The contractor was convicted of fraud for 11 years and appealed that the forensic appraisal did not conform to the scene.

category:Society
 The contractor was convicted of fraud for 11 years and appealed that the forensic appraisal did not conform to the scene.


On April 29, 2019, Guo Qiuchang, 69, was sentenced to 11 yearsimprisonment by the Changzhi Intermediate Peoples Court of Shanxi Province for contract fraud.

The important evidence that the Changzhi Intermediate Court identified the amount of Guo Qiuchangs fraud as 9.53 million is the project appraisal report and the judicial appraisal opinion in the report made by Shanxi Zhongchengyuan Engineering Cost Consulting Co., Ltd. (abbreviated as Zhongchengyuan).

Guo Qiuchangs family questioned the judicial expertise in the case. On June 5, Guo Jun, Guo Qiuchangs son, told Peng Mei News that the case had been appraised twice. The first judicial appraisal was illegal. After complaints, the appraisal institute was admonished and the appraiser was given administrative warning. Since then, the investigative organ hired Zhongchengyuan for a second appraisal.

Two appraisals confirmed that Guo Qiuchang installed 11 sets of spotlights, 14 sets of settlement works, 71 sets of well covers and 126 sets of settlement works in Yuehua Street Project of Xinyi Village, Changzhi County. Yang Li, Guo Qiuchangs defense lawyer, pointed out that both appraisals referred to on-site investigation, but neither the appraisal report nor the case files found the records of the two on-site investigation. In the case file, only two on-site investigation records were recorded by the police. The police identified 11 sets of spotlights and 71 sets of well covers.

Guo Jun told Peng Mei News that after many field visits, 14 sets of spotlights were actually installed and 118 sets of well covers were installed.

At the time of the incident, the road had been repaired for four or five years, and now it has been seven or eight years. Like a spotlight, one was removed because it was facing the door of a later neighborhood. Well cover in the middle of the road and on both sides of the road, many are buried, or enclosed by the construction site, we compared the construction drawings, hiking seven or eight times, took a lot of effort to find out. Guo Jun said.

The judgment of Changzhi Intermediate Court shows that despite many doubts, Zhongchengyuans engineering appraisal report is still accepted. On June 5, the source of the multi-party links of the surging news failed. Shi Lei, a judge of the Changzhi Intermediate Court, said that the verdict should prevail.

Guo Jun told Peng Mei News that they had appealed to Shanxi Provincial High Court.

Well covers in crop fields. Pengchao journalist Duan Yanchao Tu

The first judicial appraisal procedure is illegal and the appraiser is punished

According to the criminal judgment issued by Changzhi Intermediate Court on April 29, 2019, Guo Qiuchang, a construction engineer, was detained and arrested by Tunliu County Public Security Bureau of Changzhi City on November 1, 2016 on suspicion of contract fraud.

According to the judgment, Guo Qiuchang used the name of Linzhou General Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. for the purpose of illegal possession to defraud Changzhi County Industrial Park for a total of 9534282.5 yuan during the construction and settlement period of Yitong and Xinyi Exhibition Zones of Xinyi Village, Changzhi County Industrial Park in the name of Yuehua Street Road, Drainage Project and Changzhi County Industrial Park in 2011-2012. Among them, 6816096.3 yuan was attempted and 2718186.2 yuan was accomplished. Guo Qiuchang was sentenced to 11 yearsimprisonment and a fine of 300,000 yuan for committing contract fraud; he was ordered to pay back the illegal income of 2718186.2 yuan.

Earlier, on May 10, 2016, entrusted by the Tunliu County Procuratorate, Shanxi Changyi Judicial Appraisal Institute conducted judicial appraisal of Yuehua Street Road and Drainage Project in Xinyi Village, Changzhi County, and issued a certificate of judicial appraisal on December 1 of that year. The Procuratorate of Tunliu County sued Guo Qiuchang for contract fraud of 9.1 million yuan. In March and May 2018, the case was held twice, during which Guo Qiuchangs family complained that the foregoing judicial appraisal was illegal. On June 28, 2018, Changzhi Municipal Judicial Bureau confirmed that Zhang Yan, a forensic expert, had gone beyond the registered practice category (the practice category was forensic accounting appraisal, and there was no forensic appraisal of project cost), and submitted to the Shanxi Provincial Judicial Department for corresponding administrative penalties; the Shanxi Forensic Appraisal Office, in violation of the relevant provisions, had to stay at the county level for the purpose of accepting the Commission of appraisal and the time limit for issuing expert opinions The commissioning time of written appraisal by the procuratorate was four months later than that in the judicial appraisal. Zhang Yan said that he was first entrusted orally and then filled in the formalities. The Changzhi Judicial Bureau admonished him according to his authority.

On October 4, 2018, the Shaanxi Provincial Judicial Department issued a written decision on administrative punishment, giving Zhang Yan a warning punishment.

On October 18, 2018, Tunliu County Public Security Bureau entrusted Zhongchengyuan to appraise the cost of the Yuehua Street Road project which falsely reported the quantity of the project and the cost of the Xinyi and Yitong Exhibition Zone of Changzhi County Industrial Park, which made two engineering appraisal reports and put forward judicial appraisal opinions in the report.

