Letter of Demand Regarding the Failure of the Shanghai Jing'an District People's Court to File Within the Statutory Period Feng Zhenghu's Lawsuit Against the Shanghai Branch of the People's Bank of China Concerning Alipay's Illegal Conduct | Example

To: Shanghai Jing'an District People's Court (EMS: 1155329277774)

Demanding party (plaintiff): Feng Zhenghu

National ID number: omitted

Address: Yangpu District, Shanghai

Mobile: 13524687100

Unit receiving the demand: Shanghai Jing'an District People's Court

Address: No. 66 Jiangning Road, Jing'an District, Shanghai (Postal code: 200042)

Telephone: 021-26120000

I. Basic facts of the case

The demanding party, Feng Zhenghu, dissatisfied with the Reply to the Report issued by Defendant One, the Shanghai Branch of the People's Bank of China (No. JB-10061, December 5, 2025), and the Administrative Reconsideration Decision issued by Defendant Two, the People's Bank of China ((Yin) Fu Jue Zi [2026] No. 370, February 26, 2026), filed an administrative lawsuit with your court in accordance with the law, requesting that:

1. The court revoke in accordance with the law the conclusive determination in the Reply to the Report issued by Defendant One (No. JB-10061) that "no circumstances were found in which Alipay violated the relevant administrative regulations of the People's Bank of China";

2. The court revoke in accordance with the law the decision in the Administrative Reconsideration Decision of the People's Bank of China issued by Defendant Two ((Yin) Fu Jue Zi [2026] No. 370) upholding the aforementioned Reply to the Report;

3. The court order Defendant One, in response to the demanding party's report concerning Alipay's long-term, overdue freezing of the demanding party's accounts without valid judicial assistance documents, to reopen the case, conduct a comprehensive and sufficient investigation, issue a new written handling opinion in accordance with the law, and serve it on the demanding party;

4. The two defendants jointly bear all litigation costs in this case.

The core disputed facts in this case are as follows:

First, Alipay froze the demanding party's accounts for approximately eight years beyond the permitted period without any judicial document extending the freeze. In December 2012, the Yangpu Branch of the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau issued a Notice of Freezing Property (Hu Gong Yang Xing Zi [2012] No. 0363), on the basis of which Alipay froze two of the demanding party's Alipay accounts. Pursuant to the mandatory provisions of Articles 240 and 243 of the Provisions on Procedures for Public Security Organs Handling Criminal Cases, the statutory maximum period for freezing property such as deposits and remittances is six months; where procedures for continuing the freeze are not completed after the expiration of that period, the freeze is deemed automatically lifted. After the initial six-month statutory freezing period expired in June 2013, the public security organs never again issued any notice to Alipay to continue the freeze. Nevertheless, Alipay continued to freeze the demanding party's accounts without any valid judicial document until February 2021, for approximately eight years, unlawfully locking a total of RMB 9,342.31 in the demanding party's accounts for an extended period.

Second, Alipay customer service explicitly acknowledged that an error had been made and proposed a compensation plan. On February 8, 2021, in a recorded telephone conversation between the demanding party and an Alipay customer-service representative named "Siyou," Alipay explicitly acknowledged that there had been an error in the long-term overdue freezing, and proactively proposed compensation in the form of "paying interest based on approximately nine years and an annualized return of 10%," constituting Alipay's admission that it lacked a lawful basis for continuing the freeze.

Third, China Construction Bank's conduct in the same case stands in sharp contrast. In the same case and during the same period, China Construction Bank received 11 notices from the Yangpu Branch of the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau to continue the freeze and strictly processed an extension every six months in accordance with the statutory procedures. This fact fully demonstrates that the public security organ clearly understood the system governing freezing periods and processed the extensions with respect to the bank in accordance with the law, but did not process an extension for Alipay. Alipay's overdue freezing violated the statutory standards for judicial assistance.

