As the victor of the civil lending case, businessman Guo Yanlin did not think that he could not wait for the repayment of hundreds of millions of yuan, but was suspected of false litigation crime and arrested by Haikou Public Security Bureau of Hainan Province across provinces. Hainan Provincial Procuratorate introduced that the case was transferred to the Procuratorate on November 19. At present, the factual evidence of the whole case is being examined.
The case originated in 2011 when Chongqing Yihao Equity Investment Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Chongqing Yihao Company) borrowed 86.3 million yuan to Beijing Yimao Business Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yimao Business Co., Ltd.) and was guaranteed joint and several liability by Hainan Datang Investment Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hainan Datang Company).
In 2014, Guo Yanlin, as the legal representative of Chongqing Yihao Company, will sue the other two companies in court for overdue full principal and interest.
On August 12, 2015, the Beijing High Court issued a final judgment requiring the two companies involved to repay Guo Yanlins principal and interest of 86.3 million yuan. However, Hainan Datang Company believed that the case was a malicious collusion between Guo Yanlin and Yimao Trading Company, which filed a false lawsuit by concealing the true information, violated its legitimate rights and interests, and filed a retrial application to the Supreme Peoples Court, which was eventually rejected.
The case did not come to an end. On December 27, 2017, Hainan Datang Company reported that Haikou police detained Guo Yanlin in criminal detention on suspicion of false litigation. On February 2, 2018, the procuratorate of Longhua District of Haikou City made a decision to approve the arrest.
Guo Yanlins defense lawyer, Li Xiaolin, proposed that the crime of false litigation was sentenced at the time of the promulgation of Nine Penalties at the end of 2015, and the lawsuit in this case ended in August of that year, and the law can not be traced back to the past. According to the latest judicial interpretation of the crime of false litigation, the Haikou Public Prosecution Law is not in the place of civil litigation and execution of the case, and actually has no jurisdiction.
On November 22, 2018, a reporter from the Beijing News interviewed the Hainan Procuratorate on this matter. He responded that the Judicial Interpretation was published after the case, and that the procuratorate had jurisdiction according to the location of the victim and the property. At the same time, the case had been transferred to the Beijing Shijingshan Procuratorate, where the court of first instance of the civil case was located, but the other party had not accepted it, so the court had the case. Jurisdiction.
Photos taken during Guo Yanlins visit to the United States in February 2015. Respondents Map
86.3 million yuan loan dispute
Judgment documents show that the lending lawsuit involves three parties, namely Chongqing Yihao Company (creditors), Yimao Trading Company (debtors) and Hainan Datang Company (guarantors).
In 2014, Guo Yanlin, as the former legal representative of Chongqing Yihao Company, sued that on March 11, 2011, the company borrowed 86.3 million yuan to trade and commerce company to provide joint and several liability guarantee by Hainan Datang Company.
But as of the date of the prosecution, Hainan Datang Company only paid 11 million yuan in interest. Therefore, Guo Yanlin applied to the court for repayment of principal and other interest.
During the court hearing, Hainan Datang Company defended that 86.3 million yuan borrowed was used to buy stocks, but the company had sold all the stocks on July 9, 2013, indicating that the company had the ability to repay.
The former legal representative of ETC and Guo Yanlin are husband and wife, but they concealed the fact when signing the guarantee agreement. Hainan Datang Company believes that the case is a malicious collusion between the two sides, in the name of seeking third-party cooperation, to deceive Hainan Datang Company to provide guarantee for the so-called borrowing and then through deliberate non-repayment, deceive it to fulfill its guarantee responsibility. Therefore, the loan agreement and guarantee agreement are invalid.
However, the court of first instance did not accept the reply of Hainan Datang Company.
The court argued that it was impossible to directly identify Guo Yanlins husband and wife as using their affiliated relationship to conduct transactions. Secondly, all parties confirm that the actual purpose of 86.3 million yuan is to buy stocks. In this process, the amount involved is paid according to the actual expenditure, and there is no collusion between the two companies to damage the interests of Hainan Datang Company. At the same time, even if Hainan Datang Company assumes the guarantee responsibility, it can also recover from debtors trading company, whose actual interests have not been damaged.
On December 19, 2014, the First Intermediate Court of Beijing issued a judgment of first instance, which concluded that both the loan agreement and the guarantee agreement involved in the case were the true expression of the partiesintention and were legal and valid. The company was sentenced to pay 86.3 million yuan, and paid the interest loss during the period of capital occupation according to the banks benchmark interest rate. At the same time, Hainan Datang Company was jointly and severally liable for debt settlement.
Hainan Datang Company filed an appeal. On August 12, 2015, the Beijing Higher Peoples Court issued a second instance judgment of rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment.
Subsequently, Hainan Datang Company applied to the Supreme Peoples Court for retrial. The reason is that Guo Yanlin infringes his legitimate interests by means offalse litigation.
On December 17, 2015, the Supreme Law rejected the application of Hainan Datang Company for retrial because it believed that the original judgment was not inappropriate in determining the facts.
