Is a Notarization Made under False Pretenses for the Purpose of Evidence Collecting Valid in China?

(By  Luo Yanjie) In a civil lawsuit, the collecting of evidence for the purpose of notarization is quite common. However, during the process of collecting evidence that concerns the selling of infringing goods, the rights holders or their attorneys typically utilize a system of collection in which they set up a “customer” to purchase the infringing product as evidence of infringement. So the question is, should evidence collected in this manner be considered legally effective for the purposes of a lawsuit for infringement or unfair trade practice? For our understanding on the issue, and our experience in this decidedly complicated process, we would like to share with our readers today’s post concerning our opinions on the issue:


Why to Protect Legal Benefits of Units in Labor Disputes?

By You Yunting

Recently, following a disputed labor case I have noticed an inadequate protection of the unit by the existing laws and regulations, and such inadequacy has made an unfaithful employee gain immoral advances from such inadequacy in the case, and on the other hand, hundreds of innocent labors may suffer losses from this. So, we would like to put the case in discussion now:

A senior employee asked for sick leave of 1 year (it was found afterwards that the hospital has never prescribed medicine after the issuance of the medical certificate, yet the hospital also refuses to admit involvement in the false sick leave), contrary to this the employer later found that the employee was actually running her own company then entrusted lawyers to investigate it. After the check of the registered information of the suspected company, the employee was proven to be the general manager. Meanwhile, the lawyer also contacted the employee in the name of business contact through the contact telephone number on the home page of the company, which further confirmed the employee’s service with the company. The call was notarized.