Case Review:

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.

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.

On January 13, 2010, some Shenzhen media published reports about this floating island "illegally" occupying sea areas, naming it "Sea Palace," which immediately attracted national attention. Reporters flocked to Dongshan Bay, seemingly poised to demolish the "Sea Palace." Amid media accusations of "collusion between officials and businessmen," the "Sea Palace" was dismantled into three major parts 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 a permit for recreational fishing to the rectified "Sea Palace."

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."

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.

Art of Representation:

From the moment I took on this administrative lawsuit, which stirred the nation and was hyped by national media, I clearly recognized that "Sea Palace" was a "shell" imposed by public opinion on the "floating island," tinged with resentment against the wealthy. Because of this luxurious and detestable "shell," the "floating island" was further burdened with frightening labels like "illegal use of sea areas," "illegal construction," and "sea brothel." In fact, the "floating island" was the true form of Guo Mouzhang's sea structure! The reason it was denounced as the "Sea Palace" was the result of public resentment against the rich being misled by the media. Therefore, resolving this misunderstanding through reason became lawyer Wang Tengfeng's primary task.

In addition, I firmly grasp that the focus of judicial review in administrative litigation should primarily center on the procedural legality of government administrative actions, while deliberately downplaying the legality of the object of the administrative action—the "Sea Palace" itself. I clearly emphasize the conclusion that the three decisions made by the Ocean Bureau of a certain district in Shenzhen on March 1, 2011, and the forced demolition carried out on April 8, were procedurally illegal. At the same time, I note that the uniqueness of the "Sea Palace" as a new phenomenon and the complex social background factors leading to the dispute over it cannot be overlooked. To seize the moral high ground, reverse the unfavorable public opinion, and win the understanding and approval of the judges, this issue must be reasonably and appropriately highlighted both in court and in the battles outside the courtroom. Therefore, the legal opinions I prepared not only underscore the key issue of procedural illegality in administrative actions but also provide a reasonable and appropriate reconstruction and portrayal of the development of the "Sea Palace."

Such a litigation strategy ultimately achieved excellent courtroom results and extended into society, which was a foreseeable and natural outcome.

The trial of the "Sea Palace" administrative lawsuit attracted intense attention and follow-up reports from media at all levels and from all over the country. With one closed-door hearing and two open court sessions, the courtroom and its surroundings were packed with observers. Dozens of journalists, unable to find seats or even standing room, held their breath and stood quietly to listen.

The brilliance of this case was first reflected in the clash of wits and talent displayed during the courtroom debates. In court, the arguments between the two sides focused on the visual impression of the "Sea Palace," which did not resemble a fish farming raft or a fishing spot but rather a royal palace floating on the sea. From this, they inferred whether the "Sea Palace" qualified as a "legal" structure for aquaculture and fishing.

Regarding the defendant's attorney's arguments—such as "Guo Mouzhang's 'Sea Company' (short for 'Shenzhen Sea XX Entertainment Co., Ltd.'—author's note) never truly transformed the 'Sea Palace' into a 'farming and fishing raft'; the 'Sea Palace' has always been an extremely luxurious private club or venue. The 'Sea Palace' never obtained a 'Sea Area Use Right Certificate' for the waters it occupied...", "The sea area occupied by the 'Sea Palace' should legally be 'restored to its original state'", "The former XX District Oceanic Administration had the legal authority to demolish the 'Sea Palace'", and "The former XX District Oceanic Administration's procedure for legally demolishing the 'Sea Palace' did not violate any legal provisions"—along with the evidence they presented, I glossed over them lightly. Instead, I focused on deeply scrutinizing four cognitive errors and improper practices in the law enforcement of the XX District Economic Development Promotion Bureau (formerly the XX District Oceanic Administration): 1. Treating the acquisition of a sea area use right certificate as a prerequisite for obtaining an aquaculture registration certificate; 2. Exaggerating the luxurious fishing raft as a "Sea Palace" and falsely labeling it as an "illegal structure"; 3. Arguing that revoking the aquaculture registration certificate and fishing permit approval was a self-correction rather than admitting to illegal administrative actions; 4. Arguing that the forced demolition was a "legal restoration of old punitive measures" rather than admitting to "illegally implementing new punitive measures." I refuted these points thoroughly with sound reasoning and evidence.

In refuting the XX District Oceanic Administration's error of "treating the acquisition of a sea area use right certificate as a prerequisite for obtaining an aquaculture registration certificate," I downplayed the fact that the new concept of a "floating sea island" had never been able to obtain a so-called "normal 'Sea Area Use Right Certificate.'" Drawing from Article 7 of China's "Sea Area Use Management Law," which states, "Fisheries administrative departments, in accordance with the 'Fisheries Law of the People's Republic of China,' supervise and manage marine fisheries," I leveraged Article 11 of China's "Fisheries Law," which states, "The state conducts unified planning for water area use, designating waters and tidal flats that can be used for aquaculture... The local people's government at the corresponding level issues aquaculture certificates, permitting the use of such waters and tidal flats for aquaculture. The specific measures for issuing aquaculture certificates are stipulated by the State Council," and Article 5 of the national "Measures for the Issuance and Management of Aquaculture Certificates," which states, "Fisheries administrative departments of local people's governments at or above the county level are responsible for the issuance and management of aquaculture certificates within their jurisdiction..." I sought interlocking evidence to clearly demonstrate step by step: The fisheries administrative department of local people's governments at or above the county level is the legally authorized authority responsible for issuing aquaculture permits. Once an aquaculture permit is obtained, it naturally grants the legal right to use the designated sea (water) area for aquaculture. No legal provision requires obtaining a separate "sea area use right certificate" as a prerequisite. From this, it follows that the "floating sea island," after obtaining an "aquaculture registration certificate," was entirely legal in conducting aquaculture (fishing) in the designated sea area. The XX District Economic Development Promotion Bureau's sophistry that "the plaintiff did not legally obtain the sea area use right" was purely illegal and unreasonable. Moreover, the fact that over the past 30 years, the XX District fisheries department has only issued aquaculture registration certificates for supervising and managing aquaculture in the area without requiring a sea area use certificate as a prerequisite is itself the most powerful evidence!

