Due to the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, selling fake "Ordos" and "Hengyuanxiang" brand wool sweaters, farmer Li Qing from Guiyang County in Hunan Province was sentenced to 5 years in prison by the Intermediate People's Court of Ordos in Inner Mongolia, with a fine of 21.51 million yuan. After this incident was uploaded online, the astronomical penalty triggered widespread controversy among netizens.
Farmer Li Qing from Guiyang County sold counterfeit goods and was arrested across provinces. This case was first exposed on Weibo by netizen "Li Gen." In August 2010, farmer Li Qing from Guiyang County in Hunan Province started a clothing business with the help of his relatives. He rented a shop in Fumin Market in Chenzhou City to operate wool sweaters. "Li Gen" stated that on December 15 of the same year, the Economic Investigation Brigade of the Ordos Public Security Bureau in Inner Mongolia sent people to the shop to arrest Li Qing and others, and confiscated all the clothes and sales computers in the store, citing the reason of "suspected sale of counterfeit trademarked goods." Later, Li Qing was sentenced to 5 years in prison by the Ordos Intermediate People's Court for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, with a fine of 21.51 million yuan.
After the verdict was announced, the astronomical penalty sparked controversy. According to Li Qing's brother-in-law Xiao Jun, Li Qing started renting a shop to sell wool sweaters since last August. Through procurement channels, Li Qing ordered a batch of wool sweaters from small workshops in Tongxiang City, Zhejiang Province, making a profit of only about ten thousand yuan.
Unsatisfied with the verdict, the man who sold counterfeit goods has appealed. According to Xiao Jun's statement, currently, there are many counterfeit wool sweaters with the "Ordos" and "Hengyuanxiang" trademarks being sold in the local market. There is a complete process for purchasing these goods in Tongxiang, Zhejiang. Li Qing only went once, and the wool sweaters were produced in small workshops by Huang Luying, Huang Qiuying, and others. Then, people who sewed the trademarks bought them from Zhou Jinzhu and sewed them on, finally shipping them via logistics to the Chenzhou train station. Li Qing was responsible for making payments to these people.
Four months later, the police from Ordos, with the cooperation of the local police, arrested Li Qing and others. After being reviewed by the public security, procuratorate, and court in Ordos, Inner Mongolia, Li Qing was sentenced to 5 years in prison for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, with a fine of 21.51 million yuan. An appeal was filed the day after the verdict was announced. Li Qing requested an appeal, and the Higher People's Court of Inner Mongolia has now accepted the case.
The astronomical penalty of 21.51 million yuan was calculated based on the price tags, including unsold items.
According to the verdict of the Ordos Intermediate People's Court: the police detained a total of 4351 pieces of counterfeit "Ordos" wool sweaters with a price tag of 2180 yuan each; 17403 pieces of counterfeit "Ordos" wool sweaters with a price tag of 1680 yuan each; and 4433 pieces of counterfeit "Hengyuanxiang" wool sweaters with a price tag of 968 yuan each. Adding up all three categories, there were a total of 26187 pieces, with a total price tag amounting to 430,133,640 yuan. The court recognized this 430 million yuan price tag as the "illegal operating amount." Ultimately, based on this "illegal operating amount," Li Qing was sentenced to 5 years in prison and fined 21.51 million yuan.
However, according to Li Qing's transaction records on Taobao, the prices of the "Ordos" wool sweaters he sold were 100 yuan, 120 yuan, and 150 yuan respectively. Through online and physical stores, a total of more than 400 pieces of these clothes were sold, with an average selling price of over 140 yuan. The court's final recognized price tag was more than ten times the actual selling price of these clothes.
Punishing for the crime of counterfeiting trademarks, the case characterization sparks controversy.
Regarding the pricing issue of infringing goods, Li Qing's defense lawyer, Wang Fuqu from Xin Guang Law Firm in Inner Mongolia, submitted Li Qing's sales CD as a defense to the Ordos Intermediate People's Court. The CD recorded that the prices of the "Ordos" wool sweaters sold by Li Qing were 100 yuan, 120 yuan, and 150 yuan respectively, with an average online selling price of 147.54 yuan. However, the Ordos Intermediate People's Court ultimately did not adopt Wang Fuqu's defense opinion. The court believed that the actual sales amount of infringing goods could not be determined, so the "price tag" was used.
