Editor's Note: In recent years, the coordinated implementation of measures such as paperless customs clearance, foreign exchange administration reform, and facilitation of cross-border RMB settlement has not only created an efficient and convenient business environment for export enterprises but also strongly boosted the steady growth of foreign trade. Meanwhile, while enjoying policy dividends and customs clearance convenience, export enterprises have entered a phase of more precise supervision, stricter law enforcement, and closer cross-departmental collaboration for stringent compliance supervision. In view of this, this article starts with the latest regulatory trends in the foreign trade industry, focuses on export tax fraud cases reported in 2026, and puts forward defense points for export enterprises' reference.

I. Regulatory Dynamics: Continuous Intensification of Crackdown on Tax Fraud

(I) Supreme People's Procuratorate: Prosecuted 6,017 Cases Involving 12,737 Persons for Tax-related Crimes

On March 10, 2026, the Supreme People's Procuratorate released the White Paper on Criminal Procuratorial Work (2025). Procuratorial organs prosecuted 6,017 cases involving 12,737 persons for crimes against tax collection and administration, representing year-on-year increases of 4.4% and 1.8% respectively. The procuratorial organs have continuously deepened the regular joint mechanism of eight departments to combat tax-related illegal and criminal activities and actively participated in the "Joint Sword 2025" special campaign against tax-related illegal and criminal activities. They have severely cracked down on export tax fraud crimes and related crimes in accordance with the law, and handled cases such as the smuggling of goods prohibited from import and export and export tax fraud case involving Chang Mousheng. The procuratorial organs have deeply participated in the special work of strengthening coordinated supervision over taxable export goods, and jointly issued meeting minutes with the Supreme People's Court, the Ministry of Public Security, and the State Taxation Administration to clarify the application of laws and unify judicial standards for criminal cases involving defrauding government subsidies by using false export information.

(II) State Taxation Administration: Verified Over 10 Billion Yuan in Fraudulently Obtained and Irregular Export Tax Refunds

On April 1, 2026, the State Taxation Administration held a press conference to announce data on the investigation and handling of tax-related illegal and criminal acts such as tax evasion and false invoicing in 2025, and introduced future work priorities. In 2025, relying on the regular joint mechanism of eight departments to combat tax-related illegal and criminal activities, tax authorities inspected 76,000 enterprises suspected of false invoicing and tax fraud, identified 3.324 million falsely issued VAT invoices, and verified over 10 billion yuan in fraudulently obtained and irregular export tax refunds. In 2026, the tax authorities will further deepen multi-departmental data sharing, information exchange, joint research and judgment, and coordinated crackdown. They will intensify efforts to crack down on professional, networked, and cross-regional criminal gangs, and always maintain a high-pressure posture against serious tax-related illegal and criminal acts such as false invoicing and export tax fraud.

(III) Ministry of Public Security: Over 300 Tax Fraud Cases Filed

At a special press conference held in Beijing on May 20, 2026, the Ministry of Public Security pointed out that since 2025, public security organs have closely followed changes in the situation of tax-related crimes and severely cracked down on export tax fraud crimes under the regular joint mechanism of eight departments to combat tax-related illegal and criminal activities. Since 2025, public security organs across the country have filed over 300 tax fraud cases, and the direct economic losses recovered this year have increased by 20.8% year-on-year. While cracking down on tax fraud crimes in accordance with the law, public security organs have implemented a full-chain crackdown on related crimes such as falsely issuing special VAT invoices and illegal business operations, as well as criminal gangs of unscrupulous intermediaries including customs brokers, freight forwarders, and bookkeeping agencies.

