“亿元骗补案”背后的出口数据灰色地带

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights a significant fraud case involving over 100 million yuan in government export subsidies, revealing systemic issues in the "buying export data" practice that has persisted across various regions in China [3][6][7]. Group 1: Fraud Case Overview - In January 2024, multiple foreign trade practitioners in Wuhan were prosecuted for establishing shell companies to purchase export data from other provinces, thereby defrauding local governments of substantial export rewards [3][4]. - The case involves nine defendants, with the lead defendant, identified as Shi, having extensive experience in cross-border logistics and connections to several logistics and e-commerce companies [5][6]. - The defendants allegedly defrauded local governments of approximately 105 million yuan in export rewards, with the total export value corresponding to hundreds of billions of yuan [7][8]. Group 2: Mechanism of Fraud - The defendants registered over 90 shell companies in various cities, applying for export qualifications without actual business operations, and used these companies to generate false export data through customs [6][9]. - They paid intermediaries for "export buying" services and submitted applications to local business departments to receive subsidies based on inflated export values [6][7]. - The fraudulent activities were facilitated by local government policies that incentivized export growth, with evidence suggesting that some local business departments were aware of these practices [10][11]. Group 3: Government Involvement and Policy Issues - Local government officials reportedly had knowledge of the "buying export data" scheme, with some providing implicit or explicit support to the defendants [11][12]. - The article discusses the disparity in how different regions handle export subsidy policies, with some areas allowing for "automatic" subsidy disbursement based solely on customs data without requiring proof of actual business operations [17]. - There are indications that the practice of "buying export data" has been ongoing for years, with previous cases highlighting similar fraudulent activities and varying legal outcomes across different jurisdictions [16][18]. Group 4: Legal and Regulatory Implications - The article notes that while some defendants have been charged with fraud, others have faced different charges, indicating inconsistencies in legal interpretations of such practices [19][20]. - Legal experts suggest that the lack of transparency in government subsidy policies and the reliance on customs data without thorough verification contribute to the perpetuation of these fraudulent schemes [19][20].