Focusing on the Dispute Over the Police’s Overdue Seizure of Property, Feng Zhenghu Sues Shanghai’s Two Levels of Government

【Summary】

This administrative complaint is a legal document in which plaintiff Feng Zhenghu accuses the People’s Government of Yangpu District, Shanghai （Defendant One） and the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government （Defendant Two） of administrative inaction. The central background of the case is that public security authorities seriously violated statutory procedures for 16 years and kept the plaintiff’s lawful private property under seizure beyond the prescribed period, while Defendant One, after receiving the plaintiff’s application requesting it to perform its duty to protect property rights, failed to provide any response or take any action for more than 190 days. The plaintiff subsequently applied to Defendant Two for administrative reconsideration, but Defendant Two likewise exceeded the statutory maximum period for review without making any reconsideration decision. The plaintiff therefore asks the court to confirm that the two levels of government committed unlawful “successive inaction” and order them to perform their statutory duties within specified time limits.

The Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court signed for receipt of this complaint and the evidentiary materials on March 22, 2026 （EMS:1155329985074）.

【Key Points】

（1） From 2010 to 2012, the Yangpu Branch of the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau illegally raided and seized the plaintiff’s private property, valued at approximately 100,000 yuan, nine times, keeping it under seizure for as long as 16 years.

（2） In August 2025, the plaintiff mailed an application to the People’s Government of Yangpu District requesting it to perform its duty to protect property rights, explicitly demanding that it order the public security authorities to return the property and provide state compensation.

（3） After signing for receipt of the application, the People’s Government of Yangpu District exceeded the deadline by more than 190 days, neither informing the plaintiff that it had accepted the application nor taking any substantive action, constituting continuing administrative inaction.

（4） In response to the Yangpu district government’s failure to reply, the plaintiff lawfully submitted an application for administrative reconsideration to the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government in November 2025.

（5） After signing for receipt of the reconsideration application, the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government seriously exceeded the statutory maximum period for review, failed to deliver a notice of extension, and made no reconsideration decision, constituting administrative reconsideration inaction.

（6） The failure of both defendants to perform their duties seriously violated the Constitution, the Regulations on Petition Work, and the Administrative Reconsideration Law, which contain explicit provisions on protecting citizens’ property rights and the time limits for administrative organs to perform their duties.

（7） The case reveals a systemic problem of “successive inaction,” formed by the accumulation of the public security authorities’ original illegal conduct and the two levels of government’s failure to supervise and reconsider, leaving the plaintiff’s channels for administrative relief completely exhausted.

（8） The plaintiff’s ultimate request is that the court confirm that the administrative inaction of both defendants was unlawful and order the Yangpu district government to issue a written disposition within 60 days and the Shanghai municipal government to issue a reconsideration decision within 30 days.

【Full Text】

Administrative Complaint

Plaintiff: Feng Zhenghu

Address: Yangpu District, Shanghai

Postal code: 200433

Telephone: 13524687100

Defendant One: People’s Government of Yangpu District, Shanghai

Legal representative: Zhou Haiying （district head）

Address: No. 549 Jiangpu Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai

Postal code: 200082

Defendant Two: Shanghai Municipal People’s Government

Legal representative: Gong Zheng （mayor）

Address: No. 200 Renmin Avenue, Huangpu District, Shanghai

Postal code: 200003

Cause of action: Administrative inaction （failure to perform statutory duties; failure to make a decision after the statutory deadline for administrative reconsideration）

Claims

I. Regarding Defendant One, the People’s Government of Yangpu District, Shanghai:

1. Confirm in accordance with the law that Defendant One’s failure, within the statutory period, to respond to or process the plaintiff’s Application Requesting the People’s Government of Yangpu District to Perform Its Duty to Protect Property Rights, submitted on August 18, 2025, was unlawful and constituted administrative inaction;

2. Order Defendant One to perform its statutory duty in accordance with the law within 60 days from the date the judgment takes effect and issue a clear written disposition on the plaintiff’s application;

