On March 9, 2025, the Supreme People's Procuratorate released the "White Paper on Criminal Prosecution Work (2024)", which showed an increase of 18.6% in crimes endangering tax collection and management. From the observation of crimes that endanger tax administration in the industry in the past three years, the number of crimes related to illegal purchase of value-added tax special invoices has significantly increased. The court cases on the crime of illegal purchase of value-added tax special invoices on the Judgment Document Network are mainly concentrated between 2021 and 2024. After the implementation of the Interpretation [2024] No. 4 on March 20, 2024, the number of this crime has increased sharply. From the criminal judgments on the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices published between 20 and 24 years ago, it can be seen that up to 33% of the cases were filed for the crime of falsely issuing value-added tax special invoices, and the final judgment was made for the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices. So where is the boundary between fraudulent and illegal purchases? What are the qualitative criteria for the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices? The author will guide readers to understand the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices by sorting out the sources of this charge and integrating precedents.

1、 Tracing the source of illegal purchase of value-added tax special invoices

（1） The legislative evolution of value-added tax

Since 1978, China has been conducting research on value-added tax. On September 18, 1984, the State Council issued the draft of the Value Added Tax Regulations of the People's Republic of China, which was implemented on October 1 of the same year. On December 31, 1993, the State Council issued the "Interim Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Value Added Tax", which came into effect on January 1, 1994. With the establishment of the value-added tax system (the Ministry of Finance issued and implemented the "Invoice Management Measures of the People's Republic of China" on December 23, 1993), the system of "controlling taxes with invoices" has gradually taken shape.

The Provisional Regulations on Value Added Tax were subsequently revised in 2008, 2016, and 2017, forming the current Provisional Regulations on Value Added Tax. On December 25, 2024, the 13th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the 14th National People's Congress passed the Value Added Tax Law, which will come into force on January 1, 2026, and China's largest tax category, VAT, has a special law.

（2） Cracking down on criminal activities that endanger tax administration with the crime of speculation and profiteering

Due to the rampant illegal activities of forging, reselling, and stealing invoices in early 1994, efforts were made to crack down on these illegal activities. On March 28, 1994, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, and the State Administration of Taxation jointly issued the "Notice of the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, and the State Administration of Taxation on Carrying out the Special Struggle against Counterfeiting, Reselling, and Stealing Invoices" (Public Notice [1994] No. 5). On June 3 of the same year, the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate issued and implemented the "Provisions on the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Forgery, Reselling, and Theft of Invoices", which clearly stated that "those who illegally print (copy) or resell invoices (including fake invoices) or illegally manufacture or resell anti-counterfeiting special products for invoices for the purpose of profit, and the circumstances are serious, shall be held criminally responsible for the crime of speculation and profiteering

（3） Punish the act of illegally obtaining value-added tax special invoices with the crime of "illegal purchase of value-added tax special invoices"

On October 30, 1995, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress issued the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Punishing the Crimes of Falsely Making, Forging and Illegally Selling Special Invoices for Value Added Tax, which stipulates how to convict and sentence criminal activities such as evading and defrauding taxes by falsely making, forging and illegally selling special invoices for value added tax, and no longer classifies tax related crimes as crimes of speculation and profiteering. In the first paragraph of Article 4, "Whoever illegally purchases special invoices for value-added tax or purchases forged special invoices for value-added tax shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years, criminal detention and shall also, or shall only, be fined not less than 20000 yuan but not more than 200000 yuan. Those who illegally purchase value-added tax special invoices or purchase more than 25 forged value-added tax special invoices, or whose accumulated face value exceeds 100000 yuan, shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the law. Those who illegally purchase two types of value-added tax special invoices, real and fake, shall be counted cumulatively and shall not be subject to combined punishment for multiple crimes The Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, promulgated by the National People's Congress on March 14, 1997, incorporated the criminal responsibility in the above-mentioned decisions, and set the crime of illegally purchasing special invoices for value-added tax and the crime of purchasing forged special invoices for value-added tax in Article 208, "Whoever illegally purchases special invoices for value-added tax or purchases forged special invoices for value-added tax shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years or criminal detention and shall also, or shall only, be fined not less than 20000 yuan but not more than 200000 yuan. Whoever illegally purchases special invoices for value-added tax or purchases forged special invoices for value-added tax and then falsely writes or sells them shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of Article 205, 206, and 207 of this Law, respectively."