Fourth, Defendant One's factual findings in its investigation were seriously unclear and its application of the law seriously erroneous; Defendant Two failed to perform its duty of comprehensive review in the reconsideration. Defendant One's investigation stopped at the initial freezing event, without verifying with the public security organ whether documents extending the freeze existed or requiring Alipay to provide a legal basis for the overdue freeze. It further substituted the Alipay Payment Services Agreement, a standard-form private-law contract, for the mandatory public-law rules in the Provisions on Procedures for Public Security Organs Handling Criminal Cases concerning the automatic lifting of a freeze upon expiration. Defendant Two's reconsideration decision almost entirely repeated Defendant One's factual findings and gave no direct response to the core disputes—"the legality of the overdue freeze" and the mandatory legal rule that "expiration is deemed automatic lifting."

Based on the above facts, on March 29, 2026, the demanding party formally mailed a written Administrative Complaint and a complete set of evidentiary materials to your court by China Post EMS express delivery (EMS: 1155329856274), and your court signed for them within the statutory period.

II. Facts concerning the failure to file the case within the statutory period

On March 29, 2026, the demanding party formally mailed a written Administrative Complaint and a complete set of evidentiary materials to your court by China Post EMS express delivery (including one original complaint, multiple copies, one set of 14 items of evidence, proof of the plaintiff's identity, and other materials), and your court signed for them.

As of now, far more than the statutory seven-day period has elapsed since your court signed for the materials, and your court has taken the following actions:

First, your court has neither registered nor filed the case in accordance with the law;

Second, your court has not lawfully issued a ruling refusing to file the case or stated its reasons;

Third, your court has not issued any written receipt or notice explaining what needs to be corrected.

As of the date this letter of demand is issued, your court's period for reviewing whether to file this case has far exceeded the statutory seven-day period prescribed by Article 51 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, and your court has not lawfully issued any form of written decision.

III. Legal basis

(1) The statutory duty of people's courts to register and file cases in accordance with the law

Article 51 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China provides: "When a people's court receives a complaint, it shall register and file the case if the complaint meets the conditions for filing prescribed by this Law. If it cannot determine on the spot whether the complaint meets the conditions for filing prescribed by this Law, it shall receive the complaint, issue a written receipt specifying the date of receipt, and decide within seven days whether to file the case. If the conditions for filing are not met, it shall issue a ruling refusing to file the case. The ruling shall state the reasons for refusing to file the case. If the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the ruling, the plaintiff may appeal."

Article 52 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China provides: "Where a people's court neither files a case nor issues a ruling refusing to file the case, the party may bring an action before a people's court at the next higher level. Where the people's court at the next higher level considers that the conditions for filing are met, it shall file and hear the case, or it may designate another lower-level people's court to file and hear the case."

(2) Institutional requirements of the case-registration system

Article 2 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Registration and Filing of Cases by People's Courts (Fa Shi [2015] No. 8) provides: "For complaints and private prosecutions, people's courts shall accept all pleadings and issue written receipts specifying the date of receipt."

Article 7 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Registration and Filing of Cases by People's Courts provides: "Where the pleadings and materials submitted by a party do not meet the requirements, the people's court shall notify the party in writing, in a single instance, to make corrections within a specified period."

Article 8 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Registration and Filing of Cases by People's Courts provides: "Where a people's court cannot determine on the spot whether an action or private prosecution brought by a party complies with legal provisions, it shall handle it as follows: (1) For civil or administrative actions, it shall decide within seven days from the date of receiving the complaint whether to file the case."

(3) The action in this case meets the statutory conditions for filing

1. The plaintiff has proper standing: The demanding party is the holder of the Alipay accounts, is directly interested in the freezing at issue, and has standing as a plaintiff in administrative litigation.

2. The defendants are proper parties: Defendant One, the Shanghai Branch of the People's Bank of China, is the administrative organ that issued the original Reply to the Report; Defendant Two, the People's Bank of China, is the reconsideration organ that issued the Administrative Reconsideration Decision. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, where, in a case that has undergone reconsideration, the reconsideration organ decides to uphold the original administrative act, the administrative organ that issued the original administrative act and the reconsideration organ are co-defendants.

