深圳蒲圈

Today (August 14th), a media reported that a fake red-headed document set a case for the ownership of a 100 billion coal mine. Through this case, one can see the power of a real red-headed document in the field of natural resources.
 

According to the above report, the 100 billion mineral rights dispute originated from a Hong Kong businessman who sold the company's shares in two shares after encountering financial difficulties in the development of a coalfield in Qinghai Province. Of course, the embarrassment of this is why Hong Kong businessmen have sold a share, and in the case that the buyer’s funds have actually been put in place, they have also killed a bite. According to the report, before the end of 2015, the relevant state laws stipulated that all equity and property transfers involving foreign-funded enterprises must be approved by the commercial department. Therefore, the latecomers in the two-selling business are invincible in the litigation process in the past few years with the red-headed documents of the Qinghai Provincial Department of Commerce.
 

However, it is this red-headed approval that reflects too many complex relationships between the officialdom and the market, officials and businessmen. The above investigation reported that the red-headed document that set the 100 billion mineral rights appeared, and its authenticity caused suspicion of participating lawyers. To this end, the lawyer issued 10 sets of evidence to the court to falsify the allegedly falsified Qing Shang Zi Zi (2005) No. 296 document, which was not accepted. However, the court investigation transcript shows that when the trial judge went to the Qinghai Provincial Department of Commerce to investigate the relevant situation of the case, the official of the department has replied that since the time of the investigation of the case, the “Business Office of Qinghai Province has never done it. Application and approval for any changes thereto." This statement has in fact confirmed the authenticity of No. 296 indirectly, at least leaving clues and points for the judge's further investigation.
 

In another court investigation, the same competent official of the Qinghai Provincial Department of Commerce once again stated clearly that the application for the change of equity, the company and the Qinghai Provincial Department of Commerce were in the same place in the International Trade Building, No. 2 Haishu Road, Xining City. Proposed, but not approved." What is even more strange is that when the court heard that the case was entangled in the authenticity of the above-mentioned red-headed documents, the Qinghai Provincial Department of Commerce issued a letter to the court twice saying that “the specific manager at the time” “now studying abroad cannot be verified”, “to find out After the facts, they will formally reply to the court." However, a staff member of the Qinghai Provincial Department of Commerce confirmed to the reporter that “the specific manager at the time” was working normally in the business hall and did not study abroad. The Qinghai Provincial Department of Commerce never officially returned the court to the final conclusion.
 

The attitude of the Qinghai Provincial Department of Commerce is such that it is not unreasonable to ask for an end to the efforts to identify the authenticity of its red-headed documents. Therefore, since 2007, after all the possible remedies such as appeals, reports, complaints, and application for government information disclosure have been exhausted, the authenticity of the above-mentioned red-headed documents is still unknown in 10 years. Those who want to distinguish between true and false people who have no choice but to go to the Internet to post for justice, have attracted the attention of the Qinghai Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection. According to the Qinghai Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection, the Qinghai Provincial Department of Commerce did issue the document No. 296 (2005) of the Qing Dynasty Capital Business, "but found that there was a problem shortly after the issue, and the withdrawal was cancelled."
 

However, in April and May this year, the Qinghai Provincial Department of Commerce twice replied to the information disclosure application, saying that "Document No. 296 is a real document", "The original file of Document No. 296 was lost and could not be disclosed", and did not send it to Qinghai. The facts ascertained by the Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection inform the applicant of the information disclosure, although it has reconfirmed in the reply to the Ministry of Commerce's administrative reconsideration that "the document (Document No. 296) is improperly "" and the document has been withdrawn and withdrawn." Here, the words of the Qinghai Provincial Department of Commerce in the administrative reconsideration reply may be more illustrative: "The fact that the reply to the applicant in the Office did not clarify the fact that the document had been revoked, but it did not deliberately conceal the refusal."
 

The revocation of abstract administrative actions is retroactive, and the loss of legal validity begins on its own, and the equivalent has never been made. If the court uses this as evidence, the referee loses the basis of justice. Of course, this is exactly the result of the vagueness of the Qinghai Provincial Department of Commerce in 10 years. This result allowed the people who bought the shares to profit more than 10 billion yuan, while the first buyer only piled up more than 700 complaints, accusations and reports of nearly four meters high and loaded 13 boxes.