My rebuttal was delivered with forceful clarity.

At the court debate scene, what most captivated the audience and drew strong exclamations from the media and judges was my powerful argument against exaggerating the "floating island" luxury fish raft as a "sea palace" and then falsely labeling it an "illegal structure":

"It is well known that thirty years ago, when people went to the barbershop for a haircut, it was just a razor and scissors, a trim and a cut, a rinse and out the door; thirty years later today, people go to high-end salons for haircuts, enjoying music and scenery while getting their hair cut, having their heads washed and backs rubbed, with hair treatments and sprays. Thirty years ago, people went to bathhouses for a wash, with a towel and a bar of soap, scrubbing their backs and bodies, then heading home clean; thirty years later today, people go to spa clubs for bathing, eating and drinking, watching TV and movies, enjoying saunas and massages, a full range of star-level services. Thirty years ago, farmers planted rice by hand; today, farmers can operate mechanized farming with electronic controls in modern agricultural estates. No one wants to return to the primitive society of slash-and-burn farming, so why can't the luxury of the plaintiff's fishing raft be recognized and accepted? Although the plaintiff's fishing raft can not only be used for aquaculture and fishing, and its ancillary conditions are indeed luxurious, and it can fully utilize the natural conditions at sea to enjoy marine scenery resources, this does not negate its essential nature and function as a fishing raft, nor does it lose its aquaculture and fishing functions! The ancillary living quarters for the caretaker of the fishing raft are luxurious and beautiful, even if resembling a 'palace,' objectively they cause no harm. It only shows it is a manifestation of social development and progress, something to be encouraged. Why is it illegal?! Is it factual illegality or decayed concepts?! As for the plaintiff's aquaculture and fishing raft, due to its exquisite and beautiful construction and pleasant scenery, guests often visit to admire it, which is also not illegal, because no national law prohibits guests from visiting and admiring anyone's fishing raft. Moreover, there are no illegal activities such as pornography, gambling, or drugs on the plaintiff's luxurious fishing raft, only gatherings for viewing. People should never think that the plaintiff's luxurious fishing raft is illegal while others' simple rafts are legal. Such mechanical, narrow-minded, and conservative views against the tide of historical development are wrong! The private desire of envy and hatred for the rich should not be supported by law and government!"

This brilliant and resounding defense statement for the "Sea Palace" made everyone present completely forget its initial lack of established legality, highlighting its current "legal documents" for leisure fishing and aquaculture functions. This "shell-shedding" tactic made all present entirely overlook that the essence of the "Sea Palace" had long deviated from the attributes and functions of aquaculture and fishing. Everyone only felt that the demolition and punishment of the "Sea Palace" were entirely due to the blind following and envy, jealousy, and hatred of some ignorant people in society, tragically becoming a "sacrifice" of public opinion coercion and a "scapegoat" for administrative errors, beginning to deeply sympathize with the unfortunate fate of this innovative creation...

Outside the court, the government side was naturally unwilling to lose the case or compromise and settle with the owner of the "Sea Palace," Guo Mouzhang, always hoping to declare their administrative actions legal, correct, and justified through a clear and public court ruling. To this end, government personnel, on one hand, engaged in extensive "efforts to communicate" with the judges, and on the other hand, had relevant leaders exert pressure on the court through various means. However, due to the solid reasoning of our defense arguments, which integrated emotion, reason, and law irrefutably, the presiding judges dared not rashly rule in favor of the government and court. Of course, as part of the official system, the judiciary would not simply and directly rule against the government and court.

Thus, relevant court leaders exchanged views with us, the plaintiff, outside the courtroom, proposing new ideas, which we immediately refuted with reasonable and legal arguments. Soon, a leader from a certain district publicly spoke at the Shenzhen Municipal People's Congress meeting, conveying erroneous views to society through the media, pressuring the court. In response, lawyer Wang Tengfeng also used the TV legal education platform and published online articles to sternly respond and refute this leader's erroneous views.

In summary, all the government's efforts and operations of "officials protecting each other" were repelled one by one by me on behalf of the "Sea Palace." With no rationale to support the government and court's hope of gaining public support from the court, the government finally sent senior representatives to express a willingness to settle with the owner of the "Sea Palace," Guo Mouzhang. Ultimately, both sides compromised, reaching an understanding where the plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit and the defendant no longer forcibly demolished the "Sea Palace." The "Sea Palace" finally escaped from the deadlock of confrontation with the government and court, achieving a result of forced peace and survival, thus preserved in its original form to this day...

