Editor's note: Recently, the Procuratorate Daily reported a case in which the actual controller of a coal-using enterprise found a third party to issue invoices on behalf of him after purchasing coal from a small coal kiln without a ticket, and the actual controller was finally convicted and sentenced for the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices. However, in judicial practice, many judicial organs have changed the conviction and sentencing for the crime of illegally purchasing special VAT invoices in cases with the same facts. The maximum penalty for false opening is life imprisonment, while the maximum sentence for illegal purchase is 5 years. There is such a big difference in the characterization of the two crimes, and "different sentences in the same case" undermines the fairness and authority of the judiciary, and even more harms the legitimate rights and interests of the defendants. After the promulgation of the judicial interpretations of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate, there are differences in the views of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate in successively issuing the "Understanding and Application" on the characterization of truthful acting on behalf of others. Based on this, this article intends to start from these two cases and strive to clarify the crime and non-crime, this crime and other crime in the context of the promulgation of the judicial interpretations of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Court, so as to make the basic principle of proportionality of criminal responsibility and punishment in the criminal law truly realized in tax-related crimes.
1. Different judgments in the same case: Purchasing coal from a small coal kiln was truthfully opened, and one case was judged to be falsely opened and the other case was judged to be illegally purchased
(1) Case 1: The truthful opening was convicted of false opening, and the relevant personnel such as the ticket recipient were sentenced to 3 to 12 years in prison
1. Basic facts of the case
According to the Procuratorate Daily, on July 21, 2022, prosecutor Wei found that there was an abnormal flow of 1 million funds between Company A and Company B during the case, so he conducted an investigation and collected evidence. It was finally ascertained that from October 2020 to December 2021, Zhang, the actual controller of Company B, accepted a total of 572.8 million yuan of false special invoices for coal and asphalt from others, resulting in a loss of 65.9 million yuan in national taxes.
During the review and prosecution stage, in response to the defender's opinion that Zhang's behavior of "false opening of goods" was based on the real coal transaction, there was no subjective intention to cheat taxes, there was no loss of state tax revenue, and it did not constitute the crime of false opening, the procuratorate held that Zhang and others collected coal from the small coal kiln and traded with them knowing that the small coal kiln could not issue special VAT invoices, and they actually did not pay VAT in the real transaction, and the state did not collect VAT based on the real transaction. However, Zhang and others still used the VAT input invoices purchased from other places to deduct the input, causing tax losses to the state. At the same time, there was no affiliation between Zhang and the invoicing company, and there was no real transaction of coal goods, and the false issuance of special VAT invoices was not purely for the purpose of improving the company's performance or showing the company's strength, but was all used to certify the tax deduction, and they subjectively had the intention of defrauding the tax deduction, which objectively caused a large loss of national tax revenue, and the case should be found to constitute the crime of false issuance of special VAT invoices.
Finally, on March 9, 2023, the Kaijiang County Procuratorate prosecuted 12 people including Zhang on suspicion of falsely issuing special VAT invoices.
2. Judgment results
On January 20, 2024, the Kaijiang County Court adopted all the facts of the crime alleged by the procuratorate and the sentencing recommendations put forward, and sentenced the defendant Zhang and 12 others to fixed-term imprisonment of three to 12 years, and each was fined.
(2) Case 2: Truthfully opened on behalf of the person was convicted of illegal purchase, and the recipient of the ticket was sentenced to 5 months of detention
1. Basic facts of the case
Yang is the actual controller of a petrochemical company in Hunan, and his company could not issue special VAT invoices because he purchased coal from a small coal kiln, so in March 2018, through an intermediary such as Sun, he purchased 223 special VAT invoices from a coal sales company in Yiyang County with a face value of 8.8 points, with a total price of more than 25.87 million yuan, and Yang was certified by the state taxation department to deduct more than 375 yuan in taxes. In November 2018, the public security organs criminally detained Yang on suspicion of falsely issuing special VAT invoices, and on December 1, 2020, the People's Procuratorate of Yiyang County, Jiangxi Province filed a public prosecution with the People's Court of Yiyang County, Jiangxi Province for the crime of illegally purchasing special VAT invoices, and proposed a sentencing recommendation that Yang be sentenced to three years in prison, suspended for four years, and fined 100,000 yuan.
