Tencent's lawsuit against Laoganma has made waves again.

  On July 1, the Shuanglong Branch of the Public Security Bureau of Guiyang City issued a report stating that after preliminary investigation, the three criminal suspects were reselling in order to obtain the online game gift package code provided by Tencent in the promotion activities, posing as the staff of the old godmother and Tencent. Signed a cooperation agreement, and the suspected criminal has been detained by criminal.

  Previously, in the case of Tencent v. Laoganma's service contract dispute, the People's Court of Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong had ruled to seal up and freeze Laoganma's property of 16.24 million yuan, which caused heated discussions among netizens.

  Today, the announcement of the Guizhou Police confirms that Tencent is indeed “deceived”. How should the Nanshan District Court’s ruling be handled? Why did the Nanshan District Court fail to recognize that the contract was forged? Has Tencent played a lawsuit in the Nanshan District Court, has it never lost?

  If the case is a criminal case, the court should transfer it to the public security organ

  The documents of China Judgment Document Network show that the plaintiff Tencent filed an application for property preservation with the Shenzhen Nanshan District Court, requesting that the defendant Guiyang Nanming Laoganma Flavor Food Sales Co., Ltd. and Guiyang Nanming Laoganma Flavor Food Co., Ltd. be worth RMB. For the property of 16.24 million yuan, Xinjiang Qianhai United Property Insurance Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch and PICC P&C Shenzhen Branch provided credit guarantee for the property insurance in this case.

  The People’s Court of Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong believed that the plaintiff’s application complied with the law and ruled that the bank deposits worth 16.24 million yuan in the name of Guiyang Nanming Laoganma Flavor Food Sales Co., Ltd. and Guiyang Nanming Laoganma Flavor Food Co., Ltd. should be sealed and frozen. , Or seize, seize other property of equivalent value.

  Zhang Zhengxin, a lawyer from Beijing Yingke (Tianjin) Law Firm, said that the civil ruling of the Nanshan District People's Court ruled that the preservation of Laoganma's 16.24 million property does not mean that Tencent has won the case. The ruling of property preservation and the success of the case are two different things. As long as the application for property preservation has a certain factual basis and provides a guarantee, the court must make a ruling in time. Tencent has submitted the corresponding guarantee, and the Nanshan Court made a preservation ruling that is understandable.

  The first paragraph of Article 100 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates: People's courts may rule on the property of a party based on the application of the other party in cases where the judgment may be difficult to execute or cause other damage to the party due to the behavior or other reasons of the party Carry out preservation, order them to do certain actions or prohibit them from doing certain actions. The third paragraph stipulates: After accepting the application, the people’s court must make a ruling within 48 hours if the situation is urgent.

  Zhang Zhengxin believes that Tencent applied for the preservation of more than 10 million yuan of property of the old godmother and provided a guarantee, which is an emergency. Therefore, the Nanshan District People's Court must make a ruling in time.

  Then, after the Guizhou police intervened and opened the case for investigation, is the ruling made by the Nanshan Court still valid?

  Zhang Zhengxin said that Article 11 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Related to Economic Suspects in the Trial of Economic Dispute Cases” states that: People’s courts accept economic disputes as cases that are considered to be not economic disputes but economic. If the crime is suspected, it shall rule to dismiss the prosecution and transfer the relevant materials to the public security organ or procuratorial organ. "That is to say, if Laoganma's criminal report was successful and the economic dispute was indeed a criminal case, the Nanshan Court should rule that the Tencent prosecution should be rejected and the relevant materials should be transferred to the public security organ."

  "In this case, it is estimated that Tencent will withdraw the case unless there are other details in the middle of the case. Because of the criminal investigation stage, many issues have not been clarified. For example, whether these three people turned out to be Laoganma employees, who had previously represented Laoganma and Tencent. Contacts, etc. If Tencent knew that it had been cheated before, it would definitely not sue. The follow-up account must also ask the scammers." Zhang Zhengxin told the reporter of China Economic Weekly.

  Although Tencent has a high winning rate, it has also traveled through Maicheng

  Earlier, Tencent repeatedly joked and won the lawsuit in the Nanshan court, and was dubbed "Nanshan Pizza Hut" by netizens.

  A reporter from China Economic Weekly consulted the China Judgment Documents Network, and the results showed that 4,533 cases related to Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. were officially decided by the Nanshan District Court. A random review of China Economic Weekly found that in many cases where Tencent was a defendant, the plaintiff eventually withdrew his case.

  For example, in the first 10 articles of the search results, 8 of Tencent Computer Systems Co., Ltd. were the defendants, and the plaintiffs all applied for withdrawal, and the court ruled that the withdrawal was in compliance with the regulations.

  Tencent Technology, which often appears in the original/defendant with Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd., is more representative.

  According to incomplete statistics by reporters, the China Judgment Documents Network has included 61 cases of Nanshan District Court since 2016 where Tencent Technology is the original/defendant. Among them, Tencent Technology was the plaintiff in 55 cases and six were the defendant. Tencent Technology basically won the lawsuit. In addition, there were 397 rulings related to Tencent Technology in the Nanshan District Court.

  China Judgment Documents Network shows that in the cases where Tencent Technology and Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. are the plaintiffs, the defendant has many well-known companies such as Panda Mutual Entertainment, Hero Mutual Entertainment, and Ali Wenchuang. Among them, especially Tencent and Ali have the largest number of cases of music copyright disputes and the largest amount involved. According to preliminary statistics, since 2016, Tencent Technology and Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. have filed no less than 18 cases against Ali Wenchuang in the Nanshan Court, and the court ruled that the amount of compensation payable by Ali Wenchuang is not less than 23.631 million yuan.

  However, although Tencent's legal team is strong, it may be defeated in Maicheng.

  In February 2019, the IT House website published an article "Do Social, Tencent Forced". Tencent believed that many of the contents of this article constituted a defamation, and then sued to the Qingdao Intermediate People's Court, requesting that the IT House be ordered The registered or operated IT house and other media channels continued to issue an apology statement for 30 days, compensating Tencent for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 3 million yuan.

  After being defeated by the Qingdao Intermediate People's Court, the IT House appealed to the Shandong Provincial High People's Court. The Shandong Provincial High People’s Court believes that the arguments based on the comments issued by IT House are all relevant reports of authoritative media. It does not fabricate or disseminate false information and misleading information. It only makes legitimate comments on Tencent’s business operations. Although some terms are too sharp, they are still within the scope of comments and will not mislead the public. On May 14, 2020, the Shandong Provincial Higher People's Court finalized the first-instance judgment and rejected Tencent's lawsuit.

  Regarding the title of Tencent's "Nanshan Pizza Hut", Zhang Zhengxin believes that any case may lose the lawsuit. Even if the lawsuit filed by Tencent in the Nanshan Court cannot reach a 100% victory, the court must make a judgment based on facts and The law prevails.

  Zhou Qi, reporter of China Economic Weekly