The astronomical penalty was also influenced by the case characterization. The court determined that Li Qing committed the crime of counterfeiting trademarks, so the counterfeit clothes found in Li Qing's shop but not yet sold were also included in the calculation. However, Wang Fuqu believed that "all the fake-making procedures were completed in Tongxiang," and Li Qing was just selling, so he should not be convicted of counterfeiting registered trademarks, but rather the crime of selling counterfeit trademarked goods. In this way, the counterfeit clothes that were not sold would be considered "crime uncompleted" and should not be punished so severely.
Wang Fuqu said that according to the current situation, in four months, Li Qing only sold more than 400 pieces, with a total sales amount of only 60,000 yuan and a profit of around 10,000 yuan. Being fined 21.51 million yuan was inappropriate.
Family: The penalty is exorbitant, several generations would find it hard to pay off.
On the afternoon of the 16th, the reporter contacted Li Qing's wife, Li Hongying. After the case broke out, she was detained together with her husband in a detention center in Ordos. After paying a bail of 45,000 yuan, they returned to Chenzhou. Li Hongying protested against the "astronomical penalty" issued by the Intermediate People's Court of Ordos City.
"I admit we made counterfeit clothes, but it's not some unforgivable act like food that can harm the body," Li Hongying gave her own reasons. She claimed that the couple only made a profit of ten thousand yuan from selling counterfeit goods but had to bear an astronomical penalty, which made the verdict unreasonable.
Li Hongying stated that she did not have the ability to pay this penalty and would not pay it. "The penalty is too exorbitant. It would take several generations of my family to pay it off," she told the reporter.
Lawyer's Opinion: The "Astronomical Penalty" Damages the Credibility of the Court
Chen Pingchang, a lawyer from Hunan Jinzhou Law Firm, believes that the "astronomical penalty" not only makes the penalty in this case an "empty judgment," but also raises doubts among the public whether such a huge penalty will be legally deposited into the national treasury.
The main function of a penalty is to deprive, deter, and reform criminals. Li Qing is a farmer, and before the court imposed the astronomical penalty, perhaps the financial status of the suspect was not fully investigated, and the judgment was solely based on the "price tag." Such a laughable judgment result is difficult to play the true role of the penalty.
Chen Pingchang pointed out that the swift actions of the Economic Investigation Brigade of the Ordos Public Security Bureau and the smooth cooperation of the court easily make the public suspicious of any underlying interests. According to the law, penalties should be deposited into the national treasury. If the "astronomical penalty" cannot be enforced, it will not only cause certain losses to the state but also fail to protect the authority of the law.
Voice: The "Astronomical Penalty" is Caused by "Selective Enforcement"
In fact, similar to the "astronomical toll fee case" involving farmers in Henan, what Li Qing encountered is just selective enforcement, a problem caused by incomplete and careless laws, and excessive judicial discretion of the court. Precisely this kind of deliberate differential treatment towards monopolistic enterprises, powerful groups, authorities, and ordinary citizens violates law enforcement fairness, making us feel particularly sorrowful and conflicted: when can the law, which ensures social justice and fairness, treat everyone equally? ■ According to Legal Weekly
What is the Meaning of the "Astronomical Penalty"?
These counterfeit brand-making processes have become very complete, and Li Qing is just a minor player in one of the links. If the entire counterfeiting chain is not cracked down, and only one unfortunate individual is targeted, such an astronomical judgment not only lacks practical meaning for the suspect but also fails to play an educational and deterrent role in actual law enforcement. Therefore, I believe that the case should be re-examined and tried based on the actual situation, and the suspect should be given a fair sentence. The astronomical fine may look good on the surface but cannot produce good social results. ■ Netizen Wang Li
Why call your counterfeit goods "Ordos"?
