Tencent sued and asked to freeze Laoganma's property of 16.2406 million yuan several times, causing various hot discussions on the Internet. On July 1, Guiyang police announced that three people forged the seal of Laoganma company and cooperated with Tencent in advertising. The second civil trial court of Shenzhen Nanshan court, which accepted the dispute over Tencent's service contract with Lao Ganma, told the Beijing news that the case is still under further trial.
From all kinds of external information, Tencent and Laoganma did have the so-called "cooperation intersection". This outsider looks at the extremely lively dispute, is there another secret, or is it really hoodwinked by cheaters? With the reversal of the plot, at least nine questions emerge in the case. A number of lawyers also told the Beijing news that there are still many doubts about the incident. At the same time, if the police verify that it is fraud, involving a criminal case, Tencent should suspend the proceedings, and after the criminal case is completed, it can apply for the resumption of the trial.
Question 1: what are the identities and motives of the three suspects reported by the police?
In the afternoon of July 1, Shuanglong branch of Guiyang Public Security Bureau issued a police notice less than 300 words, saying that after receiving the report from Laoganma, the suspects Cao (male, 36), Liu Dali (female, 40), Zheng Xujun (female, 37) forged the seal of Laoganma company, pretended to be the manager of the company's marketing department, and signed a cooperation agreement with Tencent. Its purpose is to obtain Tencent company in the promotion activities of supporting the network game gift code, and then through the Internet reselling illegal economic benefits. At present, Cao and other three people have been detained according to law for suspected crimes. The case is under further processing.
In this circular, for the three suspects, the police only mentioned their gender and age, but their identity, experience and background were not mentioned for the time being.
In the morning of July 2, the new Beijing News reporter called Laoganma company again to ask whether the three people involved were Laoganma employees or had been Laoganma employees. A staff member first told the Beijing News reporters that "neither is it". Then said that any latest news will be released at any time on the official WeChat official account, and other matters will not be disclosed.
In addition, Zhao Zhanzhan, deputy director of Beijing Zhilin law firm, is also skeptical about the three people's criminal motives. In his opinion, in order to obtain the game gift package code given by Tencent, the difference between this and the promotion fee agreed in the promotion cooperation agreement is too large, and it is obvious that the criminal motive of the three suspects is unreasonable.
Question 2: Tencent's previous hot propaganda to heaven and earth, does Laoganma not know?
The Beijing News reporter combed the reports of various media on this matter and found that Laoganma company, in response to the media, said that it had no knowledge of the advertising cooperation with Tencent.
Godmother godmother issued a statement through the WeChat official account at 20:38 on June 30th, saying that the company had never signed a joint marketing cooperation agreement with Tencent Inc or authorized others and Tencent Inc on the "Lao Mama" brand, and never had any commercial cooperation with Tencent Inc.
According to public reports, in March 2019, Tencent signed a joint marketing cooperation agreement with the so-called Laoganma company, in which Tencent put resources into the promotion of Laoganma hot pepper series. Beijing News reporter inquired that at that time, the game industry media publicly reported that in April 2019, QQ flying car mobile tour s League spring match was opened, QQ flying car announced to cooperate with Laoganma, a national hot sauce brand. Laoganma will become the latest industry annual partner of s League, which is also known as Lao Ganma's first cross-border cooperation with E-sports.
Beijing News reporter through the micro blog to see that the host of the topic is "misty rain fate", the lead words write a dream of speed, no speed limit. At present, 170 million reading and 182000 discussions have been made. At the same time, many publicity scenes of Tencent QQ Express show the brand of Laoganma.
With such massive propaganda and rapid information transmission, did Laoganma not know at all before?
Zhao Zhan, a lawyer, also believes that there are doubts. He said that Tencent's publicity and promotion of Laoganma has lasted for a long time. It is very unlikely that Laoganma knows about it, and the motive of not negotiating with Tencent if they know it is also questionable.
Question 3: talk about cooperation with "old Ganma", did Tencent notice the clue during this period?
As soon as the incident occurred, the professionalism of Tencent's advertising, legal and other aspects of the audit was questioned.
Zhao Zhanzhan believes that, according to common sense, Tencent usually requires the other party to provide Laoganma company business license, bank account information and other materials before signing the promotion cooperation agreement; in the process of signing the agreement, it should also judge the identity of the other party according to the other party's e-mail, business card, business license and other documents.
Therefore, "if Laoganma company is indeed counterfeited, Tencent should be able to find relevant evidence." Zhao said.
Question 4: why didn't Lao Ganma and Guiyang police communicate with Tencent and Shenzhen court early?
The Beijing News reporter combed the whole incident schedule and found that according to the judicial document network, Shenzhen Nanshan court formed the case document on April 24 this year. In response to the media, Lao Ganma said that she received the legal documents on June 10 and reported the case to the public security organ. On June 20, Guiyang public security organ decided to put the case on file for investigation.
The real ferment of this event was on June 30, which was disclosed by the media before it was known to the outside world. In the afternoon of July 1, Guiyang police reported to the public that three people had pretended to be Laoganma to cooperate with Tencent.