2. Judgment results
On December 24, 2020, the Yiyang County Court made a judgment on the case. The court held that the defendant Yang violated the state's regulations on the administration of special VAT invoices by illegally purchasing special VAT invoices, and his behavior constituted the crime of illegally purchasing special VAT invoices. The court upheld the charges charged by the public prosecution, but did not adopt the sentencing recommendation put forward by the public prosecution, and finally sentenced Yang to the crime of illegally purchasing special VAT invoices, sentenced to 5 months of criminal detention, and fined 40,000 yuan.
(3) Question: The reason for truthfully opening the "same case and different judgments".
From the two cases, it can be seen that the companies controlled by the perpetrators purchased coal from the small coal kiln, but the small coal kiln failed to issue special VAT invoices to them, so they found other companies to issue special VAT invoices on their behalf for input deduction. For the same kind of conduct and the same kind of case, why is there such a huge discrepancy between the charges brought by the procuratorates of the two places and the results of the courts' rulings?
Judging from the timeline, the adjudication results of the two cases occurred before the judicial interpretations of the two Supreme People's Courts. The main reason for this is that the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Decision >of the Standing Committee of the < National People's Congress on Punishing the Crime of False Issuance, Forgery and Illegal Sale of Special VAT Invoices (Fa Fa [1996] No. 30) clearly stipulates that "issuance on behalf of others is false issuance".
Although the Reply of the Research Office of the Supreme People's Court < on How to Determine the Nature >of the Conduct of Carrying out Business Activities in the Name of a "Affiliated" Company and Allowing the Relevant Company to Issue False VAT Invoices for Itself (Fa Yan [2015] No. 58) clearly states that "even if there is no affiliation between the actor and the other person, if the actor carries out actual business activities, subjectively does not have the intention to defraud the tax deduction, and objectively does not cause the loss of national value-added tax, It should not be found to be "false issuance of special VAT invoices" as provided for in Article 205 of the Criminal Law; Where the requirements for constituting other crimes such as tax evasion are met, they may be punished for other crimes. ”
However, in practice, there are differences in the knowledge and understanding of judicial organs in different regions, and the results of discretionary evidence are inconsistent, which in turn leads to the dilemma of "different judgments in the same case".
(4) Have the judicial interpretations of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Court resolved the above-mentioned disputes?
The judicial interpretations of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Court abolished the full text of Fa Fa [1996] No. 30, and the clear provision that "the act of issuing special VAT invoices on behalf of others when they have carried out actual business activities but allowing others to issue special VAT invoices on their behalf" was abolished accordingly. However, the existing view is that the "opening on behalf of others" has not been completely taken out of the criminal circle of false opening.
According to the SPC article, "there is an actual deductible business, but a special VAT invoice is issued in excess of the tax corresponding to the actual deductible business" as stipulated in Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item 2, which includes the business of issuing invoices on behalf of others, which refers to the act of "although there is a real transaction, the deductible tax amount on the invoice exceeds the actual deductible tax amount, including the false issuance of invoices from a third party to purchase goods at a price excluding tax to offset the cost".
According to the article of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the "issuance of special VAT invoices for businesses that cannot be deducted according to law for businesses that cannot be deducted according to law through fictitious transaction entities" includes the business of issuing invoices on behalf of others or even the business of truthfully issuing invoices on behalf of others.
Accordingly, there is a certain amount of controversy over the analysis of the judicial interpretations of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on the truthful substitution of the two judicial interpretations, and they have not been able to resolve the above-mentioned remaining issues. Although there are differences in the views of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on the act of truthfully acting on behalf of others, the author believes that too much criticism of legislation does not have much substantive significance for safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the perpetrators of truthful representation, and how to seek an outlet suitable for the criminal responsibility and punishment of the perpetrators of truthful acting on behalf of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate under the understanding and application of the judicial interpretations of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate, so as to achieve substantive justice in judicial practice, is an important task of judicial practice. Therefore, the author combines the understanding of the two articles to discuss the act of truthful substitution.
