Procuratorial Daily Comments on seizing power by force: the company’s surname is “Gong” but not “family”

0
81

Original title: arrest for seizing power by force
Li Guomin
From April 26, he led the crowd to break into the office area of the company to steal the official seal, and on July 7, he took people into the company to pry open the safe and take away the materials. The “power seizing” series directed by the founder of the company, Li Zhaoqing, ended up in administrative detention in the second episode as a “Star”.
On the evening of July 8, Beijing Chaoyang police issued a briefing. At about 7:00 p.m. on July 7, Li Xiaoqing (male, 55 years old) gathered others to disturb the normal work order of a company in Jing’an center of Chaoyang District by forcefully unlocking locks and restricting others’ personal freedom, the circular said. At present, Chaoyang Public Security Bureau has detained Li and other four illegal offenders according to law.
The nature of “breaking the law” and the punishment of “detaining” are the negative evaluation of Li’s “seizing power by force” according to the law. Although Li said that “no matter what kind of punishment I face, I will accept it calmly”, he also said that “as the chairman of the board of directors and the shareholders’ meeting, I lead the management team to take over the company according to the resolution of the shareholders’ meeting. There is a reason and a law basis for me to take over the company.” what’s the trouble with asking for benevolence and benevolence “– he still regards” seizing power by force “as” taking over according to law “, which shows his attitude towards the police In fact, he was not convinced that he had violated the law.
Li’s “disobedience” may be due to two reasons: first, he has been re elected as the chairman of the board of directors, and it is natural for him to take over the company. As for the means to be used, it is his freedom; second, he founded the company, which is his wife’s “husband and wife’s shop”, and taking power is his wife’s “family affairs”, which is beyond the control of outsiders.
As for the first point, there are many legal questions about whether Li’s “election” is effective, such as whether the procedure for holding the shareholders’ meeting is legal? Are a series of resolutions of the shareholders’ meeting legal? There are different opinions in the legal field. Given the ongoing litigation, I do not want to comment. However, there is no dispute that even if the “election” is effective, the takeover company must not act willfully, otherwise the national law will not allow it.
Let me focus on the second point. What is a company? It is a kind of organization form of enterprise, and it is an association legal person with the purpose of making profits. The two key words “organization” and “community” clearly reflect the morphological characteristics of the company: it is completely separated from the personal color, the interests of the company and shareholders are independent, and the survival and safety of the individual shareholders does not affect the normal operation of the company. Only in this way can the company survive for a long time and have high stability. No matter the founder or the chairman of the board of directors, no matter how important and high a position they are to the company, they are only a member of the company legally. “Husband and wife shop” or family business, since the company has been established, the company’s affairs are no longer private or family affairs, but public affairs, which must be strictly restricted by the law and the company’s articles of association. In a society ruled by law, it is a pity that the founder of a well-known modern company regards the change of the company’s legal representative as a “family affair” and then “seizes power” according to the way of handling family affairs.
It is obvious that the damage to the company caused by Li’s “power taking” series is obvious. As a private enterprise, it is not easy for the company to go to today. To protect private enterprises, we should focus on the rule of law. We should also let private entrepreneurs understand that the company’s surname is “public” but not “family”, and the company’s control can be “contested” but not “robbed”.