II. Regarding Defendant Two, the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government:

1. Confirm in accordance with the law that Defendant Two’s failure to make an administrative reconsideration decision within the statutory period on the plaintiff’s Application for Administrative Reconsideration submitted on November 8, 2025, was unlawful and constituted administrative reconsideration inaction;

2. Order Defendant Two to make an administrative reconsideration decision on the plaintiff’s application in accordance with the law within 30 days from the date the judgment takes effect;

III. Regarding litigation costs:

1. The litigation costs in this case shall be jointly borne by both defendants.

Facts and Grounds

I. Background: Public security authorities unlawfully kept the plaintiff’s property under seizure beyond the statutory period for 16 years

From April 19, 2010, to March 23, 2012, the Yangpu Branch of the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau conducted nine searches and seizures at the plaintiff’s residence （Room 302, No. 3, Lane 240, Zhengtong Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai）. The seized property included 14 computer mainframes （including laptop computers）, nine mobile phones, five printers, four monitors, two scanners, more than nine routers, three telephones, one camera, seven wireless Internet-access devices, more than seven portable hard drives/USB flash drives/SD cards, 255 optical discs, 24 books, 19 folders, 85 personal letters, “I Want to File a Case” T-shirts, placards and other items, with a total value of approximately 100,000 yuan.

The above nine seizures involved serious violations of law: four of them （the second, fifth, eighth and ninth） did not provide seizure lists or inspection warrants; some lists lacked official seals, the cause of the case and witnesses’ signatures, seriously violating Articles 18 and 24 of the Administrative Compulsion Law and Article 138 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Under Article 25 of the Administrative Compulsion Law, the period for sealing or seizing property may not exceed 30 days, and, in complex circumstances, may not exceed 60 days after extension. However, the property above has remained under seizure for more than 16 years （calculated from 2010）, exceeding the statutory maximum period by more than 200 times and constituting a continuing and serious unlawful administrative compulsory measure.

II. Facts concerning the plaintiff’s lawful submission of an application to Defendant One to perform its duty and Defendant One’s inaction

（1） The plaintiff lawfully submitted an application to perform the duty

In view of the Yangpu Branch of the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau’s long-term unlawful seizure of the plaintiff’s property beyond the statutory period and its failure to correct the matter, the plaintiff, on August 18, 2025, sent by China Post Express Mail Service （EMS tracking number: 1333749791312） to Defendant One, the People’s Government of Yangpu District, Shanghai, an Application Requesting the People’s Government of Yangpu District to Perform Its Duty to Protect Property Rights, explicitly requesting:

1. Order the Yangpu Branch of the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau to immediately return all of the plaintiff’s unlawfully seized property;

2. Provide state compensation in accordance with the law for the losses suffered by the plaintiff as a result and make a public apology.

The application included complete evidentiary materials, including a consolidated list of the items seized on nine occasions, photocopies of some originals of the Lists of Items and Documents Detained by the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau, a statement of the facts concerning Feng Zhenghu’s home being raided and property being seized nine times, the Receipt for the People’s Government of Yangpu District, Shanghai, Receiving Administrative Reconsideration Materials （June 6, 2023） and a photocopy of the applicant’s identity card.

（2） Defendant One confirmed receipt

Defendant One signed for receipt of the above application on August 19, 2025. This is evidenced by the EMS delivery record （tracking number: 1333749791312, showing that it was received on behalf of the recipient on August 19, 2025）.

（3） Facts concerning Defendant One’s complete unlawful inaction

From the date Defendant One signed for receipt of the plaintiff’s application （August 19, 2025） through the date the plaintiff filed this lawsuit, more than 190 days had passed （calculated through March 5, 2026）. Defendant One:

Made no substantive disposition whatsoever;

Did not perform its statutory obligation to provide written notice;

Neither informed the plaintiff that the application had been accepted nor explained the reasons for refusing to accept it;

Did not initiate an investigation or verification of the public security authorities’ seizure beyond the statutory period;

Did not order the public security branch to return the property or urge rectification;

Even if it considered the matter outside its jurisdiction, it did not lawfully transfer it to the competent authority;

It remained entirely in an unlawful state of “providing no response.”

