Since 2017, with the concentrated efforts of tax authorities in the special rectification of the scrap material industry, the number of fictitious invoicing cases in the scrap material industry has surged. Companies and individuals involved in these cases are facing significant administrative and criminal risks. Based on recent cases handled by Hua Tax Agency in the scrap material industry, these cases have gradually extended to both ends of the supply chain, involving a wide range of entities. Individuals in different transaction segments, including individual sellers, recycling enterprises, and end-users, are often implicated. The tax-related criminal risks now cover various aspects of scrap material procurement and sales transactions. The concentrated outbreak of fictitious invoicing cases imposes stringent requirements on legal defense.This article, drawing on an understanding of the scrap material industry and knowledge of tax and criminal laws, along with insights gained from numerous fictitious invoicing cases handled by Hua Tax Agency, analyzes business models, elements constituting fictitious crimes, case facts, and evidence. Based on this analysis, the article puts forward six key points for a defense of innocence from the perspectives of conviction and sentencing. These points are intended for reference by tax professionals and business personnel.

I. Four Types of Cases in the Scrap Material Industry That Do Not Constitute the Crime of Fictitious Issuance of Value-Added Tax Special Invoices

(I) Acts of Issuing Invoices on Behalf of Genuine Transactions Do Not Constitute Fictitious Crimes

Typical Case: Acquittal Case of Du in Jiangsu ((2015) Taizhong Criminal Second Final Judgment No. 00150)

Case Summary:

The appellant Du, during his tenure as the general manager of the original Nanjing Yangshan Company, faced the problem of being unable to obtain value-added tax special invoices for the purchase of raw materials, specifically quartz stone, from farmers in places like Donghai County. In collaboration with Luo, Du signed a contract to purchase quartz stone with Luo's company. The invoices for the transaction were issued by Luo's companies, Jieyu and Chunda, as per the contract price, addressing the issue of the legitimate source of invoices for Du's company's raw materials.

Between April 2010 and May 2011, an employee of the original Nanjing Yangshan Company, Chen, under Du's instructions, was responsible for purchasing quartz stone in Donghai County. A portion of the purchased quartz stone was transported to locations such as Nanjing and Jiangyan, and another portion was sent to a stone yard owned by Du. After sorting by the stone yard workers, the quartz stone was then transported to the original Nanjing Yangshan Company, Jiangsu Yangshan, or Tangyang Company. Luo, based on the prices and quantities provided by Du, prepared purchase contracts for quartz stone with Jieyu and Chunda companies and invoiced accordingly. After receiving the quartz stone and invoices, the original Nanjing Yangshan Company, Jiangsu Yangshan, and Tangyang Company made payments to Jieyu or Chunda's accounts. Luo transferred the actual payment for the purchased quartz stone to Chen's personal bank account. Chen, in Donghai County, withdrew cash and paid it to the farmers, and the remaining funds were transferred to Du or other accounts as per Du's request. During this period, Jieyu and Chunda companies issued a total of 90 value-added tax special invoices for the sale of quartz stone, with a total value of RMB 9,222,200 and total tax of RMB 1,339,977.87, all declared for deduction by the above units.

Lawyer's Observation:

The act of "truthfully issuing invoices" is a new phenomenon that has emerged in business management with the development of the market economy. In the field of bulk commodity trading of scrap materials, individual suppliers are responsible for collecting scrap materials and selling them to end-user companies. In the construction sector, small construction teams established by individuals purchase sand and gravel, facing the problem of being unable to obtain value-added tax special invoices. However, end-user companies and construction enterprises require value-added tax special invoices for accounting purposes. In cases like Du's, where there is a situation of allowing others to truthfully issue invoices, there is no subjective intent to deceive tax payments, and it does not pose the same social harm as fictitious invoicing. Therefore, such cases should not be deemed fictitious invoicing, in accordance with legislative intent and the principle of consistency between subjective and objective elements.

