The head teacher was sentenced to 11 years for falsely claiming to buy a house and borrow money from his parents.

 The head teacher was sentenced to 11 years for falsely claiming to buy a house and borrow money from his parents.

In order to repay gambling debts, Li Mou, head teacher of a primary school affiliated to a university in Beijing, asked 22 parents in the class for help on the grounds of buying a house, and borrowed more than 111,000 yuan in total. On December 7, 2018, the defendant, Li Mou, was sentenced to 11 yearsimprisonment by Beijing Haidian Court for fraud, depriving him of political rights for one year and fining him 200,000 yuan.

Excellent teachers indulge in gambling and fall into huge arrears

It is understood that the defendant, Li Mou, has been a math teacher in a primary school affiliated to a university in Beijing since 2008. At the time of the incident in 2016, he also served as the head teacher of Class 3, Grade 2 of the primary school, and had a good reputation among colleagues, students and parents. But in fact, Li Mou has been addicted to gambling for more than a year and is in huge arrears because of the black color.

Since February 2016, parents have received calls from Li Mou for help, saying that they are in urgent need of money to buy a house, asking parents for help, and guaranteeing repayment within two or three months. Considering Li Mous good evaluation in school and good relationship with children, 22 parents remitted 10,000 yuan to 50,000 yuan on the day and the next day after receiving the phone call, and some parents even took the initiative to increase the amount of loans.

In the first batch of loans have not yet been repaid, Li Mou also renovated the house, and the mother has sold the house in his home can immediately repay the reasons, continue to borrow from parents, some parents again remitted hundreds of thousands of yuan to Li Mou.

Departure from school after borrowing money

In August 2016, Li took the initiative to leave the school. At the same time, parents found that Li Mou borrowed large amounts of money from parents in the class, and noticed the abnormality. After contacting Li Mou-wei-xin, Li Mou took the initiative to ask parents out for a chat.

During the meeting, Li confessed to his parents that the money was not taken to buy a house, but to invest, and then was taken away by friends, unable to repay. Now that I have quit my job, I have been teaching in educational and training institutions for repayment of money. I beg parents to make repayment by monthly installments and guarantee repayment by 2022. Considering that Li Mou has always been very dedicated, half of the parents agreed, and expressed regret for the loss of such a head teacher.

In the following three or four months, Li began to repay piecemeal amounts of 400 yuan, 800 yuan, 1000 yuan. At the same time, online lending companies and banks began to urge Li to pay his arrears. Parents gradually knew that Li still had other large arrears. After repayment of more than 80,000 yuan, Li stopped repayment, parents contacted Li more and more difficult, and then the police.

Li Mous confession withdrawal in court is a normal loan

During the trial, Li Mou retracted his confession in court, believing that he did not constitute a crime. It accepts the reason, amount and the whereabouts of the loan, but denies that it is a fraud and considers that it is a normal loan. Li Mous defender also believes that the loan between Li Mou and the victim belongs to private lending, and both sides have reached agreement on repayment, and the repayment period has not reached, which does not belong to fraud.

After hearing, the Beijing Haidian Court held that Li Mou cheated other peoples property for the purpose of illegal possession, the amount of which was particularly huge and constituted the crime of fraud. Therefore, he was sentenced to 11 yearsimprisonment, deprivation of political rights for one year and a fine of 200,000 yuan.

After the case was adjudicated, the presiding judge said that the existence of debit clauses between the borrowers and the lenders and whether the two sides reached an agreement on repayment afterwards did not affect the establishment of fraud. The key issue was whether the victims payment of property was mistaken. In this case, the parents believed that the purpose of Li Mous borrowing money was to buy a house and that Li Mou had the will and ability to repay before they agreed to lend money.

The intent of fraud does not depend on the expression of the parties themselves, but should be determined in combination with objective evidence. In this case, Li Mou still has a large amount of extra-case arrears. In a short period of time, he borrowed a large amount of money from many parents to repay gambling debts on false grounds. The total amount of borrowed money far exceeds his normal income level and has no repayment ability. In this case, he claims that he has no purpose of illegal possession and is not established.

Source: Wang Zheng_N7526, responsible editor of Beijing News