2. The opinion of the SPC article: "The act of purchasing goods at a price excluding tax and obtaining invoices from a third party" is a "false opening of goods"
(1) How to understand "obtaining an invoice from a third party for the purchase of goods at a price excluding tax"
The so-called truthful issuance actually means that the tax-included price paid by the drawee for the purchase of taxable items is consistent with the total price and tax on the invoice obtained from the biller. However, according to the opinion of the SPC article on "false opening of goods", if the actor "purchases goods at a price excluding tax and obtains invoices from a third party to offset the cost", it is still "false opening of goods". Considering that readers may have misunderstandings about the above provisions, this article cites Judge Yao Longbing's article "On the Characterization of the False Issuance of VAT Special Invoices in the "Possessed" Type" to explain the above views.
According to Judge Yao Longbing, the premise for the drawee to exercise the right of deduction is that the price paid to the seller is tax-inclusive. If the parties to the transaction agree on the so-called "tax-exclusive price", "in this case, the purchaser cannot enjoy the right to deduct because the purchaser did not pay tax at the purchase stage". At this time, even if the amount of the invoice obtained by the invoice recipient is consistent with the actual price of the goods, because the invoice recipient has not paid VAT to the state in the real transaction, it is still false because it has not been entitled to apply for deduction if it has not paid.
For a more vivid understanding, for example, Company A and Company B agreed that Company A purchased the goods at a "price excluding tax" of 100 yuan without obtaining an invoice. Company A then obtained an invoice with a total price and tax of RMB 100 from Company C at a 6% invoicing fee, with a VAT rate of 13%, of which the amount was RMB 88.49 and the tax amount was RMB 11.51. According to the above viewpoint, because Company A paid the "price excluding tax" and did not enjoy the deductible rights, it was a "false opening of goods".
Specifically, in Case 1 of this article, the procuratorate held that "Zhang et al. received coal from a small coal kiln, and still traded with the small coal kiln knowing that the small coal kiln could not issue a special VAT invoice, but they actually did not pay VAT in the real transaction, and the state did not collect VAT based on the real transaction, while Zhang et al. still used the VAT input invoices purchased from other places to make input deductions, causing tax losses to the state." In fact, it is a reproduction of Judge Yao Longbing's view.
(2) Tax collection and management practice: there is no so-called "tax-exclusive price"
In the author's opinion, the above-mentioned view of "tax-exclusive price" is suspected of misreading the principle of VAT. From the perspective of tax collection and administration practice, the author believes that the "tax-exclusive price" can only be a calculated and simulated price, and does not actually exist in real life. In other words, all sales prices include tax. Specifically:
First of all, regardless of whether the seller issues an invoice or not, it has a tax liability, in other words, the seller's tax liability is statutory and does not change because of whether an invoice is issued. According to the requirements of VAT collection and administration, if the taxpayer has not issued an invoice, the entire uninvoiced income shall be regarded as the tax-included price, calculate and pay VAT, and fill in the sales amount and output tax amount in the column of "uninvoiced" for tax declaration; Secondly, regardless of whether the buyer and seller agree on the "tax-exclusive price", the tax authorities will not abandon their duty to collect and underpay VAT from the seller, and they must treat the actual amount incurred by the buyer and seller as the tax-included price to calculate the VAT amount.
In Case 1 of this article, based on "presumption", the procuratorate directly determined that Zhang "knew that the small coal kiln could not issue a special VAT invoice but still traded with it", that is, the procuratorate directly believed that Zhang paid the so-called "tax-exclusive price", so as to presume that he did not pay VAT, which is a wrong practice in the author's opinion. As mentioned above, according to the provisions of the Provisional Regulations on Value-Added Tax, the seller is a VAT taxpayer, and even if the seller does not issue an invoice to the buyer when obtaining income, it shall pay VAT to the state according to the income without invoices when making tax returns. Moreover, if the above-mentioned small coal kiln is inspected by the tax authorities, the tax authorities may not recognize the "tax-exclusive price" put forward by the procuratorate, and thus do not pursue the VAT of the small coal kilns. Therefore, the author believes that even if there is a loss of VAT tax in this case, it is not caused by Zhang, but by the concealment of income from the small coal kiln, and he should be held responsible for tax evasion, rather than wrongly determining that Zhang committed the crime of false opening.
