea Palace" an illegal occupation of sea areas and ordering the former Longgang District Oceanic Administration to revoke the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate" it had issued to the "Sea Palace" side. On April 8, the Longgang District Oceanic Administration, without following legal administrative procedures, began organizing forces to forcibly dismantle the superstructure of the "Sea Palace."
The decision document from the original Longgang District Oceanic Bureau revoking the "Sea Palace" aquaculture license.
The scene of the original Longgang District Oceanic Bureau organizing forces to forcibly demolish the "Sea Palace".
The "Sea Palace" under forced demolition.
Southern Daily's news report on the forced demolition of the "Sea Palace"
As early as March 28, before this, the "Sea Palace" side had already sued the former Longgang District Oceanic Administration for its capricious and procedurally illegal administrative penalties. On April 20, the Longgang District Court decided to accept the administrative lawsuit filed by the "Sea Palace" side. The former Longgang District Oceanic Administration stopped further demolition work after completely removing the main structure of the floating island's atrium. Subsequently, the plaintiff, the "Sea Palace" side, entrusted lawyer Wang Tengfeng from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm to handle the case.
The scene at the first hearing of the "Sea Palace" administrative lawsuit on June 21
II. Heated Courtroom Debate
The case was first heard on June 21, 2011, in the Fourth Trial Court of the Longgang District People's Court. During the trial, attorney Wang Tengfeng presented the following key points in his defense:
1. After obtaining the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate," the plaintiff's aquaculture (fishing) in the designated sea area is entirely legal. First, the fishery administrative department of the people's government at or above the county level is the statutory authority responsible for issuing aquaculture licenses, and once obtained, such licenses naturally grant the legal right to use the designated sea (water) areas for aquaculture, with no legal requirement to separately obtain a "Sea Area Use Certificate" as a prerequisite. The claim by the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau (formerly the Longgang District Oceanic Bureau) that "the plaintiff has not legally obtained the sea area use right" is purely illegal and unreasonable. Second, for nearly three decades, the Longgang District fishery authorities have only issued Aquaculture Registration Certificates for supervising aquaculture in the sea areas under their jurisdiction, without requiring a Sea Area Use Certificate as a prerequisite.
2. Labeling the luxury fishing raft as an "illegal structure" is unreasonable, and the private desire of envy and jealousy should not be supported by law. While the plaintiff's fishing raft is indeed luxurious, this does not negate its essential nature and function as a fishing raft, nor does it lose its aquaculture and fishing capabilities. Furthermore, it is not illegal for guests to visit and admire the plaintiff's aquaculture and fishing raft, as no Chinese law prohibits guests from visiting and viewing any fishing raft. Finally, no illegal activities such as pornography, gambling, or drug use occur on the plaintiff's luxury fishing raft; only gatherings for viewing and socializing take place. Without being legally classified as such, the "Sea Palace" should not be deemed an "illegal structure."
3. Revoking the aquaculture registration certificate and fishing permit approval constitutes "illegal administration" rather than "self-correction." The Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau first agreed to allow the plaintiff to operate the rectified fish rafts for aquaculture and recreational fishing, and issued the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate" in December 2010, permitting the plaintiff to operate legally. However, three months later, due to negative media coverage, it openly violated legal procedures by revoking the approval for the plaintiff's legally obtained aquaculture and fishing permits and forcibly reclaiming the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate," seriously violating the provisions of China's "Administrative Licensing Law" and depriving the plaintiff of their rights to defense and representation. This is clearly a new act of administrative illegality. Even if intended as "self-correction of previous licensing errors," it cannot re-violate national statutory procedural regulations by enforcing the law illegally and committing new errors.
4. The forced demolition is actually a new illegal penalty, not a restoration of the old penalty measure. Although the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau argues that its forced demolition of the "Sea Palace" was a lawful enforcement measure based on the old administrative penalty decision, this clearly contradicts the facts and violates legal provisions. In reality, the old administrative penalty had already been concluded by the Longgang District People's Court's ruling on enforcement. Therefore, the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau did not apply for judicial enforcement to restore the "forced demolition" but instead carried out an arbitrary demolition without legal basis.
(For detailed content of the representation regarding the "Sea Palace Case," please refer to this website's article "Attorney Wang Tengfeng's Representation in the 'Sea Palace' Illegal Administrative Dispute Lawsuit.")
Attorney Wang Tengfeng in court (right)
Subsequently, the attorney for the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau also fought back sharply, and both lawyers engaged in intense debates over many details of the case, leaving the journalists present almost holding their breath. Ultimately, through unremitting efforts, Attorney Wang Tengfeng successfully found strong legal and moral support for the survival of the "Sea Palace," not only convincing the judge but also the journalists covering the event, gradually shifting public opinion in a favorable direction.
After the first court session, Attorney Wang Tengfeng gave a news interview to Guangdong Television's "Today's Focus" program.
[1] News report by Shenzhen Economic Daily on the court proceedings of the "Sea Palace" administrative lawsuit
[2] After a two-day adjournment, the second court session was held on June 24. Before the trial, lawyer Wang Tengfeng took the initiative, demanding administrative compensation from the Longgang District Economic Promotion Bureau for the losses caused by the forced demolition, totaling 50 million yuan. Once again, Wang demonstrated his superb courtroom debate skills, seamlessly integrating emotion, reason, and legal principles, creatively leveraging his exceptional talent in litigation art, and successfully defending or even expanding the gains from the first trial.
