Catalog Case 1: Maliciously dropping foreign objects while dining in a restaurant and threatening merchants or demanding property can constitute extortion - Case 2: Maliciously stuffing foreign objects into food packaging and threatening merchants or demanding property can constitute extortion - Case 3: Falsifying buyer information and product quality issues to defraud merchants of property can constitute fraud - Case 4: Huang et al. Fraud, Limited to reasonable living consumption, regulates high compensation behavior of professional claimants beyond living consumption needs - Case 5: Product liability dispute between Zeng and Chen, and a certain agricultural and sideline product processing factory - Working together with the rule of law to maintain market order and promote the source governance of rural food safety problems - Series of product liability disputes between Shi and a supermarket and other product sellers Case 1: Maliciously dropping foreign objects while dining in a restaurant and threatening businesses to extort property can constitute the crime of extortion - Su's extortion case [Basic facts] In January 2024, the defendant Su was administratively detained for extortion of a catering business. From March to April of the same year, Su put pre prepared cockroaches into meals at multiple restaurants in Beijing, using the threat of eating cockroaches and reporting restaurant violations of food safety laws. He demanded exemption from orders and compensation from the restaurants five times, with a total of 1663 yuan collected four times. After receiving feedback from restaurants, the Beijing market supervision department conducted on-site inspections of the restaurant's kitchen, reviewed on-site surveillance footage, and investigated complaint and report data. It was found that Su had made claims in multiple restaurants in the same way, suspected of extortion and blackmail. The case was then transferred to the public security organs for investigation and Su was arrested. The procuratorial organs prosecuted Su for extortion and blackmail in accordance with the law. The trial court held that the defendant Su repeatedly extorted others' property with the purpose of illegal possession, and his behavior constituted the crime of extortion. According to Article 2 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Extortion (Interpretation [2013] No. 10), for those who have received administrative penalties for extortion within one year, the standard for the "large amount" of extortion of public and private property can be determined at 50% of the standard stipulated in Article 1 of the judicial interpretation. In January 2024, Su was administratively detained for extortion and blackmail. In this case, he extorted 1663 yuan in property from others, which can be considered a relatively large amount. After Su's arrival at the case, he pleaded guilty and repented, compensated the victim's unit for all economic losses, and obtained partial forgiveness from the victim's unit. He may be given a lighter punishment according to law. Considering that Su's criminal circumstances are relatively minor and there is no risk of recidivism, the announcement of probation has no significant adverse impact on the community where he resides, and he can be granted probation in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the defendant Su was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, suspended for one year, and fined RMB 3000 for extortion and blackmail. The catering industry is closely related to the daily lives of the people and is an important field for promoting consumption, benefiting people's livelihoods, and stabilizing employment. To promote the high-quality development of the catering industry, we must not only adhere to the bottom line of food safety and improve the quality of catering services, but also optimize the development environment of the catering industry and improve the safety guarantee mechanism of the catering industry. In recent years, some illegal individuals have taken advantage of the concerns of business operators about the spread of negative effects, maliciously fabricating food safety issues during the dining process, in order to blackmail business operators, demand high compensation, and damage their legitimate rights and interests. In this case, the defendant Su had been administratively punished for extortion and blackmail of a catering business, but did not repent and continued to commit the crime using the same means, maliciously creating the illusion of illegal production and operation of food by the business to claim compensation from the business, seriously disrupting the order of the catering industry, and should be punished according to law. The procuratorial organs and market supervision departments actively study the supervision rules for malicious claims cases and establish a mechanism for clue analysis and consultation; The market supervision department actively investigates and deals with suspected illegal activities in daily law enforcement, and promptly transfers them upon discovery; Administrative and judicial organs should smoothly establish channels for criminal justice, form a working force, and use criminal means in accordance with the law to crack down on criminal acts of maliciously forging food safety issues, providing solid guarantees for building a fair and competitive catering market environment. The investigation and punishment of this case serves as a warning to those who engage in professional claims, abide by laws and regulations, and conduct transactions with integrity. Case 2: Maliciously inserting foreign objects into food packaging and threatening merchants to demand property can constitute the crime of extortion - extortion case against certain individuals. From June 2022 to April 2024, the defendant, Xiang, alone or in collusion with defendants Jian, Zheng, and others, went to supermarkets, convenience stores, coffee shops, and other places in Fujian Province, Hubei Province, Jiangxi Province, Anhui Province, and other places. They used pre prepared steel needles to pierce the food packaging bags, stuffed hair or steel wire balls into the packaging bags, and then demanded refunds and high compensation from the merchants on the grounds of quality issues. If the merchant raises doubts, they will further threaten the merchant and demand money by exposing them through online platforms or complaining to market regulatory authorities. He committed more than 60 crimes against someone and obtained 24000 yuan in money; Jian committed more than 50 crimes and obtained a sum of 20000 yuan; Zheng committed 8 crimes and obtained a sum of 2400 yuan. After receiving feedback from a food retail store, the Anhui market supervision department found through on-site inspection that the packaging and quality of similar food in the store were intact, and there was a threat to a certain person. They assisted the store in reporting to the police for handling the situation. Later, the public security organs filed an investigation and arrested three people, including Xiang. The procuratorial organs prosecuted Xiang and others for extortion in accordance with the law. The trial court held that the defendant intentionally threw foreign objects into sealed packaged food with the purpose of illegal possession, and then extorted the merchant on the grounds of quality problems with the goods. Among them, the defendant repeatedly extorted