The second item of the reply on "How to Determine the Nature of Activities where Companies are 'Affiliated' in Name for Business Operations and Arrange for the 'Affiliated' Companies to Falsely Issue Value-Added Tax Special Invoices" issued by the Research Office of the Supreme People's Court (Legal Research [2015] No. 58) explicitly states, "The essential harm of the crime of issuing false value-added tax invoices lies in obtaining deductible tax payments through false invoicing. For genuine issuance behavior where there is an actual transaction, if the actor has no intentional deception to obtain deductible tax payments and has not objectively caused a loss of national value-added tax payments, it is not appropriate to prosecute it as the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices." Although this reply is not a judicial interpretation, it plays an important guiding role in judicial practice. In the case of "truthfully issuing invoices," the third party issues value-added tax special invoices to the receiving party truthfully based on the quantity and amount of actual transactions between the two parties. The entire value-added tax deduction chain is not broken, and the receiving party's acquisition of value-added tax special invoices for the deduction of input tax does not result in an actual loss of national value-added tax payments. Although "truthfully issuing invoices" violates the invoice management system, it should not be equated with fictitious invoicing, and such behavior should not be deemed the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices.

(II) Portions Not Exceeding the Actual Transaction Amount Do Not Constitute Fictitious Crimes

Typical Case: Non-Prosecution Case of Bao in Dongliao County (Dongliao Procuratorate Criminal Non-Prosecution [2020] No. 4)

Case Summary:

Since May 2, 2016, Jilin ** Company has been purchasing waste paper from waste material operators, Zeng, until December 30, 2016. The total price of waste paper purchased amounted to RMB 9,673,520.72. An employee of this company, Bao, contacted Zeng to issue value-added tax special invoices. After Zeng communicated with Tianjin ** Company's Zheng, on December 30, 2016, Zeng issued 12 value-added tax special invoices in the name of Jilin ** Company, with a total value of RMB 13,495,607.52. Subsequently, until February 27, 2017, Jilin ** Company purchased waste paper from Zeng, with a total price of RMB 2,957,023.31. On February 27, 2017, using the same method as before, Tianjin ** Company issued an additional 4 value-added tax special invoices on behalf of Jilin ** Company, with a total value of RMB 4,378,415.34. Jilin ** Company later used these 16 value-added tax special invoices to deduct a total input tax of RMB 2,597,080.15. The amount that exceeded the actual transaction volume with Zeng and was used to offset input tax amounted to RMB 449,887.67.

After reviewing the case, the procuratorate believed that the amount involved in the case that exceeded the actual transaction did not significantly impact the overall crime, and Bao's offense was relatively minor. Therefore, they decided not to prosecute Bao.

Lawyer's Observation:

When handling cases of false invoicing, lawyers should comprehensively grasp the case, accurately differentiate between the amounts of genuine transactions and the amounts without genuine transactions. When the amounts without genuine transactions constitute a crime, attention should be paid to distinguishing responsibilities. Firstly, it is essential to differentiate the responsibilities of the issuer and the recipient. If the issuer is involved in false invoicing, it does not necessarily mean that the recipient is also engaged in false invoicing. The responsibilities of both parties should be accurately distinguished. This viewpoint is explicitly stated in the Announcement No. 39 of 2014 by the State Administration of Taxation, which emphasizes the separate evaluation of obtaining and issuing invoices for the same entity. Similarly, actions involving obtaining and issuing invoices by different entities should be evaluated separately. Conversely, assuming that if the issuer engages in false invoicing, it can be inferred that the recipient is also engaged in false invoicing would lead to the serious consequence that all downstream enterprises in the entire transaction chain are presumed to be involved in false invoicing. This approach not only violates the objective facts of commercial transactions but also causes confusion in social and economic activities, resulting in an overly broad and sweeping criminal crackdown. Secondly, within the issuer and recipient entities, it is necessary to consider the roles and positions of the parties in the entire business to differentiate the primary and secondary responsibilities that each should bear. If the circumstances of the cases are such that the amount constituting the crime is relatively small and there are factors that warrant leniency or a reduction in punishment, the prosecutor may decide not to prosecute during the prosecution stage.

(III) Acts Without the Intent to Deceive Tax Payments and Without Causing Loss of Value-Added Tax Do Not Constitute Fictitious Crimes

Typical Case: Non-Prosecution Case of Chen in Dexing City, Jiangxi Province (Dexing Procuratorate Criminal Non-Prosecution [2015] No. 5)

Case Summary:

The individual not prosecuted, Chen, is the actual controller of Yongjie Company, and Gao is a salesperson for Yiqin Company. To address the invoice issue in the scrap steel procurement business of Yongjie Company, Chen and Gao agreed that after Chen purchased scrap steel privately, he would report the corresponding transaction data to Gao. Gao, in turn, obtained 17 value-added tax special invoices from Yiqin Company through Gao, with a total face value of RMB 19,325,950. After the 17 value-added tax special invoices were successfully authenticated by the tax bureau, Chen remitted the full amount from Yongjie Company's bank account to Yiqin Company's bank account. Yiqin Company deducted about 7.8% of the remittance amount as invoicing tax (fee) and returned the remaining amount to Chen's personal bank account through personal accounts.