(3) Summary: As long as the total amount of the fare tax is consistent with the actual transaction amount, it is truthfully opened
To sum up, the author believes that if there is a real transaction, if the price paid by the recipient to the seller is consistent with the total amount of the ticket price tax, it is a truthful issuance. If the invoice is over-opened, it is "false opening of goods".
3. The opinion of the Supreme People's Procuratorate article: The fictitious third party obtaining invoices unrelated to the transaction is a false issuance, including the act of truthfully issuing invoices
(1) "Business that cannot deduct tax according to law" is expanded to "the drawee does not meet the conditions for deduction"
The Supreme People's Procuratorate's article interprets the second act as "false opening of goods with goods that have actual business but exceed the corresponding tax of the actual deductible business, and the excess part is also falsely opened". Accordingly, the Supreme People's Procuratorate did not classify the act of truthfully opening on behalf of the party as such, but interpreted the second act as the multiple opening of the transaction entity consistent with the issuer and receiver. Therefore, the author believes that, under the interpretation of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, truthful opening on behalf of others does not fall under the act of false opening under Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item 2.
According to the Supreme People's Procuratorate's article, "Item 3 refers to the recommendations of the Ministry of Public Security and the State Administration of Taxation, and in practice, the drawee of the actual transaction does not meet the conditions for deduction, but deducts the invoice after obtaining the invoice through a fictitious third party unrelated to the transaction, which is also a false issuance." Obviously, the Supreme People's Procuratorate's article interprets the "business that cannot be deducted from taxes according to law" in the judicial interpretations of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate as "the drawee does not meet the conditions for deduction", which in turn leads to the expansion of the scope.
The core foothold of "business that cannot be deducted according to law" is "business", and it lies in whether this business is a business that can actually deduct tax in the relevant provisions of VAT, rather than whether its formal conditions meet the deduction conditions. In other words, if the recipient does not meet the deduction conditions due to non-compliance with the invoice or the failure to issue an invoice or other formal conditions, it will not affect the essence of the business and still belong to the business that can be deducted from the tax.
(2) The Supreme People's Procuratorate's viewpoint may be contrary to the core of "restricting and shrinking the criminal circle".
The Supreme People's Procuratorate's interpretation of "the drawee does not meet the conditions for deduction" obviously includes the formal conditions such as not obtaining invoices and obtaining non-compliant invoices into the scope of non-deductible taxes. Since the seller does not issue invoices, the drawee certainly does not meet the deduction conditions, but the drawee obtains the invoice from a third party and deducts it in order to realize its substantive deduction rights, and from the opinion of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, this behavior is also a false opening. In the author's opinion, this view directly returns to the position that the act of opening on behalf of the person in Fa Fa [1996] No. 30 is a false opening, which may be contrary to the core of the judicial interpretations of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Court aimed at narrowing the criminal circle of false opening.
In addition, there are also opinions that even Fa Yan [2015] No. 58 does not directly determine that truthfully opening on behalf of the applicant is not a false issuance, but that truthfully opening on behalf of the applicant "subjectively has no intention of defrauding the tax deduction, and objectively does not cause the loss of national value-added tax", and it is not appropriate to determine that it is a crime of false issuance. In other words, although the Supreme People's Procuratorate article believes that truthful issuance is a false opening, the "exculpation clause" of Article 10, Paragraph 2 of Article 10 can be applied to truthful opening, and thus does not constitute a crime. However, the exculpatory clause is suspected of shifting the burden of proof to the perpetrator, and in practice, it is even more difficult for the defendant to provide evidence to prove that he "did not cause a loss of state tax revenue". Just as in Case 1, the public prosecution directly presumed the existence of tax losses on the basis of "transactions with entities that cannot issue special VAT invoices", how should the perpetrator prove that the truthful issuance did not cause tax losses?
IV. Under the judicial interpretations of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Court, how should the act of truthfully acting on behalf of the Supreme People's Court be attributed?