Article 23 of the Regulations on Petition Work provides that, for a petition matter within an organ’s responsibilities, the organ shall notify the petitioner in writing of its acceptance within 15 days of receiving it. Defendant One exceeded the statutory deadline by more than 12 times, constituting typical, serious and continuing unlawful administrative inaction.

III. Facts concerning the plaintiff’s lawful submission of an application for administrative reconsideration to Defendant Two and Defendant Two’s inaction

（1） The plaintiff lawfully applied for administrative reconsideration

Because Defendant One had failed to respond for an extended period, the plaintiff, on November 8, 2025, sent by China Post Express Mail Service （EMS tracking number: 1333750127212） to Defendant Two, the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government, an Application for Administrative Reconsideration, requesting:

1. Confirm in accordance with the law that Defendant One’s failure to respond within the statutory period to the plaintiff’s application to perform its duty was unlawful and constituted administrative inaction;

2. Order Defendant One to immediately perform its statutory duties and investigate and handle the plaintiff’s request for protection of property rights in accordance with the law.

（2） Defendant Two confirmed receipt

Defendant Two signed for receipt of the above application for administrative reconsideration on November 9, 2025. This is evidenced by the EMS delivery record （tracking number: 1333750127212, showing that it was received on behalf of the recipient on November 9, 2025; the receiving unit was the organization’s mailroom）.

（3） Facts concerning Defendant Two’s unlawful inaction beyond the statutory deadline

Under the provisions of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China （revised in 2024）:

Acceptance review period: Article 26 provides that an administrative reconsideration body shall review an application within five days of receiving it;

Period for making a decision: Article 42 provides that an administrative reconsideration body shall make an administrative reconsideration decision within 60 days from the date it accepts an application. In complex circumstances, the period may be extended with approval, but the extension may not exceed 30 days.

Calculated accordingly:

Expiration date of the acceptance review period: November 14, 2025;

Expiration date of the basic review period （60 days）: January 8, 2026;

Expiration date of the maximum extension period （30-day extension）: February 7, 2026;

As of the date this lawsuit was filed （March 5, 2026）, the statutory maximum review period had been exceeded by 26 days, and the basic review period by 56 days.

During the periods above, Defendant Two did not issue the plaintiff any form of reconsideration decision （including a notice of acceptance, a decision not to accept, a dismissal decision or a substantive disposition）, nor did it deliver a notice of extension of the review period. It remained entirely in a state of “silence,” constituting serious administrative reconsideration inaction.

Moreover, the facts of this case are not complex: the facts are clear—the plaintiff submitted an application to perform a statutory duty, and Defendant One did not respond within 78 days; the evidence is conclusive—there are EMS mailing and receipt records; and the law is clear—the 15-day notification obligation under the Regulations on Petition Work is unambiguous. There was absolutely no “complex circumstance” requiring an extension of the review period.

IV. Defendant One has clear statutory duties

（1） Constitutional basis of the duty

Article 13 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China provides: “The lawful private property of citizens shall not be infringed upon. The state protects citizens’ rights to private property and inheritance in accordance with the law.”

（2） Duties prescribed by the administrative organization law

Item 6 of Article 73 of the Organic Law of the Local People’s Congresses and Local People’s Governments provides that people’s governments at or above the county level shall “protect property owned by the whole people under socialism and property collectively owned by the working people, protect citizens’ lawful privately owned property, maintain social order, and safeguard citizens’ personal, democratic and other rights.”

（3） Specific duties conferred by petition regulations

Item 5 of Article 31 of the Regulations on Petition Work provides: “For petition matters involving a request to investigate and handle illegal acts or to perform duties to protect lawful rights and interests such as personal or property rights, administrative organs shall perform their duties or provide a response in accordance with the law.”

