Core Viewpoint - A product marketed as "Beijing Tongrentang 99% High Purity Antarctic Krill Oil" by Sichuan Health Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. was found to have a phospholipid content of 0%, despite being labeled as 43%, raising concerns of product fraud [3][4][6]. Group 1: Company Response - After the fraud allegations, Tongrentang Group initiated a zero-tolerance brand management action, including a comprehensive investigation of the involved products and a directive to remove them from sale [7][8]. - The group stated it would pursue legal action against Sichuan Health and other involved parties for trademark infringement and misleading consumers [6][7]. - The company emphasized the need for accountability within its subsidiaries and announced a thorough review of brand usage across its enterprises [7][9]. Group 2: Regulatory and Market Oversight - The Shanghai Consumer Protection Committee conducted tests on 15 popular Antarctic krill oil products, leading to the discovery of the fraudulent labeling [4][5]. - Regulatory bodies, including the Chengdu New District Market Supervision Administration, have launched investigations into the matter and have initiated legal proceedings against the involved companies [8][9]. - The committee has expressed the expectation for Tongrentang Group to implement corrective measures effectively [8]. Group 3: Legal Implications - Legal experts indicated that if the sales amount exceeds 50,000 yuan, the involved parties could face criminal charges for selling counterfeit goods [5][10]. - The concept of "apparent agency" suggests that Tongrentang Group may bear joint liability for the actions of its subsidiary, as the product prominently featured the Tongrentang brand [17][19]. - Previous incidents involving Tongrentang's subsidiaries have raised questions about the company's internal governance and oversight mechanisms [12][13].

Core Viewpoint - The case involving Beijing Milaiwu Network Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as "Milaiwu") highlights the legal complexities surrounding the recovery of funds obtained through fraudulent activities, particularly in the context of live streaming platforms and the concept of "good faith acquisition" [1][3][9] Group 1: Legal Proceedings and Financial Implications - Milaiwu has appealed against the Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court's ruling to recover over 18.87 million yuan in live streaming rewards, which the court did not support, leading to a further appeal to the Henan Provincial High Court [1] - The case stems from a fraud committed by former bank employee Xi Wei, who misled clients into investing in fictitious financial products, resulting in a total fraud amount of approximately 94.48 million yuan [2][6] - The court's decision to pursue the recovery of Milaiwu's earnings raises questions about whether the funds obtained through live streaming should be classified as "good faith acquisition" and whether banks have a regulatory responsibility in fraud cases [1][3][6] Group 2: Financial Crime and Banking Responsibility - Legal experts argue that the case reflects a deeper conflict between financial crime governance and the legal boundaries of emerging business models, particularly in the context of online platforms [1][9] - Milaiwu's legal representatives assert that the bank should bear primary responsibility for the fraud, as Xi Wei exploited her position to commit the crime, which undermined the trust clients placed in the bank [7][8] - The case draws parallels with previous rulings where banks were held accountable for employees' fraudulent actions, emphasizing the need for banks to fulfill their anti-money laundering obligations [6][8]