[3] Lawyer Wang Tengfeng and Mr. Guo, the owner of the "Sea Palace," during the second court session on June 24
[4] Lawyer Wang Tengfeng giving an interview to Xinhua News Agency after the second court session
3. Post-Trial Maneuvering
Shortly after the courtroom debate concluded, the maneuvering outside the court began. Given the unfavorable situation faced by the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau in this lawsuit, the municipal and district courts specially sent a vice president of the municipal court to meet with lawyer Wang Tengfeng in late 2011, engaging in in-depth discussions on whether a settlement was possible in the "Sea Palace" case. Although both sides had reached a consensus on certain issues, Wang Tengfeng clearly sensed that the government still preferred to adopt a "stalling" tactic rather than make concessions. Despite understanding the court's dilemma in this case, Wang Tengfeng firmly believed that since the current situation was caused by the repeated mistakes of the former Longgang District Oceanic Bureau, there was no reason for the plaintiff to suffer in silence. Left with no choice, the court had to shelve the case and delay the verdict.
The turning point came in May 2012. He Yongzhi, former director of the Shenzhen Maritime Bureau, was transferred to serve as director of the Dapeng New District Management Committee. To align with the development of Dapeng New District, after careful deliberation by city leaders, it was decided to adjust the strategic positioning of Dapeng New District, aiming to build it into a "world-class coastal eco-tourism resort," and the Nan'ao Dongshan Bay waters were re-planned as a high-end tourism area.
Thus, under the enlightened leadership and candid approach of the new committee director, and through court mediation, the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau and the "Sea Palace" side reached a settlement in May 2012—setting aside disputes, maintaining the status quo, and allowing the "Sea Palace" to continue floating on Dongshan Bay. Once the negative impact of the matter subsided, new development would be sought in line with the strategic positioning of Dapeng New District. At the same time, the "Sea Palace" side was required to remain silent and low-key to avoid further public criticism. Consequently, the "Sea Palace" side formally withdrew its lawsuit at the end of May and abandoned its claim for 50 million yuan in compensation for the demolished floating island portion. Thus, under lawyer Wang Tengfeng's vigorous advocacy, the administrative litigation case of the "Sea Palace" was temporarily concluded.
Original copy of the plaintiff's withdrawal ruling in the "Sea Palace" case
Today, the main part of the "Sea Palace" floating island still floats on Dongshan Bay. However, due to its previous "fame," this once-abandoned floating island has gradually attracted many tourists who come to "visit and pay homage," becoming a must-see attraction for numerous visitors. Fishermen near Dongshan Bay have capitalized on this, setting up various seafood rafts around the "Sea Palace" floating island, while the catering and tourism industries of the villagers on the shore have gradually flourished, forming a unique industrial chain on the waters of Dongshan Bay. According to nearby villagers, most tourists visiting Nan'ao now follow this route: arriving in Nan'ao in the morning, heading directly to Dongshan Bay Pier, going out to sea to see the "Sea Palace" and taking photos, having lunch at a nearby fish raft, and then heading to the nearby Yangmeikeng Beach for a swim.
Tourists gazing at the "Sea Palace" from a height near Dongshan Bay
A bird's-eye view of the "Sea Palace" (2012)
IV. Post-Case Reflections
"Although the case ended in a settlement through compromise between both parties, appearing as a win-win, it was actually a lose-lose situation." Years later, lawyer Wang Tengfeng still felt deeply moved when recalling this administrative litigation case that had shocked the nation.
First, the government exposed many problems during the case, such as rigid legal provisions, wavering stance, rough enforcement, and extra-legal interference. As a result, even after the "Sea Palace" was demolished, public anger could not be quelled; instead, it invited more public criticism and condemnation, and the government's credibility suffered some damage. However, the relevant leaders also demonstrated sufficient foresight and responsibility in this case. After all, the government accepted different voices in handling the entire incident, without stubbornly insisting on forced demolition and wrongful judgment to protect its reputation and image. Thus, the "Sea Palace" was able to be preserved for a long time, gaining a chance for its subsequent development.
At the same time, as the owner of the "Sea Palace," Guo, though a formidable figure in the business world, faced terrible consequences if he underestimated the legal risks involved. In this case, Guo himself endured immense mental pressure and suffered huge economic losses. A magnificent fairyland on the sea was reduced to a desolate island, wealth destroyed, and beauty lost—a lamentable outcome. However, his brilliant artistic creation, the "Sea Palace," provided groundbreaking inspiration for the nation in terms of sea-use models.
Finally, we should also recognize the positive significance of this case. On one hand, the emergence and huge impact of the "Sea Palace" promoted legal progress and improvement, facilitating the smooth introduction of the "Shenzhen Interim Measures for the Registration of Offshore Structures." On the other hand, lawyer Wang Tengfeng's righteous advocacy made government departments aware of their improper conduct in enforcement procedures, allowing the novel concept of the "Sea Palace" to survive a desperate situation and ultimately be preserved.
The "Sea Palace" after surviving the ordeal (end of 2012)
5. Afterword
According to a report from Shenzhen Evening News: In June 2014, Comrade Fu Xinjiang, then Deputy District Mayor of Longgang District and now Vice President of the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, gave a speech on the theme of "Rule of Law Thinking and Law-Based Administration" in Futian District. Starting from the widely discussed "Sea Palace Case" during his tenure as Deputy District Mayor of Longgang, he explained the essence of rule of law thinking in simple terms: "The government must abide by the law and act in accordance with the law!" At the same time, Comrade Fu Xinjiang, drawing on his own governance experience, urged leading cadres at all levels present to "constantly remind themselves to solve problems through legal means."
Thus, the "Sea Palace Case" is far more than just an administrative litigation case. The legal insights it offers and its role in promoting the construction of a rule-of-law society in China are immeasurable.
A tourist rented a water scooter from a nearby villager to observe the "Sea Palace" up close.
A floating island building designed by a foreign engineer.