Chen personally paid for the private scrap steel, and after reaching a sales agreement with Jiangtong Company, he personally delivered the scrap steel as per the agreement. The 17 value-added tax special invoices obtained by Chen allowed for a deductible tax amount of RMB 2,808,044. Currently, he has deducted RMB 2,478,721.24, leaving RMB 329,322.76 undiscounted.

The procuratorate believed that the existing evidence was insufficient to prove that Chen had the subjective intent to deceive tax payments, and it was impossible to ascertain the specific amount of tax loss caused by Chen. They found the evidence weak and changeable in determining the false transaction between Yongjie Company and Yiqin Company and decided not to prosecute Chen.

Lawyer's Observation:

In this case, the decision of the procuratorate not to prosecute strictly follows the provisions of the "Reply on How to Determine the Nature of Activities where Companies are 'Affiliated' in Name for Business Operations and Arrange for the 'Affiliated' Companies to Falsely Issue Value-Added Tax Special Invoices" issued by the Supreme People's Court Criminal Law Research Office (Legal Research [2015] No. 58). This reply supplements and improves the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices, clearly stating that the establishment of the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices requires the subjective intent of the actor to deceive tax payments and the objective consequence of causing a loss of value-added tax payments. If there is evidence confirming that the actor does not have the subjective intent to deceive tax payments and has not objectively caused a loss of national value-added tax payments, it should not be prosecuted as the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices. At the same time, the "Opinions on Fully Exercising Prosecutorial Functions to Serve and Guarantee the 'Six Stability' and 'Six Guarantees'" issued by the Supreme Procuratorate also explicitly stipulates that for businesses with actual production and operational activities, if the act of falsely issuing value-added tax special invoices does not aim to deceive taxes and does not cause a loss of tax payments, it should not be classified as the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices and should be transferred to the tax authorities for corresponding administrative penalties.

(IV) Cases With Unclear Facts and Insufficient Evidence Do Not Constitute Fictitious Crimes

Typical Case: Non-Prosecution Case of Gao in Liaoyang County (Liaoxian Procuratorate Criminal Non-Prosecution [2020] No. 45)

Case Overview:

High is the legal representative of an industrial company, Li is the former department head of the industrial company, Wang A is an individual large-scale supplier, Wang B is a salesperson at Huanjia (Dalian) Company, Wang C is the deputy general manager of Huanjia (Dalian) Company, and Liang is the general manager of the Dalian branch of Huanjia (Dalian) Company. The parties involved in the case had the following collaborative arrangements:

In November 2016, the industrial company purchased scrap steel from Wang A personally. As Wang A did not have the qualification to issue special value-added tax invoices, High, Li, and Wang A negotiated. The industrial company agreed to pay the invoicing fee for false special value-added tax invoices. Under Li's arrangement, Wang A discussed invoicing matters with the branch of Huanjia (Dalian) Company. Later, Wang A approached Wang B, a salesperson at Huanjia (Dalian) Company, who reported the business to Wang C, the deputy general manager of Huanjia (Dalian) Company (handled separately). After various discussions, Wang A and the branch of Huanjia (Dalian) Company signed a scrap steel purchase and sale agreement. Subsequently, the industrial company and the branch of Huanjia (Dalian) Company signed a purchase and sale contract for 60,000 tons of scrap steel (the actual weight is subject to the weighbridge slip), with a false intercompany transaction. Wang A directly delivered the scrap steel to the industrial company, and the branch of Huanjia (Dalian) Company received an invoicing fee equivalent to 13% of the total value-added tax and amount. On December 30, 2019, the branch of Huanjia (Dalian) Company issued 18 sets of false special value-added tax invoices to the industrial company, with a total value of 123,281,489.42 yuan.