3. The case falls within the scope of cases accepted for administrative litigation: The Reply to the Report issued by Defendant One and the Administrative Reconsideration Decision issued by Defendant Two are both specific administrative acts issued by administrative organs and directly affected the demanding party's property rights. Pursuant to Items (6) and (12) of paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, the case falls within the scope of cases accepted for administrative litigation by people's courts.

(4) The time limit for filing the action complies with the law

First, this case is an action filed after reconsideration and is subject to a 15-day filing period.

Pursuant to Article 45 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, "A citizen, legal person, or other organization that is dissatisfied with a reconsideration decision may file an action with a people's court within 15 days from the date of receiving the reconsideration decision." The demanding party received the Administrative Reconsideration Decision issued by Defendant Two ((Yin) Fu Jue Zi [2026] No. 370) on February 26, 2026. In terms of the form of the reconsideration decision, it "upheld" the original administrative act. Therefore, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, the demanding party may name the administrative organ that issued the original administrative act (Defendant One) and the reconsideration organ (Defendant Two) as co-defendants and file an administrative action with a people's court having jurisdiction.

Second, the demanding party first filed an action with the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court on March 3, 2026, and that court issued a Notice Concerning Filing by Mail.

On March 3, 2026, the demanding party first submitted an action to a people's court, mailing the Administrative Complaint and the complete set of evidentiary materials to the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court (at that time, the end of the complaint stated "To: Beijing First Intermediate People's Court"). On March 6, 2026, the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court transferred the materials to its case-filing division and issued the demanding party a Notice Concerning Filing by Mail.

Third, following the notice from the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court, the demanding party refiled the action in accordance with the law with the Shanghai Jing'an District Court, which has jurisdiction.

As the court in the locality of the reconsideration organ (Defendant Two), the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court has jurisdiction over this case in accordance with the law. However, in view of Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China concerning territorial jurisdiction—"An administrative case shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court in the locality of the administrative organ that initially issued the administrative act"—and the fact that Defendant One (the Shanghai Branch of the People's Bank of China) is located in Jing'an District, Shanghai (No. 181 Lujiazui East Road, Pudong New Area; under the division of judicial jurisdiction, this address falls within the jurisdiction of the Shanghai Jing'an District People's Court), although Defendant Two (the People's Bank of China) is located in Beijing, in accordance with the legislative intent of the co-defendant system, filing an action with the people's court in the locality of the administrative organ that initially issued the administrative act is more conducive to ascertaining the facts of the case and efficiently resolving the dispute.

Accordingly, in accordance with the clarification in the filing notice issued by the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court, on March 29, 2026, the demanding party formally mailed a written Administrative Complaint and the complete set of evidentiary materials to the Shanghai Jing'an District People's Court by China Post EMS express delivery (the court named in the "To" line of the complaint was accordingly changed to the Shanghai Jing'an District People's Court).

Fourth, the action in this case was filed entirely within the statutory period.

Pursuant to Article 48 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, which provides that "where the filing period is exceeded due to force majeure or other reasons not attributable to the party, the time delayed shall not be counted in the filing period," and the legislative intent of Article 64 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, which provides that "where the filing period is delayed because a party filed an action with a people's court lacking jurisdiction, the time shall not be counted in the filing period," the reasonable period spent by the demanding party in first filing an action with the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court (from March 3 to March 29, 2026) shall not be counted in the filing period in accordance with the law.

Calculated accordingly:

l The demanding party received the Administrative Reconsideration Decision on February 26, 2026;

l The 15-day statutory filing period began on February 27, 2026, and expired no later than March 13, 2026;

l The demanding party had already filed an action with the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court on March 3, 2026 (the fifth day after receiving the decision), and had not exceeded the 15-day period;

l After receiving the Notice Concerning Filing by Mail from the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court, the demanding party filed an action with your court on March 29, 2026;

l Even if the period is calculated from the date the reconsideration decision was received (February 26, 2026), the period through March 29, 2026 was 31 days. After deducting the reasonable time spent on the initial filing (the time for the court's review and notice and for reorganizing the action), the filing period in this case should still fall within a reasonable limit under the law. Moreover, considering the principle that people's courts should fully protect the litigation rights of parties in accordance with the law in administrative litigation, there is no defect in the filing period in this case.