Lessons from the case:

By using artistic litigation techniques to skillfully apply the strategy of "shedding the shell like a cicada" in courtroom and out-of-court debates, cleverly shifting the focus of attention, and adeptly employing arguments of emotion, reason, and law, we successfully captivated the entire audience and achieved the ideal result. My defense arguments shocked the courtroom and won over the trial judges, not by the conventional and common criticism of the government's administrative actions as "procedurally brutal and illegal," but entirely through vivid and lively argumentative speeches, with irrefutable connections between emotion, reason, and law that perfectly moved the judges, the media, and all listeners present. Strictly speaking, a leisure fishing license should obviously only be used for leisure fishing, never for ostentatious purposes like horse racing, peacock viewing, or Tibetan mastiff playing, and a marine aquaculture farm should never become a venue for beauty pageants, fireworks displays. Unfortunately, the opposing side's debating thinking could not effectively counter our unexpected winning strategy; their conventional litigation techniques could only passively respond, being beaten, appearing "speechless and weak," which naturally highlighted our defense arguments as overwhelmingly correct, gaining public approval and applause! If we had only used conventional litigation techniques, merely debating the legality of the government's administrative procedures, without emphasizing that the "Sea Palace" is a new thing beneficial to the country, the people, and oneself, without stressing that the "Sea Palace" is a victim misled by the media and misunderstood by the public, coerced into arbitrary actions by the government, and without using vivid and imaginative analogies to explain right and wrong, we could never have shocked the entire audience and moved all the "listeners" present, conquering their minds!

　The law is "dead," while wisdom is always "alive." The effects of conventional litigation techniques and artistic litigation techniques are undoubtedly vastly different.

Ending the "Sea Palace" dispute case through settlement and withdrawal—a distinctly "Chinese characteristic" method of concluding administrative litigation—inevitably evokes a sense of anticlimactic disappointment. Although I firmly believe that if the "Sea Palace" case had been concluded with a lawful judgment, it would have set a precedent for the administrative litigation system, established a benchmark for government law-based administration, and left a milestone in the construction of a rule-of-law country, as the plaintiff's entrusted agent, lawyer Wang Tengfeng had to respect the decision of the party Guo Mouzhang and reluctantly accept this imperfect outcome of administrative litigation, dictated by a system where administrative power dominates and judicial power struggles to assert itself.

However, the significant impact and meaning of my representation in the "Sea Palace" case stand in stark contrast to its low-key conclusion. The paradox between private innovation vitality and government regulation and legal norms, the positive interaction between media supervision and law-based administration, the dialectical relationship between entrepreneurs' wealth-creating ability and social fairness and justice—every grand proposition finds vivid arguments and evidence in the "Sea Palace" case. The positive role and influence of this administrative litigation case in promoting government law-based administration cannot be overstated.

In particular, my precise grasp of the case's crux—the legality of administrative actions—and my outspoken advocacy for civil rights, daring to engage in a battle of wisdom and courage with powerful government departments, and my uncompromising stance, provided a serious lesson in rule-of-law for government legal departments, leaving a profound impression that continues to warn government officials at all levels in Shenzhen to this day.

On June 13, 2014, the "A6 Key News" section of a Shenzhen district newspaper published a report titled "Dean Opens Door to Explain Law, Public Asks Questions on the Spot" by reporters Zhu Moujun and Zhao Mouming. The report stated that Comrade Fu Xinjiang, who was the deputy district head of a certain district at the time of the "Sea Palace" case and now serves as the vice president of the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, during a themed speech event on "Rule-of-Law Thinking and Law-Based Administration" in Futian District, started with the highly publicized "Sea Palace" case from his tenure as deputy district head to explain the essence of rule-of-law thinking in simple terms: "The government abides by the law and administers according to the law!" At the same time, Comrade Fu Xinjiang, drawing from his own governance experience, urged leading cadres at all levels present to "constantly remind themselves to solve problems through rule-of-law methods." This shows that administrative litigation cases like the "Sea Palace" case have played a significant role in promoting China's construction of a rule-of-law country, rule-of-law government, and rule-of-law society.

　　附：

Representation statement for the "Sea Palace" illegal administrative dispute litigation case.

Respected Presiding Judge and Judges:

Attorney Wang Tengfeng of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm, entrusted by Shenzhen XX Entertainment Co., Ltd., invested by Mr. Guo Mouzhang, provides legal aid services out of public spirit. Today, I attend the court proceedings of the case in the XX District People's Court regarding the plaintiff Shenzhen XX Entertainment Co., Ltd. suing the XX District Economic Development Promotion Bureau for illegal administrative actions (illegal demolition) and a substantial compensation claim. To better distinguish right from wrong, correct erroneous perceptions, defuse intense emotions, eliminate conflicts, and provide reference opinions for fair judicial adjudication, after repeated pre-trial investigations of facts and study of relevant laws, I now present the agency opinion, hoping the court will consider and adopt it. This agency opinion is divided into three parts and will take approximately 40 minutes. Details are as follows:

