Recently, a letter circulating on the internet, purportedly written by a former employee of Pinduoduo’s Public Affairs Department, Tu Tuohan, addressed to the leaders of China’s State Administration for Market Regulation, accuses Pinduoduo of firing its co-founder, Fan Jie Zhen, and 30 other team members, including Tu himself, following the “12.3 Enforcement Incident”. Tu alleges that this action by the company constitutes a “violent termination”.
According to the contents of the letter, on December 3rd, a director from the Enforcement Inspection Bureau of China’s State Administration for Market Regulation led a team to investigate Pinduoduo on issues related to food safety and the “Transshipment Treasure” (a platform for transshipping items like fresh flowers and cakes). Tu Tuohan claimed that during the investigation, there were multiple physical conflicts and verbal provocations between Pinduoduo staff and law enforcement officers, who were refused cooperation, ultimately leading to incidents of “obstructing official duties”.
Previously, Caixin.com reported that in early December, due to receiving a report, the State Administration for Market Regulation had local market supervision authorities inspect Pinduoduo, with the report possibly involving issues related to false shipping. During the investigation, conflicts arose between some Pinduoduo employees and law enforcement officers. After the market supervision officers reported to the police, the Changning Police in Shanghai punished the involved employees with administrative detention on grounds of “obstructing official duties”.
However, the aforementioned report by Caixin.com was later deleted, and the related links are no longer accessible. It is worth noting that the “12.3 Resistance to Enforcement” incident of Pinduoduo had once attracted public attention, with social media platforms and multiple media outlets reporting on it. However, as time passed, related news articles, online posts, and discussions gradually disappeared from various platforms, now mostly showing as “404”.
Tu Tuohan further revealed in the letter that he was originally working in Beijing but was notified on December 6th to go to Shanghai, only to receive a termination notice on December 10th. The dismissal document accused him of “serious dereliction of duty, causing significant damage to the employer”, without receiving any financial compensation and being required to fulfill a non-compete clause lasting for two years.
Tu Tuohan stated that around 30 employees who were terminated this time were all from departments related to public affairs, government relations, and the like. He believes that Pinduoduo’s handling was essentially a form of “scapegoating”, aimed at appeasing individual displeased officials of the regulatory authorities, but resulted in dozens of employees and their families being plunged into distress.
According to the labor contract provided by Tu Tuohan, he joined Pinduoduo in July 2018, totaling seven years and four months until now, having renewed his contract twice without any records of work errors, with his past performance assessments all marked as “good”.
The letter also includes Tu Tuohan’s phone number. When Hong Kong’s “Sing Tao Daily” contacted to verify the situation, the female who answered the phone displayed obvious impatience, retorting with questions like “What’s it got to do with you? Can you solve the problem?” before hanging up.
In a commentary article by the financial self-media “Deepwater Financial Society”, doubts were raised regarding Pinduoduo as a large platform company, suggesting that internal staff could not be unaware of the serious legal consequences of “resisting enforcement”, hinting at potential undisclosed complexities behind the incident.
The article further mentioned that to date, neither Pinduoduo nor the regulatory authorities have issued any official explanations regarding the “12.3 Enforcement Incident”. The massive disappearance of related reports and online information has also sparked speculation from the public about external interventions.
The article from “Deepwater Financial Society” indicated that they had repeatedly published negative reports related to Pinduoduo, all of which were taken down or removed within a short period. The article believed that Tu Tuohan’s letter, in a way, reflected the significant public opinion pressure that arose after the incident, with some self-media outlets characterizing the event as “Pinduoduo violently resisting enforcement”, putting the company in a passive position.