From November 2016 to January 2017, the industrial company voided 7 sets of special value-added tax invoices, and the branch of Huanjia (Dalian) Company actually issued 11 sets of false special value-added tax invoices to the industrial company. As per a prior agreement, from April to May 2017, the industrial company transferred false payments in 17 installments to the branch's corporate account at Huanjia (Dalian) Company. The branch deducted 8,785,939.2 yuan as the invoicing fee and transferred the remaining payment to the personal Agricultural Bank accounts of Wang A, Wang C, and Ma. Wang A then paid the agreed-upon payments to individual retail sellers. After a return for supplementary investigation, the prosecution determined that the crime facts identified by the investigative authorities were unclear and lacked sufficient evidence, not meeting the conditions for prosecution, and decided not to prosecute the industrial company.

Lawyer's Observation:

According to Article 55 of the Criminal Procedure Law, a guilty verdict in any case is based on reliable and sufficient evidence. The reliability and sufficiency of evidence mainly include facts supporting conviction and sentencing being proven by evidence, evidence used for identification being verified through legal procedures, and the comprehensive consideration of all evidence eliminating reasonable doubts about the identified facts. Only when the criminal facts are clear and the evidence is reliable and sufficient at the end of the investigation can the case be transferred for prosecution. During the examination and prosecution stage, if the prosecution believes that the evidence is still insufficient and does not meet the conditions for prosecution in cases with supplementary investigations, a non-prosecution decision should be made, and this case falls into this category.

II. Six Defense Points for Lawyers Representing Cases of Falsifying Old Material Industry

(I) Affiliated Business Does Not Constitute Falsification Crime

"Affiliated business" refers to an operational arrangement where one business entity reaches an affiliation agreement with another. The affiliated party conducts business activities under the name of the affiliated party, and the affiliated party provides services such as qualifications, technology, and management to the affiliated party, charging a certain management fee regularly.

According to the State Administration of Taxation's Announcement No. 39 of 2014 and its official interpretation, when the affiliated party sells goods in the name of the affiliated party, the affiliated party should issue a special value-added tax invoice to the buyer in its own name. As long as the goods' name, quantity, and amount recorded on the invoice are consistent with the actual goods, the buyer's invoicing behavior does not constitute falsification of a special value-added tax invoice. However, how to understand and identify affiliated relationships in practice is a difficult point. We believe that transaction behaviors that meet the characteristics of temporary, borrowed, and independently accounted for affiliations, even if the two parties have not signed a written affiliation agreement, should affirm the objective existence of the affiliated relationship.

(II) Falsifying Acts with Genuine Transactions Do Not Constitute Falsification Crime

Article 205 of the Criminal Law stipulates the crime of falsifying special value-added tax invoices. From a literal interpretation, the commission of falsification constitutes this crime. However, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Procuratorate have repeatedly emphasized through a series of cases, letters, and opinions that for delegated invoicing with actual transactions, where there is no subjective intent to deceive the deduction of tax payments and no objective loss of national value-added tax, it is not appropriate to charge the crime of falsifying special value-added tax invoices.

For the recycling and operation of waste materials businesses, since the cancellation of the policy exempting "waste material recycling business units from paying value-added tax on the sale of waste materials" in 2008, they need to obtain special value-added tax invoices for input deduction and pre-tax deduction of corporate income tax. Due to the numerous individual sellers that recycling businesses need to deal with and the frequent and low-priced purchases, these individual sellers are unable and unwilling to issue invoices on behalf of waste material recycling businesses at tax authorities. Even if they do, the 3% input deduction requires additional value-added tax burdens, making it difficult for recycling businesses to obtain input deduction invoices.

In practice, there are multiple circulation links from individual sellers to waste-generating companies, including individual sellers → large-scale suppliers/recycling stations → recycling businesses → waste-generating companies. Since recycling companies need special value-added tax invoices, large-scale suppliers are unable to obtain them from individual sellers. Therefore, some companies choose to have others issue invoices on their behalf to facilitate transactions. For this invoicing situation, it should be clarified whether the invoiced amount, quantity, and actual transaction correspond. For parts that comply with the actual transaction and are genuinely issued, they should not be deemed falsified.

