In legal proceedings involving unfair competition on the internet, the defendant may claim through defense that they are not the operator (developer) of the software or the operator of the software version, and may even deny any involvement in the development of a certain software function, making the defendant's eligibility the focus of controversy in the case. Therefore, accurate positioning of software developers is crucial. This article will delve into multiple dimensions of software release, starting from multiple perspectives such as application markets, official websites, and promotion pages, to reveal the true source of software release. A detailed analysis of the characteristics of different platforms and the digital traces of publishers aims to clarify the responsible parties in legal proceedings, thereby providing stronger evidence support in safeguarding legitimate rights and interests.

Recently, Chen Tianhao, a lawyer from Gaopeng Law Firm, represented a series of cases involving refunds for listed investments. After going through the Beijing Haidian Court, Beijing Arbitration Commission, and Beijing Fengtai Court, a group company that plans to go public finally agreed to refund investors a total of approximately RMB 7.7 million in listed investment principal, investment income, and investment losses, and bear the full cost of litigation and rights protection for investors, paying overdue interest to investors.

Recently, Shanghai Lujiazui Financial and Trade Zone Development Co., Ltd. (securities abbreviation: Lujiazui; securities code: 600663. SH) filed a "toxic land" case with Jiangsu Sugang Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sugang Group), government departments, and third-party institutions claiming over 10 billion yuan, which has become a hot topic in the search. The complex soil pollution problem and huge claims make the case even more complicated and confusing. The author will provide you with some sorting and evaluation from the perspective of resource and environmental law.

The "Guiding Opinions on Punishing Cyber Violence and Illegal Crimes in accordance with the Law" jointly issued by the "Two Highs and One Department", Detailed provisions have been made on how to implement the assistance of public security organs in collecting evidence in private prosecution cases: For cases where the victim initiates a self prosecution for online insults and defamation, if the people's court deems it difficult for the victim to provide evidence after examination, it may request the assistance of the public security organs. The public security organs shall, in accordance with the requirements of the people's court and the specific situation of the case, promptly identify the subject of the act, collect relevant evidence materials on the dissemination and spread of insults and defamation information, and the impact caused. With the assistance of the public security organs in collecting evidence, the self prosecution case can be achieved If the conditions for acceptance are met, the people's court shall decide to file the case; If it is impossible to collect relevant evidence materials, the public security organs shall explain the situation in writing to the people's court. This regulation is a specific implementation of Article 246 (3) of the Criminal Law at the level of judicial operation.

In a criminal case handled a few months ago, the local investigation and prosecution authorities repeatedly mentioned "partial understanding" and "full understanding". The prosecution's sentencing recommendation for a certain defendant was inappropriate, citing that the understanding obtained by the defendant was a "partial understanding". This raises the author's question: How much does different degrees of understanding have a different impact on sentencing?

Recently, Shanghai Lujiazui Financial and Trade Zone Development Co., Ltd. (securities abbreviation: Lujiazui; securities code: 600663. SH) filed a "toxic land" case with Jiangsu Sugang Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sugang Group), government departments, and third-party institutions claiming over 10 billion yuan, which has become a hot topic in the search. The complex soil pollution problem and huge claims make the case even more complicated and confusing. The author will provide you with some sorting and evaluation from the perspective of resource and environmental law.

In the field of export tax refunds, it is strictly prohibited to handle export tax refunds through the business model of "fake self operation, real agency". The reason is that this business model is often related to illegal and criminal activities of fraudulently obtaining export tax refunds, which disrupts the normal order of export tax refunds. However, "fake self operation and real agency" cannot be equated with tax violations and tax fraud. What is the essence of the business model of "fake self operation and real agency", where is the boundary of violation, illegality, and involvement in crimes, and under what circumstances constitutes the crime of fraudulently obtaining export tax refunds? This article will analyze the above issues.

In recent years, cases of fraudulently obtaining export tax refunds have occurred frequently, and new characteristics have been shown in the areas involved and tax fraud methods. Relevant departments have also shown a new situation in cracking down on cases of fraudulently obtaining export tax refunds. How can lawyers achieve effective defense in this situation? This article will combine judicial practice to explore the main defense points of the crime of defrauding export tax refunds from the perspectives of the criminal subject, subjective elements, objective elements, crime amount, sentencing, etc., in order to provide some ideas for the effective defense of cases of defrauding export tax refunds.

The crime of fraudulently obtaining export tax refunds refers to the state refunding taxes that should not have been refunded, while the crime of tax evasion refers to taxpayers failing to pay the taxes that should have been paid. From the concept, it can be seen that the difference between the two is quite obvious, but the provisions of Article 204 (2) of the Criminal Law establish a connection between the two, and in judicial practice, the crime of tax evasion is rarely seen in the judgment of the crime of defrauding export tax refunds. Therefore, the author believes it is necessary to clarify the relationship between the crime of fraudulently obtaining export tax refunds and the crime of tax evasion, as well as the role played by the provisions of Article 204 (2) of the Criminal Law in handling cases of fraudulently obtaining export tax refunds.