I. The Origin of the "Sea Palace" Illegal Administrative Litigation Case

Starting in 2003, Mr. Guo Mouzhang, a young entrepreneur who graduated from the Lu Xun Academy of Fine Arts and transitioned from being a painter, harbored the ideal of developing exquisite marine structures with an artistic approach to marine resources. After arduous journeys and meticulous investigations, he arrived at Dongshan Bay in Shenzhen, a coastal city of dreams. Creatively leveraging folk wisdom, he spontaneously used private capital to attempt exploratory development of idle shallow sea resources. Through careful deliberation, repeated论证, hard work, and creative invention, spending nearly 100 million yuan, starting from a simple beachside wooden hut, and persisting over many years with unwavering effort, he finally created a dazzling group of marine structures. If named, its essence is a "sea raft" (as its construction principle derives from rafts), with the standard academic term internationally known as a "floating island," now colloquially called the "Sea Palace" by the media. The public's secular name comes from its exterior design and magnificent aura, which precisely demonstrates Mr. Guo Mouzhang's creative wisdom and diligent efforts in self-developing shallow sea resources, yielding extraordinary results that have garnered public envy and admiration! It is said that this luxurious raft (artificial floating island) is the most cost-effective marine structure globally in terms of raw materials, design, and investment, integrating aquaculture, fishing, leisure, and sightseeing. It is both exquisitely beautiful and sturdy, truly a Shenzhen first and a world first. Such a classic masterpiece, however, due to hype from some media, resentment from the envious, ignorance of the masses, and misleading public opinion, led the management, under the coercive atmosphere of being deceived and coerced, to forcibly dismantle it for self-preservation, bringing it to the brink of extinction.

To protect their property rights, original invention, and social wealth, giving it a chance to benefit the country, society, and the public in the future, the plaintiff, after numerous unsuccessful efforts, finally resorted to legal action, hoping for legal protection to give life to the plaintiff's sea raft and floating island! This is the brief origin of the case.

II. The Rights and Wrongs of the "Sea Palace" Illegal Administrative Litigation Case

Right and wrong are the key to this case, legality and illegality are its core. Previously, there were widespread misunderstandings about the disputes in this case, filling our ears and eyes. Today, we must clarify the facts, rectify the errors, and reverse the wrong views! Regarding the litigation disputes in this case, the Economic Development Promotion Bureau of a certain district had the following misunderstandings and erroneous practices in law enforcement:

1. Treating the acquisition of a sea area use right certificate as a prerequisite for obtaining an aquaculture registration certificate

China's "Sea Area Use Management Law" is the specific and comprehensive law governing the use rights of national sea areas. Article 7 of this law clearly states that "the fishery administrative department shall supervise and manage marine fisheries in accordance with the 'Fisheries Law of the People's Republic of China'." Article 2 of China's "Fisheries Law" explicitly states that "anyone engaged in fishery production activities, including aquaculture and fishing of aquatic animals and plants, in the inland waters, tidal flats, territorial seas, exclusive economic zones, and all other sea areas under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China, must comply with this law." Article 11 states that "the state shall make unified plans for the use of waters, identifying waters and tidal flats that can be used for aquaculture... the local people's government at the county level shall issue aquaculture certificates, permitting the use of such waters and tidal flats for aquaculture. The specific measures for issuing aquaculture certificates shall be formulated by the State Council." Article 5 of the national "Measures for the Issuance and Management of Aquaculture Certificates" states that "the fishery administrative department of the local people's government at or above the county level shall be responsible for the issuance and management of aquaculture certificates for waters and tidal flats within its jurisdiction..." Thus, the relevant laws are interconnected and clearly indicate that the fishery administrative department of the local people's government at or above the county level is the statutory authority responsible for issuing aquaculture permits. Once an aquaculture permit is obtained, it naturally grants the legal right to use the designated sea (water) areas for aquaculture. No law requires an additional separate "sea area use right certificate" as a prerequisite. Therefore, in this case, the plaintiff's acquisition of an "aquaculture registration certificate" and subsequent aquaculture (fishing) in the designated sea area is entirely legal. The Economic Development Promotion Bureau's argument that the plaintiff did not legally obtain the sea area use right is baseless and unlawful. Moreover, for nearly thirty years, the fishery department of a certain district has only issued aquaculture registration certificates for supervising and managing aquaculture in the sea area without requiring a sea area use certificate as a prerequisite. This fact itself is the strongest evidence, contradicting their own argument and rendering it untenable!

2. Exaggerating the luxury fishing raft as a "Marine Palace" and falsely labeling it as an "illegal structure"

It is well known that thirty years ago, people went to barbershops for haircuts; today, people go to high-end salons, enjoying music, massages, and hair washing services while getting their hair cut. Thirty years ago, people went to bathhouses to bathe; today, people go to spa clubs for all-inclusive dining, entertainment, and star-level services. Thirty years ago, farmers planted rice seedlings by hand; today, farmers can use electronically controlled mechanized farming in modern agricultural estates. No one wants to return to the primitive era of slash-and-burn farming, so why can't the plaintiff's luxurious fishing raft be accepted? Although the plaintiff's fishing raft not only allows for aquaculture and fishing, its ancillary conditions are indeed luxurious, and it can fully utilize the natural conditions of the sea to enjoy marine scenery, this does not negate its essential nature and function as a fishing raft, nor does it lose its aquaculture and fishing functions! The luxurious and beautiful ancillary living quarters for the raft keeper, even if resembling a "palace," objectively cause no harm. It only reflects social development and progress and should be encouraged. As for the plaintiff's aquaculture and fishing raft, due to its exquisite and beautiful construction and pleasant scenery, it is not illegal for guests to visit and admire it, as no national law prohibits guests from visiting and admiring anyone's fishing raft. Moreover, there are no illegal activities such as pornography, gambling, or drugs on the plaintiff's luxurious fishing raft; only gatherings for sightseeing exist. People should not think that the plaintiff's luxurious fishing raft is illegal while others' simple rafts are legal. Such a mechanical, narrow-minded, and conservative view against the tide of historical development is wrong! The selfish desire to resent the rich and envy should not receive legal and governmental support!