Zhongchengyuan (2018) 005 Engineering Appraisal Report confirmed that the project of Yuehua Street Road in Xinyi Village had falsely reported the amount of 8850162.49 yuan. Among them, 126 sets of covers are audited and settled, 71 sets are appraised, and 86 469.53 yuan is falsely reported; 14 sets of spotlights are appraised and 11 sets are appraised, and 19504.49 yuan is falsely reported; 1146 098.8 yuan is falsely reported for granite sidestones and flat stones; and grouting (Editors note: during road repair, due to precipitation, groundwater and other reasons, the roadbed springs, cracks, bulges and mud outbursts occur in serious cases, the original soil needs to be excavated and filled with earth and flake stones. Audit settlement project volume 37600.6 cubic meters, identified as 12521.52 cubic meters, false report 7598089.67 yuan. The foregoing judgment of Changzhi Intermediate Court affirms that the evidence of false reporting of granite sidestones and flat stones is insufficient, and this part is not included in the amount of false reporting.

The project appraisal report of Zhongchengyuan (2018) 004 confirms that the construction cost of Xinyi and Yitong Industrial Park in Changzhi County is 3332499.86 yuan. The judgment of Changzhi Intermediate Court showed that the project of Changzhi County Industrial Park allocated 5280,000 yuan to Guo Qiuchang, proving that the evidence of false report of 117,281.33 yuan for the second project of water stabilization layer and Yi Tong exhibition area was insufficient and could not be confirmed.

Together, the judgment found that Guo Qiuchang made a total of 9534282.5 yuan in false reports and fraudulent works.

Shotlights at intersections. Pengchao journalist Duan Yanchao Tu

Identification data questioned

On June 5, Guo Jun told Pengfeng News that the number of spotlights and covers in the Zhongchengyuan project appraisal report was wrong.

The construction drawings of Yuehua Street show that 18 sets of projectors are designed. Guo Jun said that during the actual construction, three sets of spotlights were adjacent to the high-voltage line, and pits were excavated, but they were not dared to install them. Another set of houses where the spotlights were located had not been demolished and could not be installed. Therefore, the final installation of 14 sets of spotlights, audit settlement is also 14 sets. Peng Mei News on-the-spot inspection, and Yuehua Street intersection of five intersections, a total of 13 sets of spotlights. One set of Yuehua District was moved to a nearby parking lot because it was just opposite the back door of Yuehua District.

Peng Mei News noted that at two intersections, there are indeed three sets of spotlights unearthed in the foundation pit, beside which there are 10 KV high-voltage lines and 110 KV high-voltage lines. There is also a set of spotlights at the intersection, not only this set of spotlights has not been repaired, nearly 10 square meters of road surface has not been repaired. Guo Jun said that the land was demolished later, but the project had already been completed.

There are three vertical covers in the middle of the road (51) and on both sides of the road. Peng Mei News combined with Guo Juns exploration video, traveling along Yuehua Street for many times, found 118 sets of well covers.

The above two appraisals mentioned on-site investigation, but in the relevant reports, the surging news did not see the on-site investigation records.

Normally speaking, since you appraise, the appraisal report must have its own on-site investigation record. Guo Qiuchangs defense lawyer Yang Li said that at the second hearing, Zhang Yan, an expert of Shanxi Chang Judicial Appraisal Institute, appeared in court. He asked the other party whether there were on-site investigation records. The other side said there were on-site investigation records, but in the case files, he only saw two on-site investigation records of the police.

Guo Jun said that after the overthrow of the appraisal opinion of Shanxi Forensic Appraisal Institute, when the third and fourth sessions were held, the appraisers who had originated from their application appeared in court and were rejected by the court. They suspected that the two appraisals were based on the polices on-site investigation records.

According to the judgment of Changzhi Intermediate Court, the on-site investigation records of Tunliu County Public Security Bureau showed 51 cast iron covers (note: just the number of covers in the middle of the road), 20 water supply covers and 11 spotlights. On January 22, 2018, Tunliu County Public Security Bureau conducted a reconnaissance, which was consistent with the first conclusion.

According to the surging news, the polices survey sketch did not indicate the specific location of the well cover and the shooting lamp. The attached photographs can only confirm well covers, spotlights, street lamps and so on, but can not prove the quantity.

Lawyer Yang Li believes that the 11 sets of spotlights, probably the two sets at the easternmost end of Yuehua Street forgot to count, plus the one removed, are exactly three sets apart. Guo Jun told Peng Mei News that 71 sets of well caps may come from data reported by his brother to Changzhi County Industrial Park. Shortly after his father was arrested, his brother was asked to check the well cover in the industrial park. At that time, crops grew on both sides of the road or had been enclosed by the construction site. Because the road had been repaired for many years, his careless brother simply counted the number and reported the past 71 sets. In the past two or three years, Guo Jun walked seven or eight times to the construction drawings, drilled the crop fields and construction sites, and finally found 118 sets of well covers (115 of which can be found clearly, 3 of which are missing and the hole buried), and marked the drawings. With a little effort, you can count them clearly.

