On December 26, media reports confirmed that actor Zhang Haowei has been legally cleared of previous allegations involving tax evasion and illegal activities. A Chinese court ruled that the claims were fabricated, ordering the individual responsible to issue a public apology and pay compensation of 50,000 yuan for defamation.
Zhang Haowei, known to audiences for his role as Crown Prince Li Chengqian in the historical drama “Joy of Life,” became embroiled in controversy in August 2024 when an entertainment blogger published claims accusing him of financial and moral misconduct. The allegations quickly spread online, significantly damaging his public reputation. Zhang Haowei denied the accusations at the time and announced his intention to pursue legal action.
According to the court’s findings, the rumors originated from a former acquaintance surnamed Mao, who had been involved in an unresolved financial dispute with Zhang Haowei since 2021. In 2024, Mao allegedly used AI-generated materials to fabricate audio recordings and chat screenshots implying criminal behavior. These falsified materials were then provided to the blogger, leading to their circulation on social media.
Following police involvement, Mao admitted to fabricating the evidence and issued a written apology in August 2024. Zhang Haowei’s studio subsequently released official documentation, including proof of personal income tax payment and a certificate of no criminal record issued by local authorities, directly refuting the allegations.
In September 2025, the court issued its final ruling, determining that Mao’s actions constituted defamation and seriously infringed upon Zhang Haowei’s right to reputation. The judgment mandated a public apology in a national publication and financial compensation.
The case has drawn attention to the growing misuse of AI technology in spreading false information. While digital tools have made fabricating content easier and more convincing, the ruling underscores that legal accountability remains firmly in place.
For public figures, the case serves as a reminder that swift legal action and transparent evidence disclosure are critical when facing malicious rumors. For the public, it highlights the importance of caution and critical thinking in an era where even seemingly “solid evidence” may be artificially constructed.