(1) The act of truthfully issuing VAT invoices does not constitute the crime of false issuance of special VAT invoices
As mentioned above, although the author believes that the act of truthfully opening on behalf of others is not an act of false opening, considering that there is still controversy in the SPC article and the SPP article on the characterization of the act of truthful opening on behalf of others, based on the consensus of taking the "greatest common factor", even if there is an act of truthful opening on behalf of others, it can still be convicted in accordance with Article 10, paragraph 2. First of all, it should be made clear that, as mentioned above, there is no so-called "tax-exclusive price" in the practice of tax collection and administration, and all transaction prices are tax-inclusive prices, so the seller does not fulfill the VAT tax obligation and does not calculate and pay the tax according to the "uninvoiced income", and this part of the tax loss should be borne by the seller, and more importantly, if the tax authorities carry out an audit on it, this part of the tax can be put into the treasury, so that there is no loss of national tax.
Accordingly, in the case of truthful issuance, the invoice amount obtained by the drawee is consistent with the rights and interests of the actual deduction of input tax, and will not cause the loss of over-deduction or fraudulent deduction of tax, and the actor subjectively does not have the purpose of defrauding the tax, and objectively even if the tax authorities do not recover the seller's tax, the loss of state tax is not caused by the deduction, but by the seller's tax evasion. Therefore, the act of truthfully opening on behalf of others does not constitute the crime of false opening.
However, the act of truthfully acting on behalf of the government does disrupt the order of the country's tax administration, and while protecting human rights, criminal acts must not be spared. So, how should the act of truthfully acting on behalf of others be imputed?
(2) Should the act of truthfully issuing VAT invoices be convicted and sentenced as the crime of illegally purchasing special VAT invoices?
In the past, in judicial practice, the act of truthfully issuing on behalf of others was mostly punished as the crime of illegally purchasing special VAT invoices. Some courts, including Case 2, held that the actor who mined coal from a small coal kiln and chose to obtain invoices from other companies to obtain invoices issued truthfully on behalf of others subjectively had the intention and purpose of undermining the order of the state's invoice management, objectively violated the state's prohibitive provisions on special VAT invoices, and carried out the act of purchasing special VAT invoices from entities that have no right to sell special VAT invoices by paying invoicing fees, etc., and undermined the state's order in the management of special VAT invoices. His conduct met the constitutive elements of the crime of illegally purchasing special VAT invoices, and he was finally convicted of the crime of illegally purchasing special VAT invoices.
Before the promulgation of the judicial interpretations of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Court, the author believes that it is not improper for the court to recognize the act of truthfully issuing on behalf of the Supreme People's Court as the crime of illegally purchasing special VAT invoices, but after the promulgation of the interpretation, it may be inappropriate to still characterize the act as such.
According to the article of the Supreme People's Court, "after the recipient illegally purchases a special VAT invoice, it is not used to defraud the tax, but is used for other purposes, and if the other purpose does not constitute a crime, it constitutes the crime of illegally purchasing a special VAT invoice; If other purposes constitute other crimes, it is an implication in the crime of illegally purchasing special VAT invoices and the crimes of other purposes. As mentioned above, the act of truthfully issuing VAT invoices is not an act of false issuance, and its purpose is not to defraud tax deductions, nor does it cause tax losses, so it does not constitute the crime of false issuance of special VAT invoices, but constitutes the crime of illegal purchase of special VAT invoices.
Therefore, in addition to the crime of illegal purchase, if the perpetrator truthfully issues invoices on behalf of the perpetrator to deduct taxes and constitutes the crime of tax evasion, in accordance with the provisions of the implicated offender, he shall be convicted and punished in the principle of one heavier punishment, and the party receiving the invoice may be convicted and punished for the crime of tax evasion.
(3) Does the act of truthfully opening on behalf of others constitute the crime of tax evasion?