The plaintiff’s Application Requesting the People’s Government of Yangpu District to Perform Its Duty to Protect Property Rights fully meets the definition of a petition matter involving a “request to perform duties to protect property rights” under this provision. “Perform their duties or provide a response in accordance with the law” is an alternative obligation: either perform the duty substantively （order the public security authorities to return the property） or provide a procedural response （state the reasons, inform the plaintiff of the progress of handling, or provide the legal basis for refusing to accept the application）. Defendant One neither performed its duty nor responded, constituting complete inaction.

（4） Administrative supervisory duties

Defendant One has an administrative leadership relationship with, and supervisory and management responsibilities over, the Yangpu Branch of the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau within its jurisdiction. It has both the authority and the obligation to supervise, correct and urge rectification of unlawful conduct by the public security branch. When a citizen expressly requests that the government protect lawful property rights and correct a continuing unlawful situation by a subordinate organ, Defendant One cannot ignore the request on the grounds that it was “not an act directly carried out by this organ.”

V. Defendant Two, as the administrative reconsideration body, has a statutory duty to conduct the review

（1） Duty to accept the reconsideration application

Under Article 11 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law, a person who believes that an administrative organ has failed to perform its statutory duties may apply for administrative reconsideration. The plaintiff’s reconsideration application fully met the statutory conditions for acceptance: the applicant was qualified, the respondent was clearly identified, the application was submitted within the statutory period, the matter fell within the scope of reconsideration, and complete materials were provided.

（2） Duty to review the reconsideration application

Under Articles 26 and 42 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law, Defendant Two has a mandatory obligation to review, accept and make a reconsideration decision within the statutory period. Defendant Two seriously violated the above provisions by failing to make any decision after exceeding the statutory maximum period.

（3） Unlawfulness of reconsideration inaction

Article 75 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law provides: “Where an administrative reconsideration body fails to transfer an application for administrative reconsideration as required, refuses without justified reason to accept an application for administrative reconsideration, or fails to make an administrative reconsideration decision within the prescribed period, the directly responsible主管 personnel and other directly responsible personnel shall be disciplined in accordance with the law.”

Defendant Two’s inaction effectively condoned and shielded Defendant One’s inaction, leaving the plaintiff’s rights and remedies trapped in a predicament of “successive inaction” and substantially depriving the plaintiff of the right to obtain administrative relief in accordance with the law.

VI. The two layers of administrative inaction constitute a systemic violation

This case involves three levels of administrative organs, creating a systemic problem of “successive inaction”:

1. The Yangpu Branch of the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau—the perpetrator of the original unlawful conduct （keeping property under seizure for more than 16 years）;

2. Defendant One, the People’s Government of Yangpu District, Shanghai—the entity that failed to perform its supervisory duties （failing to respond to the application to perform its duties for more than 190 days）;

3. Defendant Two, the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government—the entity that failed to perform its reconsideration duties （failing to make a decision after the reconsideration exceeded the statutory maximum period）.

The accumulation of this threefold inaction seriously infringed the plaintiff’s property rights, right to seek remedies, procedural rights and right to know. The internal supervisory mechanism of the administrative system completely failed, and the “internal correction” function of the administrative reconsideration system was entirely frustrated. The plaintiff’s efforts to protect his rights have lasted 16 years; internal administrative remedies have been exhausted, and judicial relief is the only effective way to break the deadlock and uphold justice.

VII. The conditions for filing suit comply with the law

（1） Conditions for filing suit regarding Defendant One

On August 18, 2025, the plaintiff lawfully submitted a written application to Defendant One to perform its duty. After signing for receipt, Defendant One failed to respond within the statutory period, constituting administrative inaction. The plaintiff lawfully applied to Defendant Two for administrative reconsideration of Defendant One’s inaction, but Defendant Two exceeded the statutory maximum period without making a reconsideration decision. Article 45 of the Administrative Litigation Law provides: “Where the reconsideration body fails to make a decision after the deadline, the applicant may, within 15 days from the expiration of the reconsideration period, bring a lawsuit before the people’s court regarding the original administrative act.” The plaintiff has the right to bring a lawsuit before the people’s court regarding Defendant One’s administrative inaction.