and demanded large amounts of money from Mr. Xiang, Mr. Jian, and Mr. Zheng, all of which constituted the crime of extortion. Xiang and Zheng surrendered themselves, Jian confessed his crimes, and all three defendants voluntarily pleaded guilty and accepted punishment, and returned all illegal gains. According to law, they may be given a lighter punishment. Accordingly, the defendant was sentenced to one year's imprisonment and fined RMB 10000 for extortion and blackmail; The defendant Jian was sentenced to one year's imprisonment and fined RMB 8000; The defendant Zheng was sentenced to seven months' imprisonment, suspended for one year, and fined RMB 2000. Typical significance: The law fully protects the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, encourages them to protect their legitimate rights, and punishes illegal claims in accordance with the law, cracking down on illegal crimes committed under the guise of claims, and maintaining normal production and operation order. In this case, the defendant, either alone or in a group, extorted the merchant by maliciously adding foreign objects to sealed food bags and fabricating food quality issues, repeatedly committing crimes in multiple locations, forming a relatively fixed criminal pattern and infringing on the legitimate interests of the merchant. Therefore, they should be punished according to law. This type of case has the characteristics of small amount, high frequency, and wide scope. Merchants are prone to choose to settle the matter peacefully. Over time, this will lead to a decrease in market expectations and damage to market order. The investigating authorities shall crack down on illegal claims and crimes in accordance with the law, accurately grasp the boundary between such criminal behavior and legitimate rights protection behavior, and general illegal behavior. They shall not tolerate those who constitute crimes, especially those who are "professionalized" or "ganged". They shall resolutely "show their swords", fully play the role of warning and deterrence, and maintain normal market trading order. Case 3: Fabricating buyer information and product quality issues to defraud merchants of property may constitute fraud - Huang et al. fraud case [Basic facts] Starting from April 2023, the defendants Huang, Zhang, and Gao jointly engaged in e-commerce operations in Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province. From June to August of the same year, Huang and others organized five defendants, Yang, Sun, and others, to fabricate food quality issues such as swollen and leaking chicken feet produced by a certain food company on online platforms by forging buyer delivery notes, food packaging bags, videos, photos, and other methods. They fraudulently obtained a total of over 90000 yuan in product refunds from the company. After receiving feedback from the company, the Anhui market supervision department conducted on-site inspections, data analysis, evidence collection, and other work, and judged that it was suspected of fraud, and the commercial public security organs intervened. The public security organs filed an investigation in accordance with the law and arrested Huang and others. The procuratorial organs prosecuted Huang and others for fraud in accordance with the law. The trial court held that the defendants Huang and others, with the purpose of illegal possession, fabricated facts, concealed the truth, and repeatedly defrauded others of their property. Among them, Huang and the other four had a huge amount of money, and the remaining four had a relatively large amount of money. Their actions constituted the crime of fraud. Huang is the principal offender and a recidivist in the joint crime, and should be punished severely according to law. After being brought to justice, Huang and others confessed to the crime and voluntarily admitted guilt and punishment. They compensated the losses suffered by the victimized company and obtained forgiveness, which may result in a lighter punishment according to law. Based on this, the defendant Huang was sentenced to three years and three months in prison for fraud, and was fined RMB 5000. The remaining defendants were given varying degrees of punishment according to their criminal circumstances. In recent years, the criminal methods of illegal claims have been constantly innovated. In addition to the common mode of fabricating product quality problems to pressure merchants and extorting high compensation, some illegal personnel target specific merchants, fabricate commodity transactions and quality problems, defraud and embezzle money, and seriously disrupt market order. In this case, the defendants Huang and others, who were originally engaged in e-commerce operations, forged buyer certificates and photos and videos of products with quality problems in order to seek improper benefits, and defrauded merchants of huge refunds of goods. They should be punished for fraud according to law. The investigating authorities strengthen the interpretation and reasoning of the law, urge the involved personnel to return their stolen goods, help enterprises recover their economic losses, and at the same time, cooperate in cracking down on illegal claims and their derivative social problems in accordance with the law, resolutely curb the spread of illegal crimes such as extortion and fraud, strengthen network governance and public opinion guidance, create a clean and upright market environment, and promote socialist core values. Case 4: Limited to reasonable living expenses, regulate the high compensation behavior of professional claimants beyond the needs of living expenses - Zeng v. Chen, a product liability dispute case of a certain agricultural and sideline product processing factory. On October 24, 2023, Zeng purchased 45 fresh bamboo shoots (4 bags/piece x 5 jin/bag x 45 pieces=900 jin) produced by a certain agricultural and sideline product processing factory in Chen, with a shelf life of 10 months, at a unit price of 200 yuan per piece, totaling 9000 yuan. After purchasing, Zeng sent a bag of bamboo shoots for inspection, and the conclusion was that it did not meet food safety standards. In addition to fresh bamboo shoots in this case, Mr. Zeng also purchased 100 dried bamboo shoots on October 21, 2023 (which has been separately prosecuted). Zeng stated that the fresh bamboo shoots he purchased were prepared for his father's 80th birthday banquet during the 2024 Spring Festival, while the dried bamboo shoots were prepared as a gift for his relatives and friends attending the banquet. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, the banquet was not actually held. There is no evidence to prove the above statements made by Mr. Zeng. Zeng sued Chen and a certain agricultural and sideline product processing factory, demanding punitive damages of ten times the price. The trial court held that Article 148 (2) of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that "if a consumer produces food that does not meet food safety standards or knowingly sells food that does not meet food safety standards, in addition to demanding compensation for losses, the consumer may also demand compensation from the producer or operator for ten times the price or three times the loss; if the amount of additional compensation is less than one thousand yuan, it shall be one thousand yuan. However, if the labeling or instructions of the food do not affect food safety