Yesterday afternoon, I suddenly got a call from the security office saying someone had come to deliver a commendation banner for me. I thought I must have misheard, so I asked them to repeat it. They mentioned that the person had called me about it on June 19th. Given the sheer number of calls I handle daily, I couldn’t recall such a conversation, so I told security to let them in to see what this was all about.
Originating from a Public Petition Case
After the call, I waited for a long time but no one showed up, and I started to think it might have been a wrong number. Unexpectedly, nearly an hour later, someone finally arrived.
After some explanation, I remembered: on June 19th, I had received a letter from him. Following the details in the letter, I contacted the relevant department to address the issue. What I initially thought would be a drawn-out process was resolved in just a day or two. Later, he made a special trip from Shenzhen to present me with this banner.
Once he arrived, he felt it wasn’t enough—he even tried to arrange for local media to cover the story. Fortunately, they couldn’t make it, because given the circumstances, it would have been quite awkward for me.
A Brief Summary of the Case
His situation was both simple and complicated.
The letter he sent was five pages long, written in small font, detailing his experience in nearly 4,000 to 5,000 words.
In short: Years ago, he partnered with others to start a company registered under his name, but it was actually operated by these outsiders. During its operation, these individuals used contract fraud to swindle another company out of 6 million yuan. The defrauded company sued him in court, demanding payment. Throughout the process, the outsiders kept deceiving him, claiming they would take responsibility for the “debt,” so he didn’t contest the lawsuit. It wasn’t until the court listed him as a “deadbeat” (laolai) that he realized something was wrong.
The real urgency came when his child planned to enlist in the military. If he remained a “deadbeat,” his child’s political vetting would undoubtedly fail. Desperate, he wrote to us for help.
How It Was Handled
I briefly checked with the relevant authorities about his case. It turned out the outsiders he mentioned had already been criminally charged in multiple jurisdictions. If it could be confirmed that he wasn’t involved in the crimes, there were legal avenues to remove his “deadbeat” status. So, I forwarded his letter to the investigating unit.
Under their guidance, as a victim of the crime, he quickly obtained the necessary documentation and was able to apply to the court to have his失信 (dishonesty) record cleared.
The entire process took me no more than an hour across four phone calls:
- The first call was to verify the details with the investigating unit.
- The second was to the court to understand the procedure for removing the “deadbeat” status.
- The third was with the investigating unit to discuss how to handle his request.
- The fourth was to inform him that we had received his letter and explain the next steps.
The Complicated Backstory
While the resolution was straightforward, his letter and the gesture of presenting the banner made it clear that he had approached this matter with great uncertainty.
In fact, after receiving his letter, I immediately looked up his information on Qichacha (a business database) and found that he wasn’t just associated with the involved company—he also controlled several other businesses.
This made me suspect that his relationship with the company and the individuals involved might not be as simple as “deceived victim.” He might have been part of it.
However, after reviewing two court judgments related to the company, I didn’t find any glaring red flags. The cases did indeed show that outsiders had primarily operated under the company’s name, using deposits and guarantees to commit fraud—once the victim’s funds were transferred, the contractual obligations were ignored.
Further discussions with the investigating unit revealed that his company had long been entangled in lawsuits across multiple jurisdictions. The individuals behind the contract fraud had been arrested in different regions, and they hadn’t just used his company—they had exploited others as well.
While I had my doubts, his claim of being a “victim” wasn’t entirely unfounded. That said, compared to the truly defrauded companies and individuals, his “victim” status felt somewhat self-inflicted.
After all, allowing others to operate a company under his name was inherently risky and legally discouraged. While such practices are hard to eradicate, and the law often turns a blind eye, when problems arise, the nominal owner usually bears responsibility.
In this case, he just happened to be caught in an unusual situation where the actual operators were engaged in outright criminal activity.
Had it not been for this, I doubt he would have had any chance of shedding the “deadbeat” label.