Fake death certificates become a "gray industry," online shopping platforms should "take responsibility for their turf."

Compiled from: Red Star News, The Paper, Jinan Times
 
Case review
At the end of last year, a man in Jiangsu, who had previously been released on bail pending trial for defrauding 1.9 million yuan, was later found to have submitted a “death certificate” to the court. An investigation revealed that the man had purchased forged documents, including a “death certificate” and a “cremation certificate,” online in an attempt to evade legal punishment.

 
Fake death certificates

 

A media investigation found that a death certificate can be obtained on online platforms for less than 200 yuan. One merchant, in a “thoughtful” manner, offered that if a customer needed to strengthen their position in a lawsuit, they could also forge a “critical condition notice,” which carries more weight than a “death certificate.” The purpose of purchasing such documents is mostly to fraudulently obtain illegitimate benefits or evade legal liability, making the nature of such acts extremely egregious.
 
However, documents such as death certificates, critical illness notices, and medical birth certificates are statutory certifying documents for handling related affairs. They are all issued by government agencies and public institutions and must bear the official seal of the issuing unit. Therefore, the buying and selling of forged “death certificates” and other such documents may, from a legal perspective, result in at minimum public security penalties, or at maximum criminal liability.

 
Fake death certificates

 
Article 280 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China
Whoever forges, alters, buys, sells, steals, seizes by force, or destroys official documents, certificates, or seals of state organs shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, surveillance, or deprivation of political rights, and shall also be fined; if the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years, and shall also be fined.
 
 
Public Security Administration Punishments Law Article 52  
Whoever commits any of the following acts shall be detained for not less than ten days but not more than fifteen days and may also be fined not more than 1,000 yuan; if the circumstances are relatively minor, they shall be detained for not less than five days but not more than ten days and may also be fined not more than 500 yuan:
(1) Forging, altering, or buying or selling official documents, certificates, evidentiary documents, or seals of state organs, people's organizations, enterprises, institutions, or other organizations;
(2) Buying or selling, or using forged or altered official documents, certificates, or evidentiary documents of state organs, people's organizations, enterprises, institutions, or other organizations;
……

 
Image source: Internet

 
[1] The author's perspective
From the above cases, one can imagine how chilling it is that a fake certificate can be purchased for just one or two hundred yuan. This kind of “gray industry” not only undermines social integrity but also fuels many illegal and criminal activities, bringing unpredictable risks to society.

From the above legal provisions, it is clear that both buyers and sellers of such fake certificates have violated the law, ranging from minor violations of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law to serious offenses under the Criminal Law. Since the relevant laws have long been explicitly stipulated, why does this underground chain still operate with impunity? The author believes there are two reasons:

First, the laxity of online platforms. On a certain shopping website, simply entering the relevant keywords is enough to find the corresponding “products.” Despite such blatant keyword searches, the platform has still not removed them, making it so easy for “buyers” and “sellers” to complete transactions. The platform’s fault cannot be overlooked.
 
Second, oversight by relevant authorities has been inadequate. This is not a new problem; many media outlets reported on it long ago, yet it persists today, which shows that enforcement has been insufficient. Relevant authorities should hold platforms accountable to their primary responsibilities. It is not enough for platforms to merely conduct self-examinations and make corrections; where necessary, penalties should be imposed in accordance with the law. Only in this way can platforms be compelled to “fulfill their duties” and make every effort to cut off the transaction chains of the “gray industry” of certification.