Loan agreement between Chongqing Yihao Company and Yimao Trading Company. Respondents Map
The winning party was arrested on suspicion of false action
The civil loan lawsuit involving three companies has been completed in Beijing. But the incident did not come to an end.
Guo Yanlin, as the winning party, did not get the money back. At the same time, because Tang Guangmin, the head of Hainan Datang Company, went to Haikou Public Security Bureau to report the case, Guo Yanlin was listed as a network fugitive by Haikou Police, suspected of being a false lawsuit crime.
On December 26, 2017, Guo Yanlin was arrested by Shanghai police when he was staying in a hotel in Shanghai and handed over to Haikou police. The next day, Guo Yanlin was criminally detained, while two other persons involved were also detained. On February 2, 2018, the Haikou Peoples Procuratorate made a decision to approve the arrest of Guo Yanlin.
In fact, as early as the second instance of the Beijing High Court, Tang Guangmin put forward that he had reported the relevant facts of the case to the public security organs. The public security did not file a case and requested that the trial be suspended and the case be transferred to the public security organs. However, the court did not grant permission.
Guo Yanlins defense lawyers indictment opinions to reporters issued by Haikou Public Security Bureau show that Haikou public security organs believe that Guo Yanlin sued the company under his actual control through the company under his actual control and, on the grounds of repaying false investment funds, illegally occupied more than 48.88 million yuan of stock disposal funds through court judgment, which infringed the interests of Hainan Datang Company.
Tang Guangmin is from Hainan. He wants to reorganize Hainan Coconut Island Company. He wants to buy shares, borrow money from Guo Yanlin and find Chongqing Yihao Company. Liu Min, an adviser to Guo Yanlin, said that in order to ensure the safety of funds, the two sides decided to transfer the money to the companys name, with ETC as the intermediary, and Tang Guangmin as the director of the company to actually supervise and control the operation of funds and stocks. When the two sides borrow money, they sign an agreement. As long as Tang Guangmin repays the money on time, he can have the ownership of ETC and its shares, as well as the ownership of Datang Hotel.
The Beijing News reporter contacted Tang Guangmin on the matter, but the other party did not accept an interview. According to the judgment, Tang Guangmin was appointed Director of Yimao Trading Company from May 10, 2011 to April 9, 2013 because of the cooperative purchase of stocks.
Liu Min said that after borrowing, Tang Guangmin only returned 11 million yuan during the period because of the continuous decline of shares, and then lost contact. Guo Yanlins wife, as a shareholder of Yimao Trading Company, decided to authorize the sale of all the shares, with a total income of more than 480 million yuan, for the return of other entrusted investments of the company and Chongqing Yimao Company.
At that time, the agreement agreed on a high-interest loan of 30%. When suing in Beijing, it took into account the residual value of the stock and Tang Guangmins repayment ability, so it made concessions, abandoned the high-interest previously agreed, and finally sued in accordance with the national benchmark interest rate of 6%. Liu Min believes that even if the public security thinks that the money should be counted as Tang Guangmins repayment, the loan and agreement are true. As for the principal and interest of Guo Yanlins lawsuit, they are only economic disputes between the two sides, which should be decided by the court, There is no false criminal charges involved.
On March 11, 2011, Chongqing Yihao Company and Hainan Datang Company signed a guarantee agreement numbered DT. Respondents Map
Civilian police officers are accused of coordinating parties to waive recourse
Li Xiaolin, Guo Yanlins defense lawyer, said Wen Wanxuan, a police officer in charge of investigating the case, had held economic consultations with Guo Yanlins former attorney during his detention. The clear conditions are: Hainan Datang Company only repays 10 million yuan, the rest of the winning part of your party (Guo Yanlin) is abandoned, after signing the agreement, you can consider guaranteeing Guo Yanlins release.
In addition, Cai Decong, the current legal representative of Chongqing Yihao Company, told the Beijing News that on April 2, 2018, when Wen Wanxuan was questioning Guo Yanlin, he sent a photo to his lawyer, which was a letter written by Guo.
The letter said, Today Captain Wen will come to review, tell me the progress of the matter, and extend it for another month. I am extremely anxious, I do not know if we can find a way, such as reconciliation with Tang Guangmin, the possibility of obtaining insurance. I hope you can communicate with Captain Wen seriously and get the understanding of all parties. Because I am in isolation, whether the new lawyers ideas stand in my perspective, and hope that the lawyer and my family can discuss and feedback to me.
In view of the fact that investigative organs are not allowed to participate in any economic negotiations for any reason, Cai Decong and Guo Yanlins former attorneys reported to the supervision of Haikou Public Security Bureau, Hainan Public Security Bureau and the Ministry of Public Security. Cai Decong said that in May 2018 they received a response from Haikou Inspector Li Xiang, indicating that they had investigated the issue of reporting Wen Wanxuan.
On October 29, a reporter from the Beijing News conducted a telephone verification with officer Wen Wanxuan himself.