1. The act of truthfully opening on behalf of others is an act of falsely deducting input tax
Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Judicial Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Court stipulates that "in any of the following circumstances, a taxpayer making a false tax declaration shall be deemed to be 'deceptive or concealing means' as provided for in the first paragraph of Article 201 of the Criminal Law:(3) Falsely listing expenditures, falsely crediting input tax, or falsely reporting special additional deductions." ”
At the same time, the SPC article interprets that "the tax authorities believe that for the act of false deduction of inputs, according to the notice of the State Administration of Taxation on the handling of taxpayers obtaining falsely issued VAT invoices (Guo Shui Fa (1997) No. 134), "if the recipient of the bill uses the special invoices falsely issued by others to declare tax deduction to the tax authorities for tax evasion, it shall recover the tax in accordance with the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Administration of Tax Collection and Collection and relevant laws and regulations, and impose a fine of less than five times the amount of tax evaded". It was suggested that the above-mentioned means should be enumerated. It should be noted that the "false deduction of input tax" here is based on the premise that it does not constitute the crime of false issuance of special VAT invoices. ”
"The distinction between the crime of false issuance of special VAT invoices and the crime of tax evasion. The most crucial difference is whether it is subjectively based on the intention of defrauding the state of taxes or for the purpose of evading tax liability. Within the scope of taxable liability, if the tax is underpaid by deducting the tax by inflating the item, even if the means of false deduction are adopted, it is still subjectively not to pay the underpaid tax, and according to the principle of unity of subjectivity and objectivity, it should be punished as the crime of tax evasion. ”
Accordingly, if a taxpayer falsely deducts the input tax, whether it is for underpayment or non-payment of tax, that is, for tax evasion, within the scope of tax payable, does not constitute the crime of false issuance, but constitutes the crime of tax evasion.
According to the provisions of the tax law, the invoices obtained by the actor through truthful issuance are non-compliant invoices, which do not comply with the provisions of Guo Shui Fa [1995] No. 192, and cannot be used as input deductions, and the actor deducts taxes within the scope of tax liability in order not to pay taxes, which constitutes the crime of tax evasion.
2. The scope of taxable liability shall be the tax deducted within the scope of actual deduction
What is the scope of taxable liability is vague, which has caused considerable controversy in the practical community. There is a view that the scope of taxable liability is the output tax generated by the taxable items of the actual sales tax increase, and if according to this viewpoint, if the actor does not sell the taxable items, the output tax is 0, and the obtaining of truthful invoices on behalf of the actor exceeds the scope of the taxable liability, it still constitutes the crime of false invoicing, which is obviously inappropriate. In the author's opinion, the scope of taxable liability should be the scope of tax deduction within the scope of actual deduction, so that the logic of truthfully acting on behalf of others to constitute the crime of tax evasion is more rigorous.
From the perspective of the principle of VAT taxation, the scope of taxable liability should also be understood as the tax deducted within the actual deductible range. Value-added tax should be levied on the basis of value-added in the process of circulation of goods, services and taxable behaviors, according to which, theoretically, the value created by the enterprise in the process of production and operation, including the amount of value-added items such as wages, interest, rent, profits, etc., should be used as the basis for tax calculation, and then multiplied by the corresponding tax rate to obtain the amount of value-added tax that should be paid to the state, that is, the amount of taxable liability. There is also no "scope" of taxable liability, which should also be the theoretical calculation method of VAT. However, in the countries that implement value-added tax, including the mainland, the statutory value-added amount is determined in the value-added tax system according to their respective national conditions, and at the same time, the deduction calculation method is adopted in the mainland, so that there is the problem of deducting output tax and input tax. However, regardless of the calculation method, the results of the calculation of the amount of taxable liability should be consistent under the premise that the theoretical value-added amount and the statutory value-added amount are equal.
Therefore, the author believes that from this point of view, the scope of taxable liability cannot be output tax, but should be deducted within the scope of actual deduction. Accordingly, the perpetrator falsely deducted the input by truthfully issuing the tax on behalf of the actor, and did not deduct the tax beyond the actual deduction range, which constituted the crime of tax evasion.
Therefore, the author believes that the perpetrator's act of obtaining invoices on behalf of the perpetrator to deduct taxes by truthfully issuing invoices on behalf of the perpetrator in order not to pay taxes is a criminal means of illegally purchasing special VAT invoices to achieve the purpose of not paying taxes, which constitutes an implicated offender and can be punished as the crime of tax evasion.
![The latest draft judicial interpretation, don't let your wallet be unprotected![fig]]()