（2） Conditions for filing suit regarding Defendant Two

As the administrative reconsideration body, Defendant Two’s failure to make an administrative reconsideration decision after exceeding the statutory maximum period itself constitutes independent administrative inaction. Under Item 6 of Paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Law, where a person applies for an administrative organ to perform its statutory duty to protect property rights and other lawful rights and interests, and the administrative organ refuses to perform the duty or fails to respond, the matter falls within the scope of cases accepted by people’s courts. The plaintiff has the right to bring a lawsuit before the people’s court regarding Defendant Two’s reconsideration inaction as well.

Legal basis:

1. Article 13 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China;

2. Articles 2, Item 6 of Paragraph 1 of Article 12, Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 15, Article 45 and Article 72 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China;

3. Articles 11, 26, 42 and 75 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China （revised in 2024）;

4. Item 6 of Article 73 of the Organic Law of the Local People’s Congresses and Local People’s Governments;

5. Articles 23 and Item 5 of Article 31 of the Regulations on Petition Work;

6. Articles 5, 18, 24, 25 and 28 of the Administrative Compulsion Law of the People’s Republic of China;

7. Item 2 of Article 4 of the State Compensation Law of the People’s Republic of China.

Evidence list:

Group One: Evidence concerning the plaintiff’s submission of an application to Defendant One to perform its duty

Evidence 1. Application Requesting the People’s Government of Yangpu District to Perform Its Duty to Protect Property Rights （August 18, 2025）

Purpose of proof: The plaintiff lawfully submitted a written application to Defendant One to perform its duty, and the requested action was clear.

Evidence 2. EMS mailing receipt for the plaintiff’s Application Requesting the People’s Government of Yangpu District to Perform Its Duty to Protect Property Rights, addressed to Defendant One （August 18, 2025; EMS tracking number: 1333749791312）

Purpose of proof: The plaintiff delivered the application to perform the duty to Defendant One through lawful means.

Evidence 3. EMS receipt confirming Defendant One’s receipt of the plaintiff’s application to perform its duty （August 19, 2025; EMS tracking number: 1333749791312）

Purpose of proof: Defendant One signed for receipt of the plaintiff’s application to perform its duty on August 19, 2025, and the statutory response period began to run from that date.

Group Two: Evidence concerning the plaintiff’s application to Defendant Two for administrative reconsideration

Evidence 4. Application for Administrative Reconsideration Regarding the People’s Government of Yangpu District, Shanghai, Failing to Perform Its Administrative Duties （November 8, 2025）

Purpose of proof: The plaintiff lawfully applied to Defendant Two for administrative reconsideration of Defendant One’s inaction.

Evidence 5. EMS mailing receipt for the plaintiff’s Application for Administrative Reconsideration, addressed to Defendant Two （November 8, 2025; EMS tracking number: 1333750127212）

Purpose of proof: The plaintiff delivered the application for administrative reconsideration to Defendant Two through lawful means.

Evidence 6. EMS receipt confirming Defendant Two’s receipt of the plaintiff’s Application for Administrative Reconsideration （November 9, 2025; EMS tracking number: 1333750127212）

Purpose of proof: Defendant Two signed for receipt of the plaintiff’s application for administrative reconsideration on November 9, 2025, and the reconsideration review period began to run from that date.

Group Three: Evidence of both defendants’ inaction

Evidence 7. Statement on calculation of time periods

Purpose of proof: （1） More than 190 days passed between the date Defendant One signed for receipt of the application to perform its duty （August 19, 2025） and the date the lawsuit was filed, far exceeding the 15-day notification period prescribed by the Regulations on Petition Work; （2） Between the date Defendant Two signed for receipt of the application for reconsideration （November 9, 2025） and the date the lawsuit was filed, the statutory maximum review period （95 days） had been exceeded, yet Defendant Two had made no reconsideration decision.