3. The revocation of the aquaculture registration certificate and fishing license approval is claimed as self-correction without admitting it is illegal administration.

Facts fully demonstrate that on July 15, 2010, after repeated deliberation, multiple coordination, on-site inspections, and careful consideration, the Economic Development Promotion Bureau of a certain district issued an official reply clearly approving: the plaintiff may conduct aquaculture and recreational fishing operations on the modified fishing rafts in designated sea areas according to functional planning. On December 22, 2010, it issued another reply via Document No. [2010]144 of a certain agricultural character, approving the plaintiff's aquaculture and recreational fishing matters. Furthermore, on December 25, 2010, it formally issued the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate," permitting the plaintiff to operate legally. However, less than three months later, influenced by human factors, the Economic Development Promotion Bureau of a certain district openly violated legal procedures, hastily issued a notice and decision on March 1, 2011, arbitrarily and peremptorily revoked the plaintiff's legally obtained approvals for aquaculture and fishing, and unlawfully withdrew the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate." This seriously violates Article 7 of China's "Administrative License Law" and Article 8, Item 5, and Article 31 of the "Administrative Penalty Law": any administrative decision must undergo a statutory hearing process, and the affected party (the plaintiff) must be given sufficient rights to defend and state their case in advance. Therefore, the administrative act of the Economic Development Promotion Bureau of a certain district on March 1, 2011, can only be a new administrative violation, and cannot be justified as "self-correction." Even if subjectively intended as "self-correction," it should still comply with the law and act legally, rather than compounding errors. To "self-correct previous licensing mistakes" while again violating national statutory procedural rules and committing new violations is unacceptable! And any enforcement errors must be corrected!

　4. Disguising forced demolition as "lawful restoration of old penalty measures" while refusing to acknowledge "unlawful implementation of new penalty measures"!

The Economic Development Promotion Bureau of a certain district argues: the forced demolition of the "Sea Palace" was a lawful enforcement measure based on the Administrative Penalty Decision No. 1 (2008) of a certain sea area in Shenzhen. It claims this is a resumption and continuation of the previous administrative penalty decision. Such absurd reasoning clearly contradicts facts and violates the law. In fact, the defendant, the Economic Development Promotion Bureau of a certain district, has repeatedly admitted in court proceedings that Administrative Penalty Decision No. 1 (2008) of a certain sea area in Shenzhen was fully executed through the Administrative Enforcement Ruling No. 78 (2009) of a certain court in Shenzhen, with the plaintiff paying a fine of 490,000 yuan. Despite knowing this, the bureau stubbornly denies the enforcement has concluded and insists that this forced demolition is a restoration and continuation of Penalty No. 1 (2008). If that were the case, the bureau should have lawfully applied to the enforcement division of a certain court in Shenzhen to resume judicial enforcement. However, in reality, the bureau did not apply for such resumption but arbitrarily carried out the demolition itself, without legal basis. If this constitutes a new penalty measure, the bureau failed to grant the affected party (the plaintiff) statutory rights to defend and state their case, as required by China's "Administrative License Law" and "Administrative Penalty Law," which is also unlawful. Regardless of the rationale the defendant, the Economic Development Promotion Bureau of a certain district, uses for this forced demolition decision and action, it is clearly and seriously illegal, completely wrong, and should be corrected and penalized by the people's court in accordance with the law!

Appendix (I) Factual Evidence:

1. Document No. [2007]66 of a certain agricultural character, titled "Reply on Applying for the Development of Offshore Recreational Fishery Projects," issued on June 11, 2007, by the predecessor of the defendant, the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Bureau of a certain district in Shenzhen. This indicates that the plaintiff's establishment of offshore recreational fishing raft projects was approved and actively guided by the defendant.

2. The "Cooperation Agreement" and cooperation fee receipts between Shenzhen Offshore Entertainment Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Nan'ao Dongyu Shareholding Cooperative Company, dated July 11, 2007. This shows that both parties jointly developed recreational fisheries, promoted marine-themed tourism, and aimed to help local fishermen escape poverty and achieve prosperity.

3. On June 3, 2009, the superior of the defendant, the XX Municipal Oceanic Administration, issued the Deep Sea Letter [2009] No. 25, titled "Reply on the Application of Shenzhen XX Entertainment Co., Ltd. for a Sea Area Use Certificate." This indicates that the defendant accepted and guided the plaintiff in applying for the relevant sea area use rights certificate.

4. On July 3, 2009, the superior of the defendant, the XX Municipal Oceanic Administration, issued the Deep Sea Letter [2009] No. 30, titled "Second Reply on the Issue of the Sea Area Use Certificate for Shenzhen XX Entertainment Co., Ltd." This indicates that the defendant accepted and guided the plaintiff in applying for the relevant sea area use rights certificate.

5. On July 15, 2010, the defendant, the XX District Oceanic Administration of Shenzhen, issued the document "Reply on the Application of XX Entertainment Co., Ltd. for the Renovation of Dismantled Offshore Structures." This indicates that after careful study, the defendant decided to legally permit the plaintiff to operate marine leisure projects such as aquaculture and fishing in the designated sea area.

6. On December 22, 2010, the defendant, the XX District Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Bureau of Shenzhen, issued the document Shen XX Agricultural Character [2010] No. 144, titled "Reply on the Application for Certificates for Marine Aquaculture and Fishing." This indicates that after careful study and on-site verification, the defendant approved the plaintiff to designate the disassembled floating islands as aquaculture rafts and leisure fishing rafts according to specific plans.

