Under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the legal services market is plagued by chaos driven by interests. Recently, a two-year-old legal consulting company in Shenzhen, China, has won consecutive bids for government departments and state-owned enterprise legal consultation projects, with the winning amount totaling over 18 million yuan. Observers noted, “Behind this is a chain of interests involving collusion between officials and businessmen.”
The company is called “Zunxiang Future Legal Consultation (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.” Public records show that it was established in 2022 with a registered capital of 1 million yuan. The legal representative is Zou Boyu, who operates as a sole proprietorship limited liability company. Within a short period, the company has secured multiple government legal projects, including two major contracts worth 3.45 million and 5.91064 million yuan, respectively. The contracting unit is the Shenzhen Housing Provident Fund Management Center, and the bid-winning project is a special legal service project for petition and complaint resolution.
A legal professional from mainland China, Mr. Zheng, expressed to Epoch Times, “Firms like ours cannot obtain government contracts. Only law firms with connections can secure such procurement contracts. Those in power can obtain projects from the government at any time. This is a form of exchange between power and relationships in China.” He questioned whether the legal services provided are truly aimed at addressing petitioners’ issues or just a way to push them away using legal means.
Mr. Zheng further criticized the lack of fairness in the bidding process for government service procurement, particularly in instances where local governments in Beijing no longer require open tenders when hiring lawyers, which he deemed absurd. He emphasized that in China, where the rule of law is lacking, such legal practices are ridiculous and manipulated for personal gain through power dynamics.
Zunxiang Future Legal Consultation Co., Ltd. was renamed in April 2024. Previously known as “Zunxiang Future Digital Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.,” the company’s former business scope ranged from electronic product sales to landscaping projects and sports event planning, having no connection to legal services. However, following the rebranding, the company began winning bids intensively, showcasing a successful transformation.
A current affairs observer from mainland China, Mr. Wu, stated to Epoch Times, “The Chinese Communist state system is designed in a way that does not promote genuine market economy principles of fairness and justice. Instead, it fosters a nexus of interests between government and businesses. It is glaringly obvious that there is at least an appearance of profit distribution. State-owned enterprises are already a legal channel for profit distribution and often involve close relationships, acting as proxies.”
Mr. Wu added, “For one person to outbid 30,000 lawyers in Shenzhen indicates collusion between officials and businessmen, resulting in the exploitation of public financial resources for personal gain. While the company may appear as a private or legitimate entity, behind it lies a group of interests manipulating the system as it has been designed for years.”
In online comments, netizens pointed out that by the end of December 2024, there were a total of 1,398 law firms and 26,983 practicing lawyers in Shenzhen. Many experienced lawyers in the field struggle to secure such business opportunities, raising suspicions regarding the rapid procurement success of a legal consulting company that has existed for just over two years. They questioned the legitimacy of the situation, implying that something dubious may be at play.
Additionally, a netizen highlighted another company called Beijing Hejun Consultation, which has unexpectedly high winning bids for government projects worth millions of yuan, involving tasks such as drafting outlines and conducting research reports for investment projects across various industries. The individual raised concerns about the necessity for external services in such instances, questioning why taxpayer-funded personnel seemingly lack understanding to compile such materials or reports, when they should have better insight into the relevant data internally. The situation seemed perplexing to many.