Wen Wanxuan said that he did send Guo Yanlins letter to his attorney because Guo Yanlin offered to reconcile and did not want to leave a stain on himself. He sent the letter out of kindness and was punished for it. He had communicated with Guo Yanlins lawyer and Cai Decong, but never had economic consultation on the case. I want you to sit down and talk about the understanding of this case from the legal point of view. After all, now that we have reconciled, there is no need to pursue criminal responsibility without causing social harm. Reconciliation is a matter for both sides, and there is no need for us to mix it up.
Wen Wanxuan said that the case was reported by Tang Guangmin and transferred to him after the Command Office accepted the leaderships instructions. When the case came to me, I was unwilling to take over. False lawsuits do not belong to the cases under our jurisdiction. I put forward that there must be leadership instructions.
The Supplementary Provisions on Division of Jurisdiction of Criminal Cases promulgated in December 2015 by the Ministry of Public Security (3) show that false litigation cases should be under the jurisdiction of criminal investigation.
Regarding why Guo Yanlin was filed for investigation on suspicion of false lawsuit, the civilian police officer said that Guo Yanlins previous lawsuit resulted in the waste of national resources and hurt the interests of third parties, because Guo Yanlin had illegal facts and had the flow of funds to testify, so the case was filed for investigation.
Dispute over the Jurisdiction of False Litigation
Beijing News reporter learned that the case was arrested by the Haikou Longhua District Procuratorate, has twice returned to the public security organs for supplementary investigation. According to the Hainan Provincial Procuratorate, the case was re-examined and transferred to the Procuratorate on November 19. At present, the procuratorate is reviewing the retrospective investigation and the factual evidence of the whole case.
According to Li Xiaolin, Guo Yanlins defense lawyer, Haikou Public Security continues to handle Guo Yanlins false lawsuit according to the Interpretation of Several Questions Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of False Litigation by the Supreme Peoples Court and the Supreme Peoples Procuratorate, which was implemented on October 1, 2018, and the Judicial Interpretation of False Litigation and Criminal Cases by the Heads of the Fourth Supreme Court of Justice and Criminal Justic If the legal basis cannot be established, the procuratorate shall revoke the case.
The law does not go back to the past. Li Xiaolin said that Guo Yanlins lawsuit ended on August 12, 2015. The implementation time of the false litigation crime established by the Ninth Amendment to the Criminal Code is November 1, 2015. The head of the Fourth Supreme Court of Justice and Criminal Justice proposed that acts committed before November 1, 2015 should not be convicted and punished as false litigation.
At the same time, the above-mentioned Judicial Interpretation further clarifies the territorial jurisdiction of criminal cases of false litigation. Criminal cases of false litigation are under the jurisdiction of the peoples courts in the places where the civil litigation cases are accepted or where the execution courts are located. At the same time, it is pointed out that the unified handling of false civil and criminal cases by judicial organs at the same place is conducive to the fair and timely handling of cases, and can prevent some civil litigants from maliciously using criminal means to interfere with the normal conduct of civil proceedings.
Accordingly, Li Xiaolin said that the civil trial and execution courts in this case are all in Beijing, so the Haikou City Procuratorate has no jurisdiction over the case, including the local public security organs and the courts, in dealing with the false charges of Guo Yanlin and other three persons.
The Judicial Interpretation makes it clear that the crime of false lawsuit is limited to the act ofliving out of nothing, that is, to fabricate the civil legal relationship that does not exist at all and the situation of civil disputes arising from the civil legal relationship. Li Xiaolin said that in this case, the previous lawsuits were based on real and non-fabricated facts, and that the principal and interest of Chongqing Yizhao Company were real when it filed the lawsuit.
Tang Guangmin, as the debtor who lost the lawsuit, can not evade the debt that has been determined by the judgment through the false lawsuit of the victor of the criminal prosecution. Li Xiaolin said.
On November 22, a reporter from the Beijing News interviewed the procuratorate of Hainan Province on this matter. He responded that the Judicial Interpretation was published after the case, and the procuratorate exercised jurisdiction according to the location of the victim and the property. At the same time, the case was transferred to the Beijing Shijingshan Procuratorate, where the court of first instance of the civil case is located, but the other party did not accept it, so the court has jurisdiction over the case. u3002
In response, Li Xiaolin pointed out that the head of the Fourth Supreme Court of Justice and Criminal Justice once answered a reporters question on judicial interpretation of criminal cases of false litigation, saying that for acts occurring after the implementation of law and before the implementation of judicial interpretation, cases that have not been handled or are being handled after the implementation of judicial interpretation shall be handled in accordance with the provisions of judicial interpretation.
The staff of the Beijing Shijingshan Procuratorate responded to the reporter of the Beijing News that the case was not accepted because the Hainan Procuratorate did not follow the prescribed procedure and passed through the Beijing Procuratorate, but handed it over directly to the Beijing Procuratorate.
The court of final civil appeal in the case, the Beijing Higher Peoples Court, said that the opinions of the presiding judge had been fully expressed in the judgment documents and therefore no longer accepted relevant interviews.
Source: Author of New Beijing News: Zuo Yanyan, responsible editor: Su Honghong_NBJ9980