7. On December 25, 2010, the defendant, the XX District Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Bureau of Shenzhen, issued the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate" with raft number D126. This indicates that the defendant acted lawfully and fulfilled its legal obligations.

8. On March 1, 2011, the defendant, the XX District Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Bureau, issued the "Notice on Revoking the 'Reply on the Application for Certificates for Marine Aquaculture and Fishing,'" the "Decision on Revoking the 'Aquaculture Registration Certificate,'" and the "Notice on Ordering the Restoration of the Original State of the Sea Area." This indicates that the defendant hastily made erroneous administrative decisions that violated facts and laws, seriously infringing upon the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests.

9. The "Notice on Ordering the Return of Illegally Occupied Sea Areas and Restoring the Sea Area to Its Original State" issued by the Defendant, the Oceanic Administration of a Certain District, on March 14, 2011. This indicates that the Defendant, for certain reasons, hastily made an erroneous administrative decision that contradicts the facts and violates the law, seriously infringing upon the Plaintiff's lawful rights and interests.

10. The "Notice on Compulsory Restoration of the Sea Area to Its Original State" issued by the Defendant, the Oceanic Administration of a Certain District, on March 25, 2011. This indicates that the Defendant, for certain reasons, hastily made an erroneous administrative decision that contradicts the facts and violates the law, seriously infringing upon the Plaintiff's lawful rights and interests.

11. The "Notice on Self-Handling of Demolition of Building Structures" issued by the Defendant, the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Bureau of a Certain District, on March 28, 2011. This indicates that the Defendant, for certain reasons, hastily made an erroneous administrative decision that contradicts the facts and violates the law, seriously infringing upon the Plaintiff's lawful rights and interests.

12. Facts reported by media such as Xinhua Net on April 8, 2011. This indicates that the Defendant has carried out compulsory demolition, and all structures on the surface of the fishing raft platform have been completely removed, with only the fishing raft platform remaining. Due to technical capability and environmental safety constraints, the Defendant is still in the process of evaluating and planning for further compulsory demolition.

Appendix (II) Legal Basis:

1. Articles 2 and 11 of the "Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China," which came into effect on October 1, 1990.

2. Provisions of Articles 7, 15, 16, 19, 25, 31, and 43 of the "Law of the People's Republic of China on the Administration of Sea Area Use," implemented from January 1, 2002.

3. Provisions of Articles 2 and 8 of the "Measures for the Administration of Sea Area Use Certificates," promulgated and implemented on June 7, 2002.

4. Provisions of Articles 11 and 38 of the "Regulations of Guangdong Province on Fishery Management," implemented from September 1, 2003.

5. Article 7 of the "Administrative Licensing Law," implemented from July 1, 2004, stipulates that administrative licensing must follow legal procedures.

6. Provisions of Articles 3, 4, and 18 of the "Regulations of Guangdong Province on the Management of Artificial Reefs," implemented from November 1, 2004.

7. Provisions of Article 26 of the "Regulations of Guangdong Province on the Administration of Sea Area Use," implemented from March 1, 2007.

8. Articles 2 and 5 of the "Guangdong Province Recreational Fisheries Management Trial Measures" issued and implemented on March 14, 2007

9. Articles 3, 5, 7, 8, and 14 of the "Interim Provisions on the Management of Sea Fishing Rafts in a Certain District" implemented from February 11, 2009

10. Article 8, Item 5, and Article 31 of the "Administrative Penalty Law" implemented from August 27, 2009: Administrative decisions must follow legal procedures

11. Articles 2, 11, and 28 of the "Fisheries Law of the People's Republic of China" amended on August 27, 2009

12. Provisions of Articles 5, 8, and 10 of the "Aquaculture License Issuance Management Measures" issued by the Ministry of Agriculture in 2009.

13. Provisions of Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, and 35 of the "Shenzhen Interim Measures for the Registration of Offshore Structures" implemented from March 1, 2010, with the Shenzhen Municipal Planning and Land Resources Commission having published a notice on March 3, 2011, that relevant rights holders may handle the registration of property rights for sea area structures.

