This is a 2025 typical criminal‑civil combined copyright case published by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, focusing on pirated micro‑short‑drama websites that hide real operators by using shell‑company industrial‑ICP filing identities In recent years, Chinese micro‑short‑drama has become a fast‑growing cultural track with huge commercial returns. Criminal groups have developed a mature evasion strategy: register multiple low‑asset nominal shell companies under relatives’ names for website filing, while the actual controller stays completely invisible on public industrial‑commerce and domain‑name records. This separation of nominal filing subject and real operator creates substantial obstacles for copyright owners initiating civil lawsuits or reporting criminal clues. This case demonstrates how judicial organs break through corporate‑form barriers and trace real infringers through capital flow, technical code, and organizational‑division‑of‑labor evidence.
The copyright claimant is a cultural and media enterprise specializing in original short‑drama production, owning exclusive information‑network communication rights for dozens of hit paid short‑drama works. In late 2023, the right‑holder’s online monitoring system discovered a paid piracy website aggregating more than 5 000 unauthorized short‑drama episodes, including many of its self‑produced popular titles. The website adopted tiered recharge payment modes: monthly membership packages and per‑episode purchase options, generating direct illicit revenue from paid user consumption. However, public domain‑name registration and ICP filing information only displayed a little‑known shell tech company with zero actual staff and almost no operating income, registered under the name of the actual offender’s cousin.
At the initial investigation stage, the nominal filing entity denied any connection with website operation. The shell company submitted formal statements claiming that its business license had been lent to an unknown third‑party, and it bore no responsibility for website content. Relying merely on public filing information cannot establish infringement liability against real controllers. Civil litigation initiated only against the nominal shell would likely result in unenforceable judgments, because the shell entity held almost no executable assets. If investigators could not collect cross‑validation evidence linking the website to the hidden controller, the main perpetrator would escape sanction behind the corporate veil.
Investigators adopted multi‑dimensional evidence‑collection strategies. First, they conducted forensic analysis on server back‑end logs, payment interface settlement records and advertising cooperation contracts. Although the website front end showed the shell‑company name, capital settlement accounts, advertising collection bank cards and third‑party payment background data all pointed to the personal bank account of the hidden actual controller. Second, law‑enforcement agencies recovered chat records within the criminal group, clarifying internal work division: the actual controller was responsible for site planning, fund allocation and profit distribution; other group members took charge of content crawling, server rental, user‑paid‑channel maintenance and online promotion. The shell‑company was only used for ICP filing, without participating in any daily technical or commercial operation. Third, judicial appraisers confirmed that the piracy site’s code framework, backend management address and historical domain‑name change tracks were highly associated with other websites previously planned by the same real controller.
During the judicial procedure, the defense counsel argued that only the shell filing subject should be held liable. The court held that where a legal person is merely used as a tool for infringement, the corporate personality can be denied in copyright cases. According to China’s Copyright Law, Company Law and relevant judicial interpretations, if a shell company has no independent decision‑making, no independent personnel and no independent operating funds, and is completely controlled by natural persons only for implementing illegal acts, the hidden actual controller shall bear direct criminal and civil compensatory liability. The nominal shell company also bore corresponding legal liability for providing qualification filing conditions knowing potential illegal usage.
Finally, the people’s court convicted the actual controller of the crime of copyright infringement. Besides criminal penalty, the defendant was ordered to pay huge civil compensation to the short‑drama copyright owner. Relevant shell‑related participants received administrative punishment. This case delivers vital practical guidance for copyright‑right holders. Right holders should not merely depend on ICP filing subjects to confirm defendants. When facing empty‑asset shell‑entity concealment, claimants must actively apply to judicial authorities to obtain evidence including payment settlement data, server logs, social‑group chat records and forensic technical appraisal reports, to complete the evidence‑chain for piercing the corporate veil.
For cross‑border and domestic copyright operators, preventive measures include regular online monitoring, preserving real‑time webpage notarization evidence, and reserving technical forensic channels once suspicious piracy sites appear. When piracy platforms hide behind anonymous shell subjects, stopping litigation at the nominal‑filing level will lead to ineffective rights protection. Successful accountability requires combining capital flow, technical traces and human‑factor evidence to locate and target real‑decision‑making parties.
https://www.spp.gov.cn/zdgz/202606/t20260609_729376.shtml
https://www.spp.gov.cn/xwfbh/dxal/202504/t20250423_693873.shtml
https://www.ccopyright.com/mobile/index.php?optionid=1448
https://www.court.gov.cn/fabu‑xiangqing‑384121.html
