买来的出口数据：耗费地方财政，对经济无实质带动

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the emergence of fraudulent practices in foreign trade export data statistics, particularly the "buying export" scheme, where companies create shell firms to manipulate export data for government subsidies, with local government departments often complicit in these actions [1][2][3]. Group 1: Fraudulent Practices - Numerous cases have revealed that local business departments not only tolerate but also lead such fraudulent activities [1]. - In a recent case, foreign trade practitioners were prosecuted for establishing shell companies to purchase export data from other provinces, resulting in over 100 million yuan in fraudulent government export rewards [2]. - The "buying export" scheme has been ongoing for years, with some localities previously investigating similar cases, yet others do not intervene [3]. Group 2: Government Involvement - Local governments have implemented policies to reward export activities, which have been exploited by individuals who set up numerous shell companies to claim these rewards [4]. - The defendants in these cases often claim that their actions were in cooperation with government objectives, suggesting a tacit approval from local authorities [4][8]. - Evidence indicates that local business departments were aware of the "buying export" practices and may have even encouraged them to meet performance metrics [7][12]. Group 3: Economic Impact - The issuance of subsidies for "buying export" not only strains local finances but also distorts export data, failing to contribute to actual economic growth [5][6]. - The fraudulent activities create a facade of export growth without any real economic activity, undermining the integrity of trade statistics [6]. Group 4: Legal and Regulatory Responses - Recent regulations from national authorities aim to curb the "buying export" practices by enforcing stricter compliance and accountability measures for export data [14][15]. - Legal interpretations of similar cases have varied, with some courts not recognizing the actions as fraud due to perceived government endorsement [13]. - Experts suggest that a more robust legal framework and better information sharing among departments are necessary to combat these fraudulent practices effectively [16].