The above conviction and sentencing standards have been used until March 20, 2024, without any changes.

（4） Interpretation [2024] No. 4 clarifies the criteria for convicting the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices

Between 1996 and 2016, there were few judgments on the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax invoices. Since 2017, there have been several cases of significant influence in China regarding false invoicing and illegal purchase cases (such as the Hehui Weiye case and the Xixi International case), which have drawn the attention of judicial authorities. If the perpetrator allows a third party to issue invoices for their own purposes other than to defraud national taxes, it should not be classified as "false invoicing". Therefore, when the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate issued a new judicial interpretation (Fa Shi [2024] No. 4) last year, based on recent judicial practices, they narrowed down the criteria for determining the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices. Meanwhile, according to the writings of Supreme People's Court judge Teng Wei and four others, the qualitative criteria for the crime of illegal purchase of value-added tax special invoices are also more clear, which to some extent has led to multiple cases of conviction for the crime of illegal purchase of value-added tax special invoices in 2024. The judicial judgments of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Court judge Teng Wei and four others have written the following:

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 Involving Endangering Tax Collection and Management, issued by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on March 15, 2024 and implemented on March 20, 2024 (Fa Shi [2024] No. 4), abolished Fa Fa [1996] No. 30 and made changes to the conviction and sentencing standards for the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices. Article 16 stipulates that "those who illegally purchase value-added tax special invoices or purchase forged value-added tax special invoices with a face tax amount of 200000 yuan or more, or purchase more than 20 copies with a face tax amount of 100000 yuan or more, shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of Article 208 (1) of the Criminal Law. Those who illegally purchase genuine and counterfeit value-added tax special invoices shall be cumulatively calculated based on the amount. Not implementing combined punishment for multiple crimes. Those who purchase forged value-added tax special invoices and then sell them shall be convicted and punished for the crime of selling forged value-added tax special invoices; If the illegal purchase of value-added tax special invoices is used to defraud tax deductions or export tax refunds, and constitutes the crimes of illegal purchase of value-added tax special invoices, false issuance of value-added tax special invoices, and defrauding export tax refunds, the offender shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the more severe punishment provisions

The Supreme People's Court judge Teng Wei and four others wrote an article titled "Understanding and Application of the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases Involving Endangering Tax Collection and Management" by the "Two Highs". The article mentioned that when issuing fake value-added tax special invoices, the payee often obtains input invoices from others in the name of paying "invoicing fees" and "tax points", and then deducts them. As a result, the relationship between the invoicing party and the payee simultaneously forms an illegal sale and illegal purchase of value-added tax special invoices. For the payee, if they obtain a falsely issued invoice and subsequently defraud tax credits, they are using the criminal means of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices to achieve the criminal purpose of falsely issuing value-added tax special invoices. This is a joint offense between the purpose behavior and the means behavior, and will be convicted and punished according to the principle of first instance punishment, that is, in accordance with Article 208 (2) of the Criminal Law; If the recipient illegally purchases a value-added tax special invoice and does not use it to defraud or offset taxes, but for other purposes, if the other purposes do not constitute a crime, it constitutes the crime of illegally purchasing a value-added tax special invoice; If other purposes constitute other crimes, it shall be deemed as a joint offense between the crime of illegal purchase of value-added tax special invoices and the crime of other purposes.