3. The enlightening significance and aftermath of the illegal administrative litigation dispute over the "Sea Palace"

The above facts and laws have fully demonstrated that the luxury fishing raft, floating island on the sea, or the so-called "Sea Palace" in this dispute can and should legally survive. The tragedy it faces today, aside from the irresponsible misleading by some media and the siege formed by ignorant hatred of the wealthy among some people, is closely related to the fragmented, disjointed, mechanical, narrow-minded, and conservative work styles of certain individuals in our relevant government functional departments. In particular, the defendant, as a primary administrative authority, lacks a sense of responsibility and accountability, has lost the courage to innovate, and has failed to seriously study and accurately grasp the laws and regulations, resulting in improper administration, ineffective law enforcement, and an inability to flexibly, proactively, and responsibly coordinate and handle complex issues and new things. This self-protective, rigid, arbitrary, and even ultra vires administrative style has led to erroneous decisions, the dismantling of the floating island, and the destruction of wealth, which is deeply regrettable. In this regard, Mr. Guo Mouzhang, under the pen name "Floating Island Child," wrote an article titled "The Lament of the Sea Palace," which fully recounts the tragedy of the floating island, leaving readers deeply moved. A young entrepreneur full of ideals, using his intelligence and creative labor, invested his own substantial funds to boldly explore and develop marine resources, making unremitting efforts to develop the marine economy and promote a strong maritime nation. His efforts objectively played a significant positive role in reclaiming land from the sea and advancing our national defense construction. This good deed, however, has been subjected to criticism and suppression in a difficult struggle between reason and misunderstanding, legality and illegality, support and opposition! Some people today may still be constrained by various objective limitations and cannot view it with detachment, but I believe that in the future, people will look back and regret today's mistakes. If the floating island on the sea cannot become a monument standing on the sea, it will surely become a monument in the memories of those with a conscience! Regardless of people's attitudes, the creation of the floating island on the sea has already become a model for the efficient use of marine resources to develop the marine economy in our country, making a huge positive contribution to enhancing our national defense construction! It has played a constructive role in the development, utilization, and management of our marine waters. We live in this vibrant land of Shenzhen, full of innovative spirit. While people sing praises of reform and opening up and getting rich, we must be highly vigilant: on one hand, we enjoy the fruits of reform and innovation; on the other hand, we may intentionally or unintentionally become stumbling blocks to further deepening reform and continuous exploration and innovation! I hope all relevant parties will deeply reflect and pay attention! I hope the defendant can be rational, calm, thoughtful, dare to take responsibility, and have the courage to examine and treat this dispute with a high sense of responsibility, considering the interests of the country, society, and the people, regardless of temporary gains or losses in reputation. Cherish and protect the social wealth of tens of millions to nearly a hundred million yuan, and do not let it be destroyed by rigid and mechanical work styles. Let our coastal leisure tourism in Shenzhen have one more highlight, one more business card, one more industry, and one more new star. Because preserving the "floating island on the sea" benefits the country, the people, and oneself:

First, preserving the "floating island on the sea" benefits the country.

As early as 2001, our government clearly stated in the "National Marine Economic Development Plan Outline" that the state should vigorously advocate and encourage private capital to invest and finance the development of coastal areas and develop characteristic tourism. Guangdong Province has been designated by the State Council as a national marine comprehensive development pilot zone. In 2008, Shenzhen also formulated the "Several Opinions on Accelerating the Development of the Marine Industry and Building a Strong Marine City." Clearly, the "floating island on the sea," a typical creative use of private wisdom and private capital to innovate and develop the marine economy, aligns with the industrial policy orientation and marine economic development direction of the national and local governments. It can generate tax revenue for the national and local governments without affecting the territorial sea and airspace defense security of the area. On the contrary, the creation of the "floating island on the sea" not only benefits the economy but also contributes to national defense, holding significant positive value.

Second, preserving the "floating island on the sea" benefits the surrounding community.

The "floating island on the sea," a coastal aquaculture, fishing, and leisure complex built on floating structures near the sea, can beautify the coastline, create distinctive coastal tourist attractions, and become a new source of economic growth for local fishing villages and individual fishermen, increasing income and driving new economic development in the surrounding coastal areas and even the entire Shenzhen coastal region's fishery and tourism industries, benefiting people's livelihoods. Since it is located in a coastal bay, after addressing sewage issues, it does not hinder the normal use of the sea area or the marine ecological environment, nor does it affect the production and life of coastal fishing villagers. On the contrary, it can be developed into a multifunctional comprehensive leisure fishery cultural and creative industrial park integrating fish farming, fishing, fish viewing, leisure, entertainment, seafood tasting, and seafood shopping, operated comprehensively to develop a series of economies, serving as a wonderful tourist attraction for Shenzhen citizens, benefiting society and the people!

Third, preserving the "Floating Island on the Sea" is beneficial for the development of enterprises themselves.

The establishment of the "Floating Island on the Sea" represents a bold breakthrough innovation and a beneficial attempt by private enterprise capital to seek new industrial directions and develop emerging industries. If the "Floating Island on the Sea" can continue to develop and mature, it is bound to become a new industry (sector). In that case, private enterprise capital will not only find new ways to survive and develop but also generate greater returns, driving the continuous growth and expansion of private enterprises and private capital, thereby adding a new path to national prosperity and the enrichment of the people!

In the 2010 Shenzhen Economic Daily New Year editorial, the sixth essay titled "Let Dreams Become the Urban Character of Shenzhen" stated: "After taking office, Acting Mayor Wang Rong, also a member of the Standing Committee of the Provincial Party Committee, immediately felt the unique character of Shenzhen. When introducing Shenzhen to others, he particularly likes to use this emotional word: dreams. He said to Alibaba's Ma Yun during a meeting: 'Shenzhen has grown from nothing to something, from small to large, gathering so many talented people with dreams to come here and strive for entrepreneurship. This is because there is an excellent environment for innovation and entrepreneurship here, which is the greatest charm of Shenzhen. Shenzhen is indeed a good place, and it will not disappoint entrepreneurs with dreams!' Clearly, what keeps this hot land of Shenzhen always vibrant is not the tangible policies and systems, but the intangible dreams. There is a term called the American Dream, meaning that people firmly believe they can achieve a better life through unremitting efforts in the United States. And Shenzhen is undoubtedly a place where people realize the Chinese Dream. It has always been the best city for talented individuals with ideals, drive, and a dislike for the constraints of old systems to realize their dreams. Shenzhen has an indescribable environment for innovation and entrepreneurship. The Shenzhen Special Economic Zone is 30 years old this year. Thirty years old is no longer a young age. However, as long as we let dreams become the urban character of Shenzhen, our city will never grow old."