From the perspective of eradicating counterfeit and substandard products and protecting consumer interests, the "astronomical penalty" almost deals a devastating blow, hoping to make counterfeit and substandard products disappear. However, this time, the court in Ordos seems to have "mercilessly cracked down" on the counterfeit merchants, which does not appear to be the law's mercilessness towards illegal acts but rather the hatred of the Intermediate People's Court of Ordos, Inner Mongolia, towards counterfeit "Ordos" wool sweaters. The involvement of the Ordos police traveling across provinces to arrest someone in Chenzhou for a "counterfeit registered trademark" case makes it seem like the infringed object is named "Ordos." The heavy-handed measures taken by Ordos to protect "Ordos" make the Intermediate People's Court of Ordos resemble the private security guard of the "Ordos" wool sweater company. ■ Netizen Zhi Feng
How can "a profit of 10,000 yuan lead to a penalty of 21.51 million yuan" convince the public?
Liu Chuhan
Since August last year, farmer Li Qing from Guiyang County in Hunan Province started selling counterfeit "Ordos" and "Hengyuanxiang" wool sweaters purchased from Zhejiang, making a profit of 10,000 yuan. The Intermediate People's Court of Ordos, Inner Mongolia, sentenced Li Qing to 5 years in prison for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, with a fine of 21.51 million yuan. After this incident was uploaded online, the "astronomical penalty" sparked controversy.
The prevalence of counterfeit goods is an embarrassing fact of national conditions, which is at odds with the modern market demand for strengthening intellectual property protection. Severely punishing rampant counterfeiting and selling counterfeit goods is necessary. However, selling counterfeits for 4 months, with sales of 60,000 yuan and a profit of 10,000 yuan, yet being sentenced to 5 years in prison and fined 21.51 million yuan, such a severe punishment is hard to convince people both legally and morally.
It is true that Li Qing sold counterfeit brand wool sweaters and violated the criminal law. However, the counterfeit wool sweaters originated from Tongxiang, Zhejiang, and Li Qing was only involved in sales, not directly related to counterfeiting itself. It is said that in the local area, the production and distribution of counterfeit brand wool sweaters already have a complete process. In other words, the counterfeiting process was entirely completed in Tongxiang, and it is worth discussing whether Li Qing's conviction for counterfeiting registered trademarks is appropriate. Sentencing him for the crime of selling counterfeit registered trademark goods would be more in line with reality.
Secondly, Li Qing was convicted of counterfeiting registered trademarks and deemed to have "especially serious circumstances" because his "illegal operating amount" reached over 43 million yuan, far exceeding the standard of "150,000 yuan" stipulated in the judicial interpretation. The problem lies in the fact that this 43 million yuan amount was calculated based on the price tags of the wool sweaters rather than the actual selling price, and based on inventory rather than actual sales volume. Both the price and sales volume differ by dozens of times, ultimately leading to the huge gap between 60,000 yuan and 43 million yuan in "illegal operating amount." Such a calculation method cannot convince the public!
Counterfeiting and selling counterfeit goods should certainly be severely punished. However, the rampant counterfeiting indicates that laws and regulations and government supervision have been significantly compromised in practice. In other words, the sword of justice that fell heavily on Li Qing did not fall equally on other profiteers of counterfeiting and selling counterfeit goods. One might even say that the semi-public nature of counterfeiting in certain regions has spawned more sellers like Li Qing. When the source is not curbed and government responsibilities are absent, allowing large-scale violations to go unpunished, suddenly imposing a much harsher penalty on a single case compared to other cases is not a new form of injustice?
It is easy to recall the "astronomical toll fee" case from a year ago. Shi Jianfeng avoided toll fees by using two sets of fake military vehicle license plates, passing through highways for free 2361 times in eight months, evading toll fees of 3.68 million yuan. He was initially sentenced to life imprisonment and fined 2 million yuan. However, under media and public scrutiny, the case was overturned just two days ago: the prosecution's claim was reduced from the original 3.68 million yuan to 492,300 yuan, and the defendant's sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to two and a half years.
Law is not a game; it has its rigid side, but it also demands fairness in judicial practice. Excessive punishment is just as damaging to legal authority as overly lenient punishment. Instead, it harms the dignity of the law, often manifesting as a unilateral tilt towards the weak and grassroots citizens. The recurrence of the "astronomical toll fee" case is right before our eyes. Is it necessary for the current Li Qing case to only achieve fair sentencing under relentless pursuit by media and public opinion? ■ Liu Chuhan