PCJ – Chapter 724 Countersuit

When the two sides faced each other in court and Meishan Group presented a large amount of evidence, Heizmann was dumbfounded. At the time, the Volkswagen R&D center had blocked all signals and physically cut the network, yet even under those circumstances, the Meishan new energy vehicle had still managed to record their act of destroying the car. That footage became ironclad proof of Aldrich and Heizmann’s illegal attempt to steal Meishan Group’s technology.

At this moment, Aldrich’s attorney, Zhang Yong, raised an objection: “These pieces of evidence were obtained illegally and should not be admissible. The new energy vehicle secretly activated its monitoring system without the owner’s consent, recording my client’s daily activities. This is contrary to the law, and therefore the evidence has no legal validity. I request that the court reject Meishan Group’s submission. Furthermore, as the car’s rightful owner, Mr. Aldrich has the legal right to dispose of his own property. If he wishes to smash his car, that cannot, in principle or law, be deemed illegal.”

“Counsel for the plaintiff should carefully examine the agreement signed between my client and your client,” Meishan Group’s chief legal adviser and case attorney, Cheng Pengfei, stood and replied. “This was not a simple sales contract for a car—it was a limited-term vehicle usage agreement. As is well known, new energy vehicles are epoch-making products, with cutting-edge technology making production costs extremely high. In order to make them affordable for consumers, and also to ensure proper recycling at the end of their lifecycle, Meishan Group signs a conditional contract with its customers. This contract specifies the rights and obligations of both parties, and has been approved by the relevant authorities, making it legal and reasonable.

For safety reasons, the contract stipulates that the owner may not disassemble the car in any way during the 30-year usage period. After that period, the scrapped vehicle must be returned to Meishan Group for proper disposal. The contract clearly states that if violent disassembly occurs, the car’s built-in intelligent system is authorized to activate monitoring devices and transmit evidence to Meishan’s Remote Information Control Center for safekeeping. Therefore, this evidence is entirely lawful.”

Cheng Pengfei continued: “Given the current circumstances, we hereby file a countersuit against Aldrich and others for the attempted theft of our company’s technical secrets, and for Aldrich’s violent destruction of a new energy vehicle.”

Presiding judge Liu Yike immediately affirmed Meishan Group’s evidence: “The plaintiff’s claims are rejected. Since the defendant has filed a countersuit closely related to this case, this court will accept the countersuit. However, as part of the countersuit concerns criminal conduct, which falls outside this court’s jurisdiction, the matter should be reported to the public security authorities for investigation and prosecution by the procuratorate.”

In fact, Meishan Group had already reported the matter to the Bijiang City Public Security Bureau, which was actively investigating. Predictably, after the trial, the bureau would take coercive measures against the suspects.

Zhang Yong hastily stood up to object: “Judge Liu, Meishan’s sales contract is clearly a coercive contract. Ordinary buyers don’t usually read car purchase contracts in such detail, giving Meishan an unfair advantage. Therefore, this contract is patently unfair and should be declared invalid.”

Judge Liu Yike responded: “Counsel, you may have overlooked certain recently issued legal provisions. Relevant authorities have enacted protection regulations for China’s cutting-edge technologies. Meishan Group’s world-leading technologies fall under this protection. As such, Meishan Group is entitled to certain marketing privileges. This contract is one such privilege, and it is legally valid. These protections currently apply only domestically, and thus are fully applicable in this case.”

The regulation Judge Liu referred to had indeed been issued only recently. It placed export restrictions on certain internationally leading Chinese technologies while granting special privileges to companies holding them. Meishan Group fell squarely into this category. Its new energy vehicle technology and other advanced technologies were listed as restricted for export, but the group was simultaneously entitled to legal protection, tax exemptions, and special marketing privileges.

Zhang Yong had heard of the regulation but never taken it seriously. He had thought, How could China possibly possess technology more advanced than the world’s best? He had dismissed it as bureaucratic overreach. But now, looking back, it seemed the regulation might have been drafted specifically for Meishan Group.

“This is bad…” Zhang Yong muttered, wiping sweat from his forehead.

By this time, Heizmann and Aldrich had already learned the gist of Judge Liu’s statement through translation. Were it not for being inside a courtroom, the two would have already lashed out at Zhang Yong. He had sworn to them that he could win the case, but now it was clear not only would they lose—they might even face prison.

Sure enough, Zhang Yong’s fears were realized the moment they walked out of court: both of his clients were immediately taken away in police cars from Bijiang City.

Heizmann and Aldrich were formally arrested by Chinese police and placed under investigation, causing a global uproar. The German government issued a statement expressing deep concern and demanded that China protect the basic rights of German corporate personnel.

In response, a spokesperson for the Chinese government declared: “China welcomes foreign enterprises to conduct legitimate business activities in our country. However, for any actions that violate the Constitution and laws of China, we will resolutely oppose and handle them strictly according to law.”

The lawsuit also triggered heated debate within China. Some argued that Meishan Group’s contract contained unfair terms and smacked of monopoly. They insisted that car owners should retain the right to choose how to repair or dispose of their vehicles, and that Meishan had no authority to interfere. Especially after thirty years of use, consumers ought to be free to decide what to do with their scrapped cars. Meishan’s environmental-prevention rationale, critics said, was far too flimsy.

But many more believed Meishan Group had done nothing wrong. After all, it offered the world’s most advanced technology at a minimum price of just 200,000 yuan—extremely cheap by global standards. Under those circumstances, stricter terms were hardly excessive. Anyone who wanted to dismantle a Meishan vehicle clearly had ulterior motives. Moreover, the company’s promise of thirty years of full maintenance and scrappage service demonstrated responsibility. Given the technological sophistication of Meishan’s cars, who else could even repair them if the option were open? And the scrappage issue was a worldwide headache, with junk car “graveyards” piling up everywhere, wasting land and polluting the environment. Since Meishan had the capability to solve it, why wouldn’t consumers accept that?