(III) Determining Fictitious Crimes Requires Examination of Subjective Intent and Objective Results

To address the qualitative issue of fictitious acts in practice, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Reply on How to Determine the Nature of Activities where Companies are 'Affiliated' in Name for Business Operations and Arrange for the 'Affiliated' Companies to Falsely Issue Value-Added Tax Special Invoices" (Legal Research [2015] No. 58). This document supplements and refines the crime and explicitly states that establishing the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices requires the perpetrator to have the subjective intent to deceive tax payments and objectively cause a loss of value-added tax payments. If there is evidence confirming that the perpetrator lacks the subjective intent to deceive tax payments and has not objectively caused a loss of value-added tax payments, then the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices should not be prosecuted. Additionally, the "Opinions on Fully Exercising Prosecutorial Functions to Serve and Guarantee the 'Six Stabilities' and 'Six Guarantees'" issued by the Supreme Procuratorate emphasizes that for enterprises with actual production and operational activities, if the act of falsely issuing value-added tax special invoices is not aimed at tax evasion and does not cause a loss of tax payments, it should not be classified as the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices. Instead, it should be transferred to the tax authorities for corresponding tax treatment and penalties.

When judicial authorities handle criminal cases related to fictitious activities, they should consider the spirit and purpose of the reply while examining the establishment of the crime of fictitious acts. From the perspective of legislative purpose and background, the legislative purpose of the crime of fictitious acts is to safeguard national taxation and combat criminal activities that harm national value-added tax payments. From the perspective of protecting legal interests and the nature of crimes, any behavior is only considered a crime because it seriously infringes on legal interests. In this sense, there are no purely fictitious acts; only actions that seriously infringe on legal interests constitute the crime of fictitious acts. Therefore, only fictitious acts that violate the legal interests protected by the crime of fictitious acts should be classified as such. If the "fictitious" actions committed by an individual do not harm national value-added tax payments or pose a danger of tax loss, they do not fulfill the essential objective elements of the crime, lack significant social harm, and should not be subject to criminal punishment under the evaluation of criminal law.

(IV) Accurately Distinguishing Legal Responsibilities of Parties Involved Based on Constituent Elements, Avoiding a One-Size-Fits-All Approach

In cases of issuing false value-added tax special invoices, the commission of the crime by the issuer does not necessarily lead to the commission of the same crime by the recipient. There are two main reasons for this:

Firstly, the attribute requirement of the statutory crime of fictitious acts necessitates that the perpetrator must first be classified as committing a fictitious violation under tax law before being potentially classified as committing the crime of fictitious acts under criminal law. According to relevant provisions of China's tax law, if the issuer constitutes a fictitious violation, the recipient may still be compliant in obtaining invoices or obtaining invoices in good faith, which may not be deemed a fictitious violation under tax law. In such a case, the recipient should not be evaluated as committing the crime of fictitious acts under criminal law.

Secondly, even if the recipient is deemed to have committed a fictitious violation under tax law and requires judgment from a criminal law perspective, an analysis of the constituent elements of the crime of fictitious acts, such as "whether there is an intentional attempt to deceive national tax payments" and "whether there is a consequence of causing a loss of national tax payments," should be conducted based on the determination of the existence of a genuine transaction. It should not be presumed that other parties committed fictitious acts simply because one trading party committed such acts.

(V) Tax Payments Already Rectified Before the Conclusion of the First Trial Are Not Considered as Losses

The "Notice of the Zhejiang High People's Court Criminal Division II on Issuing the Summary of the Symposium on Difficult Issues in Economic Crime in the Province" (Zhejiang High Court Criminal Division II [2005] No. 1) explicitly states that the amount causing a loss to national tax payments is essentially the part of the defrauded national tax payments that cannot be recovered before the conclusion of the investigation. Therefore, the amount of national tax payments defrauded is not necessarily the loss to the country. For the portion of the tax payments that have already been recovered or can be recovered, this part should be excluded when determining the loss.

We believe that due to the severe statutory penalty for the crime of fictitious acts, the judiciary should adopt a realistic attitude, favoring principles that benefit the accused. The deadline for calculating losses can be appropriately extended. For cases where national tax payments were defrauded and have been rectified before the conclusion of the first trial, it should not be considered as a loss of tax payments.