According to the above article, if the payee accepts a value-added tax special invoice without any real business transaction with the issuer, and its purpose is to fraudulently offset value-added tax, it constitutes the crime of issuing a false value-added tax special invoice; If it belongs to other purposes, it involves the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices. For example, the "Criminal Judgment" (2023) Jing 0115 Xing Chu No. 1416 states that "from 2021 to 2022, the defendant Chen, while serving as the Chief Financial Officer of the Finance Department of a company in Beijing, purchased 27 value-added tax special invoices from a technology limited company in Beijing (actually operating in the Beijing Economic and Technological Development Zone) in the name of a company in Beijing multiple times, and then achieved the goal of underpaying personal income tax for the middle and senior management of the company through fund repatriation and other means. The total value and tax of the 27 value-added tax special invoices amounted to RMB 17.86 million, and the total face tax amount was over RMB 1.01 million, thus constituting the crime of illegal purchase of value-added tax special invoices

2、 The standard for convicting the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices from judicial precedents

This section summarizes the current standards for the recognition of the crime of illegal purchase of value-added tax special invoices by the judicial authorities, for the reference of readers only.

（1） Illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices is a criminal offense

From the article written by Supreme People's Court judge Teng Wei and four others, it can be seen that if the purpose of illegally purchasing invoices is to defraud tax credits, it constitutes the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices. Therefore, the criminal composition of the crime of falsely issuing value-added tax special invoices should consider whether the perpetrator has subjective intent to defraud the national tax. As for the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices, there is currently a clear judgment that it belongs to a behavioral offense.

(2019) Jing 02 Xing Zhong No. 113 Criminal Judgment

In the court judgment analysis, it is mentioned that the crime of illegally selling and purchasing value-added tax special invoices violates China's strict system of purchasing value-added tax special invoices. Value added tax special invoices can only be purchased by general taxpayers of value-added tax to designated tax authorities through the "trade in" method with corresponding vouchers. No other unit or individual is allowed to engage in the act of buying or selling value-added tax special invoices. The crime of illegally selling or purchasing value-added tax special invoices is a behavioral offense, and subjectively, the perpetrator only needs to have knowledge of the illegal buying and selling behavior, without the need for additional subjective purposes; Objectively speaking, as long as illegal buying and selling activities are carried out, there is no need to cause certain harmful consequences. Whether the perpetrator profited from the transaction, for what purpose, and whether it caused a loss of national tax revenue are not the boundaries between this crime and non crime, but can be considered as circumstances in sentencing.

（2） Obtaining invoices from the party without genuine transactions for other purposes constitutes the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices

The first part has cited a case to prove that in current tax related criminal cases, if the payee obtains an invoice from a party who has no real transaction and does not intend to defraud tax credits, it constitutes the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices. Here are a few more examples for readers' reference.

1. (2023) Hu 0109 Xing Chu 881 Criminal Judgment

After trial, it was found that the defendant Yang cooperated with Company 1 and Company 2 to carry out investment projects between April 2020 and July 2021, and was able to obtain profits from them. The defendant Yang, in order to collect profits from project cooperation, was introduced and contacted by the defendant Liu. Yang purchased 6% VAT special invoices from six companies including Company 3 and Company 4 at a face value of 8.5% -9%, and Company 3 and Company 4 issued invoices to Company 1 and Company 2. After investigation, it was found that there were a total of 500 invoices with a total price and tax of over 50.24 million yuan, involving a tax amount of over 2.84 million yuan.

2. (2021) Min 0125 Xing Chu No. 150 Criminal Judgment

After trial and investigation, it was found that in September 2017, the defendant Lin Zhao purchased raw materials such as cement during the construction period of his engineering projects affiliated with Fujian Jiuxianglong Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. and Fujian Longrui Construction Engineering Co., Ltd., and the supplier failed to issue value-added tax special invoices in a timely manner. In order to offset the accounts of the two companies, the defendant Lin Zhao successively used Fujian Jiuxianglong Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. and Fujian Longrui Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. to purchase value-added tax special invoices totaling RMB 1748000 and RMB 906500 from Fujian Zhimei Zhicheng Industrial Co., Ltd. at a price of 10% of the face value (with a total of 23 votes), and verified and deducted them all in the same month or the next month. Taxation This court believes that the defendant Lin Zhao violated the national invoice management regulations by purchasing value-added tax special invoices, and his behavior has constituted the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices.