From the court filing at the end of April to the police filing on June 20, Lao Ganma has not communicated with Tencent to explain the situation? Guiyang police found forged official seal and other acts after filing the case. Did they communicate with Shenzhen Nanshan court? All these problems remain to be solved.
Question 5: is there any fault in the civil ruling of Nanshan court in Shenzhen?
Tencent's lawsuit against Laoganma originated from a civil ruling disclosed by the media. On June 30, a civil ruling issued by the people's Court of Nanshan District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, was posted on the website of China judicial documents. According to a civil ruling, Tencent requested to seal up and freeze the property worth 16.2406 million yuan in the name of Guizhou Laoganma company, and the court ruled to grant the request.
And then appeared a series of reversal plot let netizens confused, many people can not help wondering, "the court in the trial process do not look at the relevant evidence?" "Is this civil ruling wrong?"
In this regard, on July 1, the reporter of Beijing News interviewed Chen ruojian, managing partner of Duanhe (Beijing) law firm. He said that at present, it is difficult to say that the court has fault liability. It is Tencent's application for property preservation. As long as Tencent meets the basic application conditions and the court approves, it can not be said that the court is at fault or the court is liable for compensation. In civil trial, both parties give evidence separately. If one party brings a lawsuit, it can apply for property preservation, which does not necessarily need to be fully tried by the court before freezing.
Does the court have loopholes in the process of civil adjudication? On the afternoon of July 1, relevant personnel of the second civil trial court of Shenzhen Nanshan court, which accepted the case of Tencent and Laoganma contract service dispute, told the Beijing news that "this case is still under further trial, and other matters are not convenient to disclose".
According to the cover news report on July 1, relevant personnel from the external publicity department of Nanshan District People's Court of Shenzhen said, "the network situation has been paid attention to. The collegial panel is handling the specific situation carefully, and other contents are inconvenient to respond.".
Question 6: if there is an error in the freezing of assets, who will be responsible for the compensation?
Tencent's accusation against Laoganma was denied by Laoganma and three people from Guiyang police department forged Laoganma's official seal to cooperate with Tencent. Tencent was cheated.
Tencent had asked the court to freeze the assets of Laoganma, which may have an impact on the goodwill of Laoganma. If there is a mistake, does Tencent need compensation?
A lawyer, who did not want to be named, told the Beijing news that according to the ruling of Nanshan District Court in Shenzhen, the case has been put on file and belongs to preservation in litigation.
Chen ruojian, a lawyer, explained to Beijing news that when applying for freezing assets, the court will require the applicant to make corresponding guarantee, so as to avoid compensation for losses to the other party after freezing errors. The court has not entered the trial of the entity, but has done property preservation first. In case of any mistake, the applicant shall be liable for compensation.
According to the civil procedure law, Tencent had the right to apply to the court for property preservation of Laoganma company. When Tencent asked to freeze more than 16 million funds of Laoganma company, it also needed to provide guarantee. In this case, it was guaranteed by an insurance company. The insurance company will compensate for the loss caused to Laoganma company because of wrong preservation.
Question 7: will Tencent withdraw the lawsuit?
After Guiyang police reported that three people forged the seal of Lao Ganma and cooperated with Tencent in advertising, did Tencent withdraw the lawsuit?
At present, Tencent only responded to its official microblog on the evening of July 1 that it was "inexhaustible". In order to prevent similar incidents from happening again, Tencent took 1000 bottles of Laoganma as gifts to solicit similar clues, but did not mention whether to withdraw the lawsuit. Laoganma staff also responded to the media on the afternoon of July 1, saying it was not clear whether Tencent would withdraw the lawsuit.
In the view of Lawyer Chen ruojian, if the police verify that it is fraud, it is involved in a criminal case. According to the law, criminal cases are first followed by civil cases. Tencent should suspend the proceedings and apply for resumption of trial after the criminal cases are completed.
Question 8: more than 10 million advertising expenses, who is Tencent looking for?
Tencent sued Laoganma and asked to freeze ten million assets. Tencent responded to the media that Lao Ganma and her advertising cooperation owed tens of millions of yuan in advertising expenses. Now after dramatic reversal, who should Tencent look for this advertising fee?
In this regard, Lawyer Chen ruojian said that if it is finally verified and identified as a criminal fraud case, the contract is invalid. For the three suspects, Tencent can file a civil suit collateral to criminal proceedings and ask them to compensate for their losses. Another way is that the public security organs will recover the stolen money and stolen goods when trying cases, and make up for Tencent's losses by recovering assets.
Question 9: can Laoganma claim damages for reputation to Tencent?
In the event of continuous reversal, Tencent was cheated, Lao Ganma reputation also affected. Can Laoganma claim damages for reputation to Tencent?
Chen ruojian explained that if the property preservation error leads to the infringement damage compensation, if the preservation error, the court generally supports the direct loss. Lao Ganma can file a claim against Tencent, including attorney fees and direct economic losses caused by preservation, but it is almost impossible to support compensation for reputation loss. Lao Ganma can put forward such a claim, but it is difficult to prove the loss of goodwill and the causality of loss in the actual operation process.