In addition, the core illegal conduct involved in this case (Alipay's overdue freezing) has a continuing character—Alipay continuously froze the demanding party's accounts from July 2013 (after the initial six-month freezing period expired) until February 2021, for seven and a half years. The infringement was continuing. Pursuant to Article 64 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China and the relevant legal principles concerning continuing administrative violations, the demanding party's action was also filed within the statutory time limit.

In summary, the demanding party's procedural route for seeking judicial relief is clear and continuous; there has been no failure to exercise the right of action or filing after the deadline, and the case fully satisfies the statutory conditions for filing.

IV. Demands

Based on the above facts and legal grounds, the demanding party respectfully reminds your court of the following statutory duties and formally demands as follows:

First, the demanding party respectfully requests that your court immediately perform its duty of reviewing whether to file the case in accordance with the law. Please process in accordance with the law, within seven days of receiving this letter of demand, the Administrative Complaint submitted by the demanding party on March 29, 2026:

l If the conditions for filing are met, please register and file the case in accordance with the law;

l If you believe the conditions for filing are not met, please issue a ruling refusing to file the case in accordance with the law, and state in the ruling the specific reasons and legal grounds for refusing to file the case, so that the demanding party may exercise the right to appeal in accordance with the law.

Second, if your court believes that the complaint requires corrections, please notify the demanding party in writing, in a single instance, of the corrections required, so that the demanding party may make them promptly in accordance with the law.

Third, if your court believes that another people's court should have jurisdiction over this case, please inform the demanding party of the correct court with jurisdiction and the legal grounds.

V. Notice of rights to relief

The demanding party sincerely hopes that this matter was caused by an omission in work or a temporary delay in the circulation of procedures and can be properly resolved without initiating subsequent legal proceedings.

However, in order to protect the demanding party's lawful rights and interests in accordance with the law, the demanding party hereby expressly informs you that:

If, after receiving this letter of demand, your court still fails either to file the case in accordance with the law or to issue a ruling refusing to file it in accordance with the law, the demanding party will take the following legal remedies:

1. Pursuant to Article 52 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, file an action with the Shanghai Third Intermediate People's Court, requesting that the higher-level people's court file and hear the case in accordance with the law, or designate another lower-level people's court to file and hear the case;

2. Pursuant to Article 13 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Registration and Filing of Cases by People's Courts, lodge a complaint with the people's court hearing the case or a higher-level people's court concerning illegal or disciplinary conduct in the case-filing process;

3. Pursuant to Article 104 of the Rules of the People's Procuratorates on Supervision of Administrative Litigation, apply to the Second Branch of the Shanghai Municipal People's Procuratorate for supervision of administrative litigation, requesting that the procuratorial authorities issue a procuratorial recommendation concerning your court's unlawful failure to file the case within the statutory period;

4. Report the matter to the Standing Committee of the Jing'an District People's Congress and to the Shanghai Municipal People's Congress and its Standing Committee in accordance with the law, requesting that they exercise their supervisory authority and urge the people's court to perform its case-filing duties in accordance with the law.

This case involves major legal issues including protection of citizens' lawful property rights, protection of financial consumers' rights and interests, supervision of the lawful performance of duties by administrative organs, and implementation of the people's courts' case-registration system. The demanding party respectfully requests that your court uphold judicial fairness, adhere to the bottom line of the law, perform its duties in accordance with the law, and effectively protect the parties' litigation rights and lawful rights and interests.

Respectfully submitted to

Shanghai Jing'an District People's Court

Demanding party: Feng Zhenghu

Date: June 25, 2026

Attachments:

1. The Notice Concerning Filing by Mail issued by the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court on March 6, 2026

2. Copies of the mailing receipt and delivery record for the Administrative Complaint sent by EMS on March 29, 2026

3. Administrative Complaint (March 23, 2026 version)

4. Copy of the demanding party's identity card