Dehehantong's agency case of "order rigging" to defraud subsidies - Not prosecuted
In the current era of vigorous development of the digital economy, the legal battle between platform subsidy mechanisms and "order rigging" behaviors has drawn increasing attention. This article takes a case handled by Chen Shilei, a senior partner of the Shanghai office of Dehehantong, and Ma Keting, a lawyer from the Shanghai office, who were not prosecuted for suspected subsidy fraud on the Ele.me platform, as the starting point, and shares some reference ideas for handling similar cases. The background of the case is that the supermarket operated by the party involved was accused of defrauding subsidies through false transactions on the Ele.me platform. The defense counsel pointed out that the calculation of the charged amount was rough and the evidence was insufficient. Eventually, the procuratorate adopted the opinion, demonstrating the fairness and prudence of the law. This case enlightens legal professionals that they need to interpret the boundaries of the law with professional qualities, convey warmth, and make justice the cornerstone of the digital economy era.
01 Case Background: An accusation regarding "order rigging"
From March 2022 to May 2023, the supermarket operated by the party concerned was thriving on the Ele.me platform. However, the good times didn't last long. A accusation of "order rigging" quietly emerged. The platform accused the party concerned of taking advantage of the platform's subsidy mechanism, registering non-existent users on the platform successively under the identities of their supermarket employees and customers. Without any real transactions, they made false transactions and defrauded the platform of nearly 800,000 yuan in subsidies through the "order manipulation" method. This accusation is like a heavy hammer, hitting the person involved on the head and also our preconceived notion of the nature of "order rigging" behavior.
02 Defense Opinion
(1) The amount of fraud alleged by the victim to the suspect in this case is unclear
In the face of the accusations, the defense attorney put forward a strong defense opinion. First, questions were raised regarding the amount of fraud alleged by the victim. The defense holds that the calculation method of considering all users who placed orders more than 40 times in the party's online supermarket from March 2022 to May 2023 as fraudulent orders and including the amount in the fraud amount is very rough and lacks reasonable relevance.
The suspect's supermarket was a supply guarantee supermarket during the epidemic
The defense further elaborated on the special nature of the party's supermarket during the epidemic. From March to October 2022, the offline physical supermarket operated by the party concerned was a supply guarantee supermarket. During the epidemic, its vehicles had vehicle passes for supply guarantee enterprises and could freely deliver goods. During this period, other supermarkets were unable to operate, and a large number of citizens and government and enterprise units flocked to the online supermarket of the party concerned to place orders for food and other necessities. Due to the special nature of its supply guarantee supermarket, its supermarket sales have consistently ranked first in the local area. During the epidemic, the number of users who placed repeat orders more than 40 times was countless, all of which were normal purchasing behaviors. Subsidies were also given to users rather than the parties involved normally. The sales amount during this period should not be included in the fraud amount.
The suspect's supermarket was transferred to someone else in February of the following year
Furthermore, the defense also brought up the fact that the party's supermarket was transferred to another person in February 2023. On February 13, 2023, the party concerned handed over the supermarket and online store involved in the case to others for operation and management. On the same day, a staff meeting was held to inform the employees that starting from February 14, the supermarket would be transferred to others for management and they would no longer operate the store. This fact has been supported by an effective civil judgment. Therefore, the sales volume after February 13, 2023 should not be included in the amount of fraud committed by the party concerned.
The supermarket was banned by the platform in May
In May 2023, due to a tip-off from others, the online stores of the involved supermarket were completely taken down, and orders could no longer be placed, resulting in no online sales. Therefore, in June 2023, although the transferee of the supermarket found the suspect and signed a partnership agreement again to jointly operate the supermarket in the hope of reversing profits and losses, there was no possibility of defrauding online subsidies at this time.
(2) The evidence for the amount of fraud alleged by the suspect by the victim in this case is insufficient
In terms of evidence, the defense also put forward a strong rebuttal. The defense counsel pointed out that from November 2022 to January 2023, the party's supermarket was still operating normally. When the employees in the supermarket sometimes felt that the platform's subsidies were very cost-effective after placing orders and also needed supplies, they would inform the party that they did not need to return the actual cost of purchasing the supplies but could take them home for their own use. In this case, it is inappropriate to simply and brutally include the sales volume of all subsidized materials during that period in the fraud amount, and it is impossible to form a reasonable and relevant chain of evidence.
(3) The suspect has obtained the victim's forgiveness
The defense counsel also evaluated the social danger of the parties involved. The defense counsel pointed out that the party's confession was stable after being taken into custody and had already obtained the victim's forgiveness. After preliminary investigation, the evidence in this case has been basically fixed. Changing the compulsory measure to bail pending trial will not affect the smooth progress of the investigation, nor will there be any situation of destroying, forging evidence, interfering with witnesses' testimony or colluding in giving false testimony. Therefore, this case does not have any circumstances that may pose a social danger as stipulated in the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security on Several Issues Concerning the Conditions for Social Danger in Arrest (Trial Implementation)".
03 Case outcome: No prosecution
Ultimately, after comprehensively considering the defense counsel's opinions and the specific circumstances of the case, the procuratorate determined that the case was questionable and did not prosecute. Three months later, the investigation authority withdrew the case and concluded the investigation. This decision is not only fair to the individual parties involved, but also a commitment to the spirit of the law. It tells us that the law is not cold provisions, but rather warm justice and prudence.
04 Conclusion: The Boundaries and Warmth of Law
The case of not prosecuting suspected fraud has brought us profound enlightenment. In the era of digital economy, the platform subsidy mechanism has become an important means for merchants to attract customers and increase sales. However, this mechanism has also given rise to the behavior of "order rigging". When it comes to the characterization of "order rigging" behavior, we cannot make a blanket statement but should analyze specific issues on a case-by-case basis.
The so-called "order rigging" refers to the act of merchants boosting product sales and store reputation through false transactions in order to obtain platform subsidies. However, not all "order-rigging" behaviors constitute crimes. Only when the "order rigging" behavior reaches a certain severity, such as a huge amount of false transactions and seriously disrupting market order, can it possibly constitute a crime.
This case represents a rethinking of the characterization of "order rigging" behavior. In the wave of the digital economy, the game between platform subsidy mechanisms and "order rigging" behavior will continue. And we, as guardians of the law, need to face these new situations and problems with a more open mind and more professional qualities. Only in this way can we find the balance point of justice at the boundary of the law and let the light of the law illuminate every corner. Let's take the case of non-prosecution for suspected fraud as a starting point to start a new reflection on the characterization of "order rigging" behavior, and let the fairness and prudence of the law become the most solid foundation in the digital economy era.