3. (2024) Hu 0104 Xing Chu No. 550 Criminal Judgment

The People's Procuratorate of Xuhui District, Shanghai, accuses that between 2021 and 2022, the defendant Zhou, who was then the Chief Financial Officer of XX (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (referred to as XX Company), purchased value-added tax special invoices from multiple companies, including XX Company 2, by paying 9.5% of the face value as the invoicing fee, in order to help XX Company and XX Company 4, XX Company 1 (referred to as XX Company 1) solve financial historical problems, as introduced by Shi and others, without real transactions. After audit, more than 600 value-added tax special invoices were purchased by Company 1, and the actual declared deduction of value-added tax amounted to more than 3 million yuan (in the same currency) The facts ascertained through the trial of this court are consistent with the basic facts charged by the public prosecution authority... This court believes that the defendant Zhou, as the direct supervisor of a certain company, decided to have the unit illegally purchase value-added tax special invoices from others. His behavior has constituted the crime of illegal purchase of value-added tax special invoices and should be punished.

（3） The crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices is constituted by "third-party proxy issuance"

There is a theory that the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices should be "limited to purchasing blank invoices from tax authorities", but current precedents do not support this statement. Purchasing invoices from a party without a genuine transaction relationship can also constitute the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices. For example:

1. Criminal Judgment (2019) Chuan 0802 Xing Chu No. 4

The defendant Li Zhenggang engaged in real transportation business with Guoda Corporation and Guangyuan Aluminum in his own name, and sought the help of Wenbo Logistics to issue value-added tax special invoices for settlement. However, according to the "Invoice Management Measures of the People's Republic of China" and the "Regulations on the Use of Value added Tax Special Invoices" formulated by the State Administration of Taxation, it is prohibited to resell or buy invoices. The selling unit of value-added tax special invoices can only be the competent tax authority, and no unit or individual has the right to sell value-added tax special invoices. Purchasing the invoice from units or individuals without the right to sell is illegal. The defendant Li Zhenggang in this case used Wenbo Logistics to issue value-added tax special invoices on behalf of the other party and paid fees, which essentially constitutes illegal buying and selling of value-added tax special invoices. His behavior violates the national management system for value-added tax special invoices.

2. (2019) Qing01 Xingchu No. 24 Criminal Judgment

In this case, although Chaodong Pharmaceutical Company has verified and deducted all the value-added tax special invoices purchased, it cannot be ruled out that Chaodong Pharmaceutical Company has actual business activities and has purchased a large amount of drugs from third parties without obtaining invoices. Therefore, the defendant and the amount paid by the defendant for the purchase of drugs cannot be determined. The possibility that Chaodong Pharmaceutical Company asked Shennong Company to issue value-added tax special invoices in the same amount as the actual purchase amount in its operation cannot be ruled out. At the same time, it cannot be determined that Chaodong Pharmaceutical Company's sales of drugs and other products to the outside world cannot be confirmed. Therefore, the existing evidence is not sufficient to prove that Chaodong Pharmaceutical Company asked others to issue value-added tax special invoices in order to defraud national taxes, and the false issuance of value-added tax special invoice certification. Deduction has resulted in a loss of national tax revenue. Therefore, the above reasons for defense and defense opinions are valid, and this court adopts them.

This court believes that the defendant unit Chaodong Pharmaceutical Company and the defendant Han Hewei illegally purchased value-added tax special invoices from others in their business dealings, and their behavior has constituted the crime of illegally purchasing and issuing false value-added tax special invoices.

