An office complex in the Tianfu New District direct-controlled area of Chengdu has been hit by a widespread case of address misuse, with roughly 200 additional businesses appearing on its registry without authorization. Authorities have since verified these entities as fraudulent users of the building's address. The property owner and its authorized management firm indicate that while a small number of these cases exploited the pre-July 2025 "multiple licenses at one address" policy gap, the majority are suspected of forging documentation from the property owner and the management firm.

Following the verification of the address misuse, Huayang Real Estate and Jiajin Property applied for an address alert with the Sichuan Tianfu New District Market Regulation Bureau. This alert requires all future business registration applications using this address to undergo review by the property owner and its authorized manager. The bureau has responded on the "Wenzheng Sichuan" platform, confirming that the verified fraudulent enterprises have been placed under abnormal operation management. As of August 17, the regulator has flagged approximately 200 businesses for this status, effectively clearing out the fraudulent entities.

Being listed as "abnormal" removes these bogus firms from the active registry, freeing up capacity for legitimate businesses to process address changes or new registrations. This measure also clears the path for the building's future leasing and sales activities. After two months of investigative legwork, the initial findings have surfaced, but Huayang Real Estate and Jiajin Property are now focused on a more permanent solution to prevent recurrence.

The market regulator has stated it will now conduct stringent reviews of all address proof documents for business registrations. Furthermore, Nanjing Bay has been placed on the address warning list. A linkage mechanism has been established with the property owner and its authorized manager, triggering a cautious verification process for any new registration application using this address. This includes rolling checks on the authenticity of lease relationships, with non-compliant applicants being denied registration.

Meanwhile, existing tenants, along with Huayang Real Estate and Jiajin Property, are pushing for legal accountability for the perpetrators. They argue that the fraudulent entities should at least compensate for the losses incurred by tenants, the property owner, and the management firm. Yu Chao, a lawyer with Zhejiang Jingheng (Shanghai) Law Firm, suggests that affected parties can pursue claims against the offenders and their accomplices once the facts are established. He notes that the mass forgery of property certificates, lease contracts, and corporate seals in this case may constitute criminal activity, and those involved must be held responsible to restore justice for the harmed tenants and property stakeholders. A representative from Huayang Real Estate has confirmed that evidence is currently being gathered to facilitate the next steps in the legal process.