(VI) Acts of Issuing Multiple Invoices with Small Amounts, Mild Circumstances, and Minor Social Harm Do Not Constitute Fictitious Crimes

According to Article 15 of the Criminal Procedure Law, for cases with significantly mild circumstances and minor harm, the procuratorate should not prosecute. Additionally, according to Article 173, for cases with mild circumstances, where punishment is not required according to the criminal law, the procuratorate can choose not to prosecute. In situations where the amount issued exceeds the actual transaction amount, if the amount is small, the circumstances are significantly mild, and the harm is minor, it does not constitute the crime of fictitious acts, and the procuratorate should not prosecute. If the amount is small, the circumstances are mild, and the social harm is minor, and the party involved confesses, actively contributes, admits guilt, and meets other mitigating circumstances, it does not constitute the crime of fictitious acts, and the procuratorate can choose not to prosecute.

III. Suggestions for Tax Risk Management in the Operation of Recycling Business of Scrap Materials

Referring to several judicial outcomes where cases eventually resulted in non-prosecution or acquittal, the crucial factor for the final acquittal was the genuine occurrence of the purchase and sale of scrap materials by the recipient. In practical operations, both the issuer and recipient, as well as individuals providing actual goods or services, should pay attention to the following risks:

1. Establish standardized affiliated business relationships. For instance, enterprises can require individual businesses to sign a written agreement or make oral agreements on affiliated operations, and retain copies of written agreements related to affiliated operations. When it is difficult to sign an affiliated business agreement, the enterprise should ensure that the individual business is aware of the issuer and clarify the mode of affiliated operations. Determining the affiliation in business operations is a major challenge in judicial practice. Therefore, enterprises should establish standardized affiliated business relationships at the beginning of their operations to avoid administrative and criminal risks.

2. Retain a complete evidence chain proving "truthful proxy invoicing." For example, if an individual provides goods to Company B, a waste enterprise, and Company A issues invoices on behalf of Company B, then Company B, as the waste enterprise, should be able to establish a complete evidence chain for each invoice received. This evidence should include weigh bills, warehouse entry documents, transportation information, actual suppliers, etc., proving that the invoices received are all "truthfully proxy invoiced." In the event of being accused of false invoicing, both the recipient company and the individual supplier should use invoices as a basis, scrutinizing corresponding business records per invoice to prove the authenticity of each transaction.

3. Instances of over-issuance and false invoicing still constitute falsification. Some recipient companies may inflate the quantity of goods, increase the number of invoices and the amount, and request the issuer to issue invoices. If the issuer fails to fulfill verification obligations, both parties may still be liable for the crime of falsification. Therefore, enterprises should adhere to the bottom line of "truthfulness." If it cannot be demonstrated that the invoices correspond to genuinely occurred transactions, there remains a risk of being prosecuted for the criminal responsibility of falsification.

4. In cases involving false invoicing, enterprises should organize their business records, retain relevant vouchers, actively seek professional support from lawyers, communicate with judicial authorities through lawyers regarding industry backgrounds, business processes, case facts, etc. Provide professional judgments on the authenticity of the transactions involved, fund flow, tax declaration, and deduction, etc., based on facts, evidence, and provisions of tax law and criminal law to increase the accuracy of case determination and minimize the criminal risks for enterprises.

IV. Conclusion

The operation of the recycling business of scrap materials has its own characteristics and tax policy background. Constrained by the inherent deficiency of insufficient input tax deduction, enterprises engaged in recycling operations and waste-generating enterprises inevitably encounter problems such as non-standardized operations and non-compliant tax treatment. These issues, exacerbated by changes in tax law and tax administration environment, have gradually intensified and become prominent with the development of the waste industry. When lawyers handle cases involving false invoicing in the waste materials industry, they should examine the industry's unique and typical characteristics. Additionally, they should make judgments based on the special regulations of tax law regarding recycling business and affiliated operations. For behaviors that comply with tax law and should not be classified as falsification, they should not be evaluated from a criminal law perspective. Even if a criminal law perspective is taken, the analysis should be based on the constituent elements of the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices. For enterprises with actual operations, if there is no intentional act of issuing false value-added tax special invoices subjectively, no purpose of evading national value-added tax payments, and no objective commission of the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices resulting in a loss of national value-added tax payments, it does not meet the constituent elements of the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices and should not be classified as such. Even if the enterprise has false invoicing behavior, the amount corresponding to genuine transactions should be deducted from the false invoicing amount before evaluating the false invoicing amount. For cases with unclear facts and insufficient evidence of false invoicing, the presumption of innocence should be adhered to, and the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices should not be affirmed.