On July 9, Guan Meimei and Xiangdawn met again at Xiaoshan Airport in Hangzhou, with the destination of Zhengzhou, Henan Province. But their business trip was outside their plan. Before that, around the lawsuit incident caused by Zhou Jiancans fall, the two men had promised an interview with E company reporters. However, a temporary telephone call from the Henan court disrupted the interview. In order not to break the appointment, the interview place has also changed from a cafe in Hangzhou to a special bus from Hangzhou to the airport. No, it goes on in the airport lobby.
The reason for this interview was a micro blog by Guan Mei. On the evening of July 4, Jindun shares issued a Notice on Receiving Judgment Documents. In the second instance, the plaintiffs bill Xinbao, Henan Hezhong Small and Medium Enterprises Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd., Bai Yongfeng and Jindun shares (including two cases of Shanxinbao, hereinafter referred to as Four Cases of Changge) ruled that Jindun shares were all defeated. Subsequently, Guan Meimei wrote on his personal micro-blog that Jindun shares suffered judicial injustice in Henan Province, requesting to jointly maintain the legitimate