Background
Two of our clients filed complaints with two police stations, alleging that people tied to an auction company had run a land scam through an unregistered multi-level sales structure. Law Firm Changchun represented both complainants. Both stations closed the cases without referral for insufficient evidence.
In April 2025, to evaluate objections and civil claims, Changchun requested suspects' interrogation records and an investigation report attaching a defense counsel's opinion. One station refused on five grounds, including privacy, interference with investigations and trade secrets; the other cited privacy and an internal police rule.
What Was at Stake
The police invoked an internal rule and multiple provisions of the Official Information Disclosure Act. One station also argued that the suit was moot because it had submitted a record to the court as evidence.
How Changchun Helped
Acting as the complainants' representative, Changchun sued. In four consolidated cases, the court accepted the following points:
An internal rule is not a legal basis. It is an administrative guideline without statutory delegation.
Nothing protected remained once personal data was removed. The investigations were closed, the records revealed no methods, and any private elements were needed for the clients' remedies.
No trade secret was at stake. Fee terms in an attached consulting contract could matter to fraud and civil claims and did not seriously harm the company.
Evidence filed in court is not disclosure. Receiving a copy through the court is not a method of disclosure under the Act, so the claim was not moot.
Outcome
In April 2026, the first-instance court revoked both stations' refusals in all four consolidated cases and ordered the police chiefs to bear the costs. In two separate suits over other records, a different panel dismissed the claims as moot in November 2025 because the station had already filed the records as evidence, but it still ordered the police chief to bear the costs.
Stacking grounds for non-disclosure fails unless each has concrete support. (Outcomes depend on the facts of each case.)