（4） Third party proxy issuance "constitutes the crime of falsely issuing value-added tax special invoices

1. (2024) Gan 08 Xing Zhong No. 179 Criminal Judgment

Based on the reasons for appeal and defense opinions of the appellant and his defense counsel, this court's comprehensive evaluation is as follows: Regarding the argument and opinion of the appellant Lv Mouquan and his defense counsel that Lv Mouquan constitutes the crime of illegal purchase of value-added tax special invoices and does not constitute the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices. After investigation, value-added tax input can be deducted from output. The fact that the perpetrator has a genuine transaction does not necessarily mean that they do not have the purpose of defrauding taxes, nor does it necessarily lead to the conclusion that fraudulent behavior based on genuine transactions will not objectively result in the deduction of national value-added tax. If the perpetrator fails to pay value-added tax in a real transaction and falsely issues a value-added tax special invoice (input), the state has not collected the corresponding tax based on the real transaction. In this case, if the perpetrator uses a forged value-added tax special invoice (input) obtained from a third party with whom they did not have a real transaction to authenticate and deduct taxes, the essence is to deceive the state into allowing them to deduct value-added tax (output) with the forged value-added tax special invoice (input). Therefore, it should be determined that the perpetrator subjectively has the purpose of defrauding and offsetting taxes, and objectively has also caused national tax losses. The defendant unit and appellant in the original trial of this case purchased diesel from a private oil tanker at a low price excluding tax, but did not pay value-added tax to the tax authority. However, they purchased value-added tax special invoices (input) from a third party with whom they did not have a real transaction by paying "invoice fees", and used them to verify tax deductions. It should be determined that they had the purpose of defrauding tax payments and caused national tax losses, constituting the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices. The defendant unit and appellant in the original trial purchased value-added tax special invoices and used them to defraud tax credits, which is a criminal means of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices and achieving the criminal purpose of issuing false value-added tax special invoices. They should be convicted and punished according to the principle of first instance punishment. The first instance judgment found that the defendant unit and the appellant in the original trial constituted the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices, and the application of the law was correct and the characterization was accurate.

2. Notice of Criminal Rejection of Appeal (2023) E 10 Xing Shen No. 17

After examination, this court believes that value-added tax is a turnover tax levied on the value-added amount generated during the process of goods and services circulation as the basis for taxation. Only the transaction entity that has paid value-added tax in the input has the right to offset it in the output. If the perpetrator did not pay value-added tax in the actual transaction, such as in a low-priced transaction without issuing an input invoice, the state did not collect the corresponding tax based on the actual transaction. In this case, if the perpetrator deducts from the invoice obtained from a third party after the transaction, it will result in a loss of value-added tax for the state. Only when the perpetrator has paid value-added tax in the actual transaction process and does not belong to the non deductible situation according to legal provisions, does the perpetrator have the right to apply for tax deduction to the national tax authority, and the state also has the obligation to deduct the tax from the perpetrator. The perpetrator's declaration of deduction to the tax authority does not have the purpose of defrauding tax. In other words, there are two prerequisites for the actor to declare tax deduction to the state: firstly, the actor paid value-added tax in the previous transaction link, that is, the state collected value-added tax from the value-added part of the transaction; The second is that the perpetrator has the right to deduction in accordance with legal provisions. These two conditions must be met simultaneously, and neither can be lacking. The prerequisite for applying for tax deduction is that the perpetrator has already paid the tax. Only with payment can one offset taxes, and without payment, it is impossible to offset taxes. Taking physical transactions in practice as an example. In practice, some units or individuals agree with the seller to purchase goods at a so-called low price excluding tax without the need for an invoice as a transaction condition, and then the buyer obtains an input invoice from a third party to declare deduction to the tax authority to "reduce costs". This situation is due to the fact that the purchaser did not pay taxes during the purchase process, so they cannot enjoy the right to deduct taxes. They use invoices obtained from third parties, mostly purchase invoices, to apply for tax deduction from the state. Essentially, this is an act of reducing their own costs by embezzling national value-added tax. It is an act of transferring part of their transaction costs to the state, which is essentially no different from the act of using value-added tax special invoices to embezzle national tax without goods. Therefore, this behavior should be recognized as fraudulent issuance of value-added tax special invoices to defraud national tax.