In summary, the agent hopes that the rhetoric in the editorial will not just remain on paper but will take root in people's hearts and be implemented in every aspect of specific work. We should not examine the "Floating Island on the Sea" in this case with a one-sided, narrow, conservative, mechanical, or short-sighted perspective, but rather with a flexible, forward-looking, and developmental view. To truly maintain social harmony, fairness and justice, progress and development, effectively protect social wealth from unnecessary loss, efficiently utilize marine resources to develop the marine economy for the enrichment of the people and the strength of the nation, we must make a fair judgment in this case, correct the illegal errors of the defendant in accordance with the law, so that this hot land of Shenzhen leaves no regrets! Does not lose people's hearts! No more controversy! Thank you!

Agent: Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm

Attorney Wang Tengfeng

June 21 (24), 2011

Administrative Ruling of the People's Court of XX District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province

(2011) Shen Long Fa Xing Chu Zi No. 45

Plaintiff: Shenzhen XX Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. Address: XXXXXX, XX District, Shenzhen City

Legal Representative: Guo Mouli, Chairman of the Board

Authorized Agent: Wang Tengfeng, Lawyer of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm

Agent Chen Mouhua, lawyer from Guangdong XX Law Firm.

Defendant: Shenzhen XX District XX Bureau. Address: XXXXXXXXXX, Shenzhen XX District.

Legal representative: Jia Moumou, Director.

Agent: Wu Moumou, lawyer from Guangdong XX Law Firm.

Agent: Guo Mou, lawyer from Guangdong XX Law Firm.

Plaintiff: Shenzhen XX Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd., in a case against the defendant Shenzhen XX District XX Bureau regarding the "Notice on Revoking the 'Reply on the Application for Certificates for Aquaculture and Fishing,'" has been accepted by this court in accordance with the law. During the proceedings, the plaintiff voluntarily submitted an application to withdraw the lawsuit on May 24, 2012.

This court finds that the plaintiff, Shenzhen XX Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd.'s application for withdrawal of the lawsuit complies with legal provisions, and this court grants permission. In accordance with Article 51 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the ruling is as follows:

The plaintiff, Shenzhen XX Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd., is permitted to withdraw the lawsuit.

The litigation fee for this case is RMB 50, reduced by half to RMB 25, to be borne by the plaintiff.

Presiding Judge: Zhang XX

Judge: Xiong XX

Judge: Yang XX

May 24, 2012

Administrative Ruling of the People's Court of XX District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province

(2011) Shen Long Fa Xing Chu Zi No. 47

Plaintiff: Shenzhen XX Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. Address: XXXX, XX District, Shenzhen

Legal Representative: Guo Mouli, Chairman of the Board

Authorized Agent: Guo Mouzhang, male, Han ethnicity, born on XX November 19XX, registered address: XXXX, Shenyang, ID number: 2101021964112xxxxx.

Authorized Agent: Wang Tengfeng, Lawyer of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm

Defendant: XX Bureau of XX District, Shenzhen. Address: XXXX, XX District, Shenzhen.

Legal Representative: Jia Moumou, Director.

Agent: Wu Moumou, lawyer from Guangdong XX Law Firm.

Agent: Guo Mou, lawyer from Guangdong XX Law Firm.

The plaintiff, Shenzhen XX Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd., filed a lawsuit against the defendant, Shenzhen XX District Economic Promotion Bureau, regarding the forced demolition act. This court has accepted the case in accordance with the law. During the trial, the plaintiff voluntarily submitted an application to withdraw the lawsuit on May 24, 2012.

This court holds that the plaintiff Shenzhen Maritime XX Entertainment Co., Ltd.'s application for withdrawal of the lawsuit complies with legal provisions and is hereby permitted. In accordance with Article 51 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the ruling is as follows:

The plaintiff Shenzhen Maritime XX Entertainment Co., Ltd. is permitted to withdraw the lawsuit.

The litigation fee for this case is RMB 50, reduced by half to RMB 25, to be borne by the plaintiff.

Presiding Judge: Yang X

Judge: Xiong XX

Judge: Zhang X

May 24, 2012

Administrative Ruling of the People's Court of XX District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province

(2011) Shen Long Fa Xing Chu Zi No. 53

Plaintiff Shenzhen XX Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. Address: XXXX District, Shenzhen City.

Legal Representative: Guo Mouli, Chairman of the Board

Authorized Agent: Wang Tengfeng, Lawyer of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm

Entrusted agent Chen XX, lawyer of Guangdong XX Law Firm.

Defendant: Shenzhen XX District XX Bureau. Address: XXXXXXXXXX, Shenzhen XX District.

Legal representative: Jia Moumou, Director.

Agent: Wu Moumou, lawyer from Guangdong XX Law Firm.

Agent: Guo Mou, lawyer from Guangdong XX Law Firm.

In the case where plaintiff Shenzhen XX Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. refused to accept the "Decision on Revoking the " made by the defendant Shenzhen XX District Economic Promotion Bureau, this court has lawfully accepted the case. During the trial, the plaintiff voluntarily submitted an application to withdraw the lawsuit on May 24, 2012.

This court holds that the plaintiff Shenzhen XX Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd.'s application for withdrawal complies with legal provisions and is hereby permitted. In accordance with Article 51 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the ruling is as follows:

The plaintiff Shenzhen XX Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. is permitted to withdraw the lawsuit.

The litigation fee for this case is RMB 50, reduced by half to RMB 25, to be borne by the plaintiff.

Presiding Judge: Zhang XX

Judge: Xiong XX

Judge: Yang XX

May 24, 2012