Guo Jun pointed to a mound seven or eight meters high in a roadside construction site and said that in such a case, the well covers below had been unable to find. Peng Mei News noticed that because the well covers in the roadside fields were several meters away from the roadside, Guo Jun had worked hard to dig out the well covers, some of which were buried.

Lawyer Yang Li told Peng Mei News that in court, they had repeatedly applied for on-the-spot inspection with the public prosecutor without the courts permission.

On June 5, Peng Mei News called the police officers handling the case. They said they had made on-site investigation, but did not respond to details.

Pengmei News noted that Changzhi City Intermediate Court Judgment, combined with the testimony of several witnesses from Guo Qiuchang construction side, confirmed that the Yuehua Street Road Project installed a well cover about 40 meters. The construction contract confirms that the total length of the road is 2058.752 meters. According to 126 well covers in settlement, an average of 16.33 meters will be laid with a well cover, which is inconsistent with witness testimony and objective reality, and can confirm the fact that the well cover project has been falsely reported. In this regard, Guo Jun said that the court is based on a row of covers, can be clearly three rows of covers.

The polices survey sketch did not indicate how many spotlights and covers there were and where they were located.

The second appraisal was referred to as beyond the scope of Changzhi Intermediate Court: admissible

The aforementioned judgment of Changzhi Intermediate Court shows that after the completion of Yuehua Street Road and Drainage Project in Xinyi Village, the Audit Bureau of Changzhi County entrusted Zhongtianhua Engineering Cost Consulting Co., Ltd. to conduct audit. The amount of project funds submitted for examination is 4736988 yuan, and the settlement price for completion of the project is 384 16096 yuan, with a reduction of 8949 892 yuan. Among them, 7284 cubic meters were reduced by the audit of boiling volume.

Zhongchengyuan Engineering Appraisal Report finds that the boiling volume is falsely reported at 25079 cubic meters (7598089.67 yuan). Lawyer Yang Li said he could not get the data by checking the construction log and supervision log.

Peng Mei News noticed that the two logs did not completely agree on the scale of the boiling record, and not record the length, width and height of each boiling record. At the same time, Changzhi City Intermediate Court judgment showed that many witnesses said that the volume of boiling was exaggerated. In this regard, lawyer Yang Li pointed out that the witness said the construction situation, but when the settlement audit, the volume of frosting has been reduced by 7284 cubic meters, how to prove that there is still a false report?

Pengmei News inquired that although Zhongchengyuan has the A-level Qualification Certificate of Cost Consulting Enterprise, it has not obtained the permission of judicial appraisal, and the two appraisers are not the judicial appraisers of the company. According to Order No. 149 of the former Ministry of Construction, Measures for the Management of Cost Consulting Enterprises, the business scope of Chengyuan includes the appraisal of cost economic disputes and the consultation of arbitration. Lawyer Yang Li said that in the above explanation, Chengyuan could not identify whether a criminal case constitutes false reporting or fraud.

Peng Mei News noted that the aforementioned Changzhi Intermediate Court Judgment held that there were also economic disputes in criminal cases, so Zhongchengyuan did not exceed the scope of identification. According to the judgment, Shanxi Provincial Justice Department Jin Sifa [2018] 1Shaanxi Provincial Justice Departments Opinions on Strict Access and Supervision of Judicial Expertiseand other documents confirm that Shanxi Province has cancelled engineering judicial expertise. In view of this objective fact, in accordance with Article 87 of the Supreme Law on the Application of the Interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Law, the expertise report involved can be used as an expert opinion. Reference, acceptance.

Lawyer Yang Li complained to the Housing and Urban-Rural Construction Department of Shaanxi Province. On 26 April, the Office wrote back that, in view of the fact that the reported cases had entered the stage of litigation, the relevant issues were proposed to be resolved through judicial channels. What you have reported is that Zhongchengyuan is engaged in judicial expertise illegally, rather than undertaking cost consultation beyond the scope of qualification level business, it is suggested to report to the judicial administration department.

Lawyer Yang Li pointed out that even if it could be used as a reference for expert opinions, the two Zhongchengyuan Engineering Appraisal Reports could not be used as evidence in terms of procedure, qualification, form and content. It points out that although the state has abolished the judicial appraisal of engineering, it is not impossible to conduct judicial appraisal in this case. Like the number of spotlights and well covers, they do not belong to the professional category. Without judicial appraisal, the case-handling organs can find out. Like the volume of boiling, trace identification can be applied for (belongs to material evidence judicial identification). Yang Li told Peng Mei News.

On June 5, Peng Mei News called Zhongchengyuan. The company refused to disclose the phone calls of two appraisers. Looking for the companys industrial and commercial registry, but did not find the company. Shi Lei, a judge of the Changzhi City Intermediate Court, told Peng Mei News that Guo Qiuchangs family members had appealed and the case files had been handed over to Shanxi Provincial High Court, which did not accept interviews, and the verdict was prevailing.

Guo Jun shows his own detailed drawings of the spotlight and well cover. Pengchao journalist Duan Yanchao Tu

Source of this article: Peng Mei News Responsible Editor: Chengyu_NBJ11143