3. (2021) Lu 16 Xing Zhong No. 25 Criminal Ruling

This court believes that although the Yanrui Coal Sales Center in Huimin County has actual business activities, the purchase of the involved coal without issuing a value-added tax special invoice constitutes a low-priced purchase of coal excluding tax. When purchasing coal, the center did not pay the tax and purchased the involved input invoice by paying the invoice fee, and then declared the deduction of tax to the tax authority. Its subjective purpose is to defraud taxes and objectively caused losses to the national tax revenue. Its behavior constitutes the crime of allowing others to falsely issue value-added tax invoices for itself, which constitutes the crime of falsely issuing value-added tax special invoices.

（5） Virtual opening may contain illegal purchases, but illegal purchases should not be falsely opened

From the judicial precedents in (3) and (4) above, it can be seen that the act of obtaining value-added tax special invoices from a third party is not consistent in judicial practice. In other words, in the current situation of inconsistent judicial practices, it is already quite ideal for lawyers to represent clients in criminal cases of "finding a third party to issue invoices on their behalf" and fight for the punishment of illegal purchase of invoices. So how is the relationship between the crime of falsely issuing value-added tax special invoices and the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices expressed in existing precedents? Let's take a look at the following case together:

(2023) Ji 2426 Xing Chu No. 16 Criminal Judgment

The crime of falsely issuing value-added tax special invoices and the crime of illegally selling or purchasing value-added tax special invoices should be distinguished from the specific legal interests infringed upon. The crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices includes four situations: issuing false invoices for others, issuing false invoices for oneself, allowing others to issue false invoices for oneself, and introducing others to issue false invoices. Objectively speaking, false invoices pose a danger of defrauding national taxes, thereby seriously endangering tax collection and management. Illegal purchase or sale of value-added tax special invoices is a deliberate act of violating national invoice management regulations by illegally purchasing or selling value-added tax special invoices. The crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices may include the act of illegal purchase or sale of value-added tax special invoices, but there should be no false issuance in the crime of illegal purchase or sale of value-added tax special invoices.

From the above listed cases and legal provisions, it can be seen that both the crime of falsely issuing value-added tax special invoices and the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices involve the act of the perpetrator paying the "invoicing fee", and there is no real business transaction with the invoicing party. But the essential difference between the two lies in whether the behavior has the subjective intention of defrauding national taxes. The act of purchasing value-added tax special invoices, once it has the subjective purpose of defrauding national taxes, will inevitably constitute the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices. Therefore, false opening includes illegal purchases, but illegal purchases should not include false opening.

summarize

The acceptance of value-added tax special invoices by the perpetrator should be based on genuine business transactions with the counterparty. The act of obtaining value-added tax special invoices from a third party without real business transactions carries the risk of criminal liability. If the perpetrator has sufficient evidence to prove that they obtained value-added tax special invoices from a third party, and subjectively did not intend to defraud national taxes, it does not constitute the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices. If the behavior meets the constituent elements of the crime of illegal purchase of value-added tax special invoices, it should be convicted and sentenced for the crime of illegal purchase of value-added tax special invoices.

Due to the fact that the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices constitutes a behavioral offense and does not consider the subjective purpose of the perpetrator, the difficulty of providing evidence by public security and inspection agencies is lower than that of the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices. This also makes the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices easy to become a "second best" after the crime of falsely issuing value-added tax special invoices, which is easily abused. The author believes that whether it is fraudulent or illegal purchase, the core is whether there is a real business transaction between the two parties. On the premise that existing evidence cannot deny the real transaction between the two parties, the perpetrator should be found innocent or constitute other illegal crimes in accordance with the law, and the crime of illegally purchasing value-added tax special invoices should not be abused.