Evidence 8. Statement by the plaintiff that he received no response from Defendant One

Purpose of proof: From the time Defendant One signed for receipt of the plaintiff’s application to perform its duty until now, it has made no substantive disposition or procedural response.

Evidence 9. Statement by the plaintiff that he received no reconsideration decision from Defendant Two

Purpose of proof: From the time Defendant Two signed for receipt of the plaintiff’s application for reconsideration until now, it has made no reconsideration decision （including a notice of acceptance, a decision not to accept, a substantive reconsideration decision or a notice of extension of the review period）.

Group Four: Evidence concerning the unlawful seizures

Evidence 10. Consolidated list of items seized from Feng Zhenghu’s home during nine raids

Purpose of proof: The specific items, quantities and total value involved in the nine seizures.

Evidence 11. Photocopies of the originals of some Lists of Items and Documents Detained by the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau

（1） List dated April 20, 2010 [Hu Gong （Yang） （V） Xingkouzi 【2010】 Nos. 453–456]

（2） List dated February 16, 2011 [Hu Gong （Yang） （V） Xingkouzi 【2011】 Nos. 3834–3839]

（3） List dated February 20, 2011 [Hu Gong （Yang） （V） Xingkouzi 【2011】 No. 3840]

（4） List dated June 14, 2011 [Hu Gong （Yang） （V） Xingkouzi 【2011】 Nos. 2393–2394]

Purpose of proof: Direct documentary evidence of the public security authorities’ seizures, proving the existence of the seizure conduct and the unlawful circumstances （some lists lack official seals, the cause of the case and witnesses’ signatures）.

Evidence 12. Factual statement by Feng Zhenghu concerning the nine raids and seizures of property

Purpose of proof: The detailed course and unlawful circumstances of the nine seizures.

Evidence 13. Receipt for the People’s Government of Yangpu District, Shanghai, Receiving Administrative Reconsideration Materials （June 6, 2023）

Purpose of proof: The plaintiff had previously submitted administrative reconsideration materials to Defendant One, but the problem remains unresolved and Defendant One has long failed to act on the public security authorities’ unlawful seizures.

Group Five: The plaintiff’s identity documents and other evidence

Evidence 14. Photocopy of the plaintiff’s identity card

Purpose of proof: The plaintiff’s standing as a litigant.

Evidence 15. Feng Zhenghu: Research on Administrative Relief Pathways for Protecting Chinese Citizens’ Property and Personal Rights

Purpose of proof: The plaintiff systematically reviews the legal basis for administrative relief pathways and explains the jurisprudential foundation of this lawsuit.

Evidence 16. Comprehensive Legal Analysis Report on Feng Zhenghu’s Case Against the Yangpu District Government and Shanghai Municipal Government for Administrative Inaction （January 19, 2026）

Purpose of proof: A systematic analysis of the facts, application of law and legal assessment in this case, further clarifying the unlawful nature and legal consequences of both defendants’ administrative inaction.

Conclusion

In summary, after lawfully exhausting administrative relief procedures, the plaintiff has been forced to seek judicial relief in the face of the dual predicament of Defendant One’s failure to respond to the application to perform its duty for more than 190 days and Defendant Two’s failure to make a reconsideration decision after exceeding the statutory maximum period.

The plaintiff’s claims are lawful and justified: the plaintiff seeks protection of the fundamental right to property protected by the Constitution; the plaintiff’s application procedure was lawful and proper, involving a written application, EMS delivery and complete evidence; and the unlawfulness of both defendants’ inaction is clear, as they seriously exceeded the statutory deadlines without any legitimate reason.

The court is respectfully requested to accept this case in accordance with the law, ascertain the facts, confirm that both defendants’ administrative inaction was unlawful, order both defendants to perform their respective statutory duties in accordance with the law, safeguard the plaintiff’s lawful rights and interests, uphold judicial justice and promote administration in accordance with the law.

Respectfully submitted to

Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court

Petitioner: Feng Zhenghu

March 21, 2026