[5] Sequel to "The Goose Fraud": Three Individuals Convicted of Fraud, Tencent Compensated, Laoganma Walks Away Unscathed
[4] Compiled from: Red Star News
[2] The second-instance trial of three individuals impersonating employees of Guiyang Nanming Laoganma Flavor Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Laoganma Company) to defraud Shenzhen Tencent Computer Systems Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Tencent Company) has been ruled by the Guiyang Intermediate People's Court: the appeal was dismissed and the original verdict upheld.
Case review
[3] On June 29, 2020, a civil ruling from the Nanshan District People's Court in Shenzhen, Guangdong, was disclosed on the China Judgments Online website, approving the plaintiff Tencent Company's request to seal and freeze assets worth approximately 16.24 million yuan under the defendant Laoganma Company's name.
[4] The reason for the seizure was that in March 2019, Tencent Company and Laoganma Company signed a "Joint Market Promotion Cooperation Agreement," under which Tencent Company allocated resources to promote Laoganma Company's chili oil series. Tencent Company fulfilled its obligations as per the agreement, but Laoganma Company failed to make payments as stipulated. After repeated reminders yielded no results, Tencent Company had no choice but to file a lawsuit. The cooperation cited by Tencent Company was reportedly a 2019 collaboration involving its game QQ Speed and Laoganma Company. Information from 2019 indicated that Laoganma Company would become the annual industry partner for the QQ Speed Mobile Game S League.
[5] On the evening of June 30 of the same year, the WeChat public account "Laoganma" issued a statement claiming that the company had never signed a "Joint Market Promotion Cooperation Agreement" with Tencent Company or authorized anyone to do so regarding the "Laoganma" brand, and had never engaged in any commercial cooperation with Tencent Company. In response to this major incident, Laoganma Company promptly took legal measures to protect its legitimate rights and interests and reported the case to the public security authorities.
[6] On July 1, 2020, the Shuanglong Branch of the Guiyang Public Security Bureau issued a police notice stating that suspects Cao (male, 36), Liu (female, 40), and Zheng (female, 37) forged Laoganma Company's seal, impersonated the company's marketing department manager, and signed a cooperation agreement with Tencent Company. Their goal was to obtain online game gift codes that Tencent Company provided as part of the promotional activities, which they then resold online for illegal financial gain. The three individuals were criminally detained for suspected crimes.
On December 29, 2021, the Nanming District People's Court of Guiyang City rendered a first-instance verdict on this case, sentencing the three defendants to fixed-term imprisonment of 12 years, 7 years, and 6 years respectively, along with fines, and ordering them to compensate Tencent Company over 4.31 million yuan.
"Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China"
Article 224: Crime of Contract Fraud
Under any of the following circumstances, if a person, with the intent of illegal possession, defrauds the other party of property during the conclusion or performance of a contract, and the amount is relatively large, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention, and shall also, or shall only, be fined; if the amount is huge or there are other serious circumstances, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years, and shall also be fined; if the amount is especially huge or there are other especially serious circumstances, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years or life imprisonment, and shall also be fined or have their property confiscated.
(1) concluding a contract in the name of a fictitious unit or in the name of another person;
(2) using forged, altered, or invalidated bills or other false property certificates as guaranty;
(3) having no actual ability to perform, luring the other party into continuing to conclude and perform contracts by performing a small-amount contract or partially performing a contract;
(4) Absconding after receiving the goods, payment, advance payment, or collateral property given by the other party;
(5) Obtaining the property of the other party through other fraudulent means.
[1] The author's perspective
In this case, although the three individuals staged an elaborate act and initially managed to deceive Tencent Company, the truth could not be concealed forever, and they were ultimately exposed before the sword of justice.
In fact, Tencent also bore some responsibility in this case, mainly due to its lax review of the partner. Laoganma, after all, is a well-known domestic brand, and verifying its qualifications is not a difficult task. Therefore, Tencent itself made certain mistakes in this cooperation, such as confirming the other party's identity and the scope of the collaboration. This shows that before signing a contract, one must fully understand the other party's identity information and authorization scope. If due diligence had been exercised, such criminals would have found it difficult to succeed. The author also warns those lawbreakers with ulterior motives not to be blinded by greed and harbor侥幸心理, for the net of justice is vast, and no one escapes.
