Chinese authorities have launched investigations after the discovery that several fictitious names, copied directly from an online database, had been inserted into official documents, triggering a national debate over bureaucratic oversight and procedural integrity.

The controversy centers on five names — Zhang Jiwei, Lin Guorui, Lin Wenshu, Lin Yanan and Jiang Yiyun — which appeared this month as expert evaluators for a multimillion-dollar government procurement project in Hubei province. Internet users quickly noticed that the names matched, in exact sequence, top entries in a widely circulated "10,000 Common Chinese Names" file in Baidu's online library.

Further checks revealed that the same names had surfaced repeatedly across China in recent years in widely different contexts. They appeared as individuals fined for minor street violations in Liaoning in 2019, as recipients of university public welfare funds in Zhejiang in 2022, and as winners of various calligraphy and singing awards. Their improbable ubiquity earned them the nickname "the internet's five busiest people".

Local governments have since canceled projects, issued public apologies and pledged to hold responsible parties to account. Initial explanations blamed "major work errors" by staff members or third party agencies who allegedly used the false names to complete paperwork without proper verification.

But state media and commentators say the issue goes beyond simple negligence. People's Daily published sharply worded commentaries calling the scandal a symptom of "formalism", where procedures are performed for show while substance is ignored.

The widespread use of fabricated identities in public affairs has also raised legal concerns. In an interview with China Daily, Huang Dong, a Guangzhou-based lawyer specializing in commercial litigation and bidding, said using false names in official procedures violates multiple laws. He cited clear breaches of China's Government Procurement Law, which requires expert panels to be selected at random from official pools, and the Administrative Penalty Law, which mandates factual accuracy.

Huang said responsible officials could face disciplinary action for dereliction of duty and, in severe cases, criminal charges. "If fabricated bid evaluation lists conceal collusive tendering, it could constitute the crime of bid rigging," he said, dismissing explanations such as "employee error" as inadequate.

He called for a "verifiable authenticity" standard requiring publicized data to be traceable to reliable sources, and recommended independent third party reviews for major projects. Huang also urged wider use of AI and big data to cross-check public information and flag anomalies — including repeated appearances of the same names across unrelated fields.

"Every signature carries responsibility," he said, urging public servants and contractors to regard each review as a critical "legal risk firewall" rather than a box-ticking exercise.

Liu Dongchao, a professor at the National Academy of Governance, said dereliction of duty may be involved but argued that paperwork forgery is also rooted in an overly complex bureaucratic system that prioritizes rigid procedures over project substance.

For public welfare initiatives, Liu said scrutiny should focus on substantive processes and long-term impact rather than exhaustive, often redundant paperwork. "Some procedural requirements have become overly cumbersome. As a result, much of the work appears thorough on the surface, yet in reality conceals a substantial amount of fraud, perfunctory effort or purely formalistic content," he said.

He warned that excessively intricate rules waste public resources and create incentives for misconduct. Liu called for a more streamlined, pragmatic approach to project management that emphasizes essential goals and real outcomes.