The evidence provided by the Tobacco Bureau of Maiji District in Gansu Province to the court, which proves the criminal suspect’s guilt, was recently exposed as falsified and caught on surveillance video. This news has sparked significant public attention and has made it to the top of Baidu’s hot searches on June 18th.
Multiple reports from mainland China media outlets have revealed that Ruan Shuangquan, a resident of Tianshui City in Gansu Province, appealed the first-instance court verdict due to dissatisfaction. During the trial on June 11th, Ruan Shuangquan’s lawyer presented multiple pieces of evidence, including notarized videos, screenshots, and other evidence, indicating that the Tobacco Bureau of Maiji District was suspected of forging the delivery process of the “Notification of Withdrawal of Tobacco Retail License” that should have been delivered three years ago.
The evidence presented by Ruan Shuangquan’s lawyer indicates that employees of the Tobacco Bureau went to Ruan Shuangquan’s former business address on May 29th and 31st this year around 6 a.m., multiple times to fabricate the delivery notice dated March 4, 2021.
The surveillance video software exported from a certain maternity and baby shop (Ruan Shuangquan’s former business address, where he operated until 2019 when he moved out due to illness and lease expiration, and later someone else opened the shop) showed screenshots of surveillance videos from May 29th and 31st this year. The screenshots proved that the Tobacco Bureau employees went to Ruan Shuangquan’s former business address on May 29th and 31st, 2024, around 6 a.m., to post the “Notification of Withdrawal of Tobacco Retail License” and delivery confirmation, take photos, and tear them down, thus falsifying the delivery process of March 4, 2021. The photo taken by Tobacco Bureau staff around 6 a.m. on May 31st this year is the delivery photo provided by the Tobacco Bureau to the court.
Additionally, the lawyer presented surveillance video files from the baby shop that showed law enforcement officers went to the plaintiff’s former business address around 1:07 a.m. on June 2nd to tear down the “Congratulations and Best Wishes” Spring Festival couplet and set it up again.
The inquiry transcript of the baby shop owner presented by the lawyer showed that they change the store couplet every year, and the “Congratulations and Best Wishes” Spring Festival couplet was pasted in 2024, not before March 4, 2021.
According to Caixin’s news report, the Tobacco Bureau of Maiji District admitted in court that their actions were inappropriate, and they apologized to the presiding judge and Ruan Shuangquan. However, they argued that the reason for retaking the photos was that they couldn’t contact Ruan Shuangquan when sending the documents and hence pasted them on the door and took the photos. Due to their lack of responsibility, they failed to preserve the photos when they returned, leading to the loss of the photos which couldn’t be included in the case file. Later, during the process of providing evidence to the court, the staff found that there were no delivery photos in the delivery confirmation. Out of fear of repercussions, the two employees took it upon themselves to retake photos at Ruan Shuangquan’s shop location (the baby shop).
On June 17th, the staff of the Tobacco Monopoly Bureau in Maiji District of Tianshui City told the “Xiaoxiang Morning News” that the personnel involved were under investigation by the disciplinary committee.
Director Fu Jian of the He’nan Zejin Law Firm analyzed to the “Xiaoxiang Morning News” that the validity of this evidence needs to be judged based on court proceedings and evidence rules. Generally, the effectiveness of evidence needs to consider factors such as its authenticity, legality, and relevance. In this case, since the notification was post-dated, its authenticity may be questioned. Falsification refers to the intentional provision of false evidence. If the Tobacco Bureau staff knowingly fabricated the evidence by pasting it without notifying the party and submitted it as evidence, it may constitute falsification.
Some netizens left comments on the The Paper website expressing dissatisfaction and anger.
Netizen “Tianxianpei” said: “This behavior of forging evidence is shameful; support holding those responsible accountable!”
User “ayEZ3i” believed: “The police should investigate who authorized and instructed this, give the public an explanation, and prevent any cover-ups.”
Netizen “Fuluchengxiang” commented on Baidu: “Falsifying criminal evidence is a criminal act against the law and must be severely punished and held accountable.”
“Ba Leon 6I” expressed the opinion that “People who ruin others’ lives like this should be sentenced to death. If there were no surveillance, who knows how many innocent people would have been harmed using such methods.”
In July 13, 2023, Ruan Shuangquan, a resident of Tianshui City, Gansu Province, whose livelihood was wholesaling daily goods, was arrested by the local police for allegedly illegally selling tobacco.
Ruan Shuangquan was prosecuted for the crime of illegal operation before the Maiji District Court. On March 5, 2024, the Maiji District Court issued a first-instance judgment, sentencing Ruan Shuangquan to five years in prison for the crime of illegal operation.
After the first-instance ruling, Ruan Shuangquan filed an appeal, claiming that he originally had a “Tobacco Retail License,” but later the Tobacco Bureau of Maiji District revoked and canceled his documents without notifying him as required by law. This failure to inform him of his right to a hearing rendered the administrative action invalid, and it did not constitute the crime of illegal operation.
During the second trial, Ruan Shuangquan’s lawyer filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting the court to revoke the administrative action of the Tobacco Bureau of Maiji District to revoke and cancel Ruan Shuangquan’s “Tobacco Retail License.”
The defense lawyer argued that according to the “Tobacco Retail License Management Measures” and other relevant regulations, when the issuing authority revokes the tobacco retail license, they should issue a “Notification of Withdrawal of Tobacco Retail License.” If they cannot revoke it, they should announce it publicly. However, despite no changes in Ruan Shuangquan’s address and phone number, he has not received the “Notification of Withdrawal of Tobacco Retail License” to this day, and the Tobacco Bureau did not deliver the notification after the expiration of one month from the publication in the “Tianshui Evening News.” Revoking the “Tobacco Retail License” is essentially revoking an administrative permit, but the Tobacco Bureau did not notify Ruan Shuangquan in writing of his right to make statements or defenses, violating the relevant regulations of the Administrative Permit Law of the People’s Republic of China. The case is still within the statute of limitations. Ruan Shuangquan believes that the administrative procedure in this case is seriously illegal and requests the court to revoke it.
According to Caixin’s news report, the defense party stated that all the cigarettes sold by Ruan Shuangquan were genuine and obtained from regular wholesale channels, and were sold in Maiji District. Ruan Shuangquan did not damage government tax revenue, nor did he harm consumers’ legal rights, nor did he disrupt the market order to the extent of being considered illegal operation.