II. Latest Cases: Continuous Outbreak of Tax-related Criminal Cases in the Foreign Trade Industry

(I) Tax Fraud Through Buying Export Documents, Matching Invoices, and Fabricating Foreign Exchange Receipts

Yang Moumou was the actual controller of Tianjin Runxingtai Supply Chain Management Service Co., Ltd., Tianjin Yidingfeng Supply Chain Management Service Co., Ltd., and Tianjin Haofeng Dingye Supply Chain Management Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the three enterprises). After investigation, from 2020 to 2022, on the one hand, the three enterprises sought real export goods sources that did not require tax refunds, illegally obtained real export goods information from others, and "grafted" export businesses that did not belong to them under their own names. On the other hand, they obtained falsely issued special VAT invoices from others by paying invoicing fees to match the information of the purchased export documents. In addition, they forged foreign exchange income through underground banks, and after obtaining foreign exchange, paid it to upstream invoicing companies. The funds then flowed back through multiple layers to accounts controlled by underground banks to create the illusion of foreign exchange collection. The three enterprises defrauded 201 million yuan in export tax refunds through the above-mentioned methods. Ultimately, the tax authorities recovered 201 million yuan in export tax refunds from the three enterprises in accordance with the law and suspended their export tax refund processing for three years. Yang Moumou and others were held criminally responsible for suspected export tax fraud.

(II) Tax Fraud Through Overstating the Value of Low-value Goods

Huidafeng Company was mainly engaged in exporting mushroom concentrate to overseas markets, and Xu Mou was its actual controller. After investigation, from 2020 to 2022, the actual production scale and inventory quantity of the cooperatives producing mushroom raw materials were seriously inconsistent with the amount of agricultural product invoices issued. The cooperatives falsely issued agricultural product invoices to Huidafeng's upstream suppliers after collecting invoicing fees. Huidafeng's upstream suppliers produced mushroom concentrate from mushroom scraps and sold it to Huidafeng, with an actual cost of 9 yuan per kilogram. However, they falsely increased the cost to 90 yuan per kilogram in accounting treatment, and then issued special VAT invoices to Huidafeng at a price of 180 yuan per kilogram. Huidafeng then signed false contracts with foreign companies at the inflated prices, forged export businesses, and fabricated cross-border foreign exchange collection records through underground banks to defraud export tax refunds. Ultimately, the tax authorities recovered 54.6509 million yuan in fraudulently obtained export tax refunds from Huidafeng Company in accordance with the law and suspended its export tax refund processing for three years. The principal offender Xu Mou was sentenced to 13 years in prison and confiscation of all personal property for the crime of export tax fraud.

(III) Tax Fraud Through Falsely Issuing Agricultural Product Invoices

Hongyi Biotechnology Company was a manufacturing enterprise mainly engaged in the production and export of enzyme products. After investigation, from 2021 to 2023, the company fabricated organic red pear procurement business and obtained falsely issued organic red pear agricultural product invoices from "suppliers" by paying invoicing fees. In addition, the inspection found that Hongyi Biotechnology's enzyme production factory had no workers on duty, no food inspection equipment, and the production line had long been shut down, with no production capacity. On the other hand, the foreign merchants were actually "nominal foreign merchants" cooperating in false exports, and no real sales occurred after the goods arrived overseas. Ultimately, the tax authorities recovered 1.8316 million yuan in fraudulently obtained export tax refunds from Hongyi Biotechnology Company in accordance with the law and suspended its export tax refund processing for 19 months. Relevant personnel were held criminally responsible for suspected export tax fraud and false invoicing.

III. Key Defense Points for Export Tax Fraud

(I) Cooperative Export Tax Refund Does Not Equate to Tax Fraud Through Buying Documents and Matching Invoices

The judicial interpretations on tax-related crimes issued by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate include "fraudulently using others' export business information to declare export tax refunds" in the elements of the crime of export tax fraud. In judicial practice, some case-handling organs have expanded the scope of application of this provision, identifying cooperative export situations as "fraudulent use" and equating them with "buying documents and matching invoices" behavior. This practice deviates to a certain extent from the legislative intent and scope of application of this provision.

Cooperative export is essentially different from "buying documents and matching invoices" and should not be deemed "fraudulent use". Cooperative export is based on the consensus reached between the supplier and the exporter, where the exporter actually obtains the legitimate civil rights to the goods and exports the batch of goods. In this case, the exporter's behavior is based on a legitimate contractual relationship and the exercise of rights, rather than illegal possession or fraudulent use of others' names.

Including all cooperative export situations in the category of "tax fraud by fraudulently using others' names" is not only inconsistent with legislative intent but also ignores the legality and rationality of cooperative export behavior. In the process of law application, the different situations of "fraudulently using others' names" and cooperative export should be strictly distinguished to avoid misclassifying legitimate commercial behaviors.

(II) Overstating Export Prices Does Not Necessarily Constitute Tax Fraud

The judicial interpretations on tax-related crimes issued by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate list "fictitiously declaring elements such as the name, quantity, and unit price of export business eligible for tax refund to inflate the export tax refund amount despite actual exports" as one of the elements of the crime of export tax fraud. However, from the legal perspective of VAT and export tax refunds, there is no equivalent relationship between merely overstating export prices and export tax fraud.

The basis for export tax refunds is the actual input tax amount borne by the enterprise. If there is an overstatement of export prices but no false invoicing in the case, it cannot be proven that the perpetrator objectively committed tax fraud, has the subjective intent of tax fraud, or will necessarily cause the consequence of defrauding the state of export tax refunds.

(III) Fraudulently Obtaining Paid Taxes Should Be Deemed Tax Evasion Rather Than Export Tax Fraud

Paragraph 2 of Article 204 of the Criminal Law stipulates: "Where a taxpayer, after paying taxes, fraudulently obtains the taxes paid by using the deceptive methods specified in the preceding paragraph, he shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of Article 201 of this Law; where the amount of taxes fraudulently obtained exceeds the taxes paid, the excess part shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph." This provision provides a key legal basis for accurately distinguishing between the crime of tax evasion and the crime of export tax fraud.

Some views hold that this paragraph only applies to situations where foreign trade enterprises have deemed domestic sales or concurrently engage in domestic sales resulting in output tax. However, from the perspective of substantive interpretation, this provision has a broader scope of application. We believe that when a foreign trade enterprise pays for goods at a tax-inclusive price, the price paid already includes the VAT that should be declared and paid by the seller. At this point, the enterprise has essentially borne the tax burden of this link.

If the seller fails to fulfill the invoicing obligation and the enterprise instead obtains invoices through other means for tax refund, what it intends to obtain through "deceptive methods" is still the tax it has actually borne in the procurement link. According to the logic of Paragraph 2 of Article 204 of the Criminal Law, this act conforms to the characteristics of "fraudulently obtaining the taxes paid", and its nature should tend to be deemed tax evasion. Only when the amount of tax refund declared exceeds the tax actually borne by the enterprise may the excess part constitute export tax fraud.

In the handling of cases, the tax amount actually borne by foreign trade enterprises should be focused on and calculated, and the boundary between tax evasion and tax fraud should be strictly distinguished accordingly to avoid convicting a minor crime as a serious one.

Conclusion

At present, with the in-depth application of tax big data sharing technology, the continuous improvement of the precision of the eight-department joint crackdown mechanism, and the continuous improvement and optimization of export tax refund regulatory policies, illegal means of export tax fraud such as "buying export documents, matching invoices, and fabricating foreign exchange receipts" and "overstating the value of low-value goods" have no place to hide, and the cost of tax-related violations has increased significantly.

Under this new situation, export enterprises should take cases as a warning, effectively strengthen tax compliance awareness, strictly abide by the bottom line of tax laws and regulations, and proactively build a full-process export compliance management system featuring "pre-event planning, in-event control, and post-event optimization". If accused of suspected export tax fraud, enterprises should be vigilant, respond as early as possible, and promptly engage professional tax lawyers for assistance. On the one hand, lawyers can sort out case materials to accurately and truthfully reflect the entire case facts and correct possible qualitative deviations by case-handling organs; on the other hand, they can accurately apply laws and regulations and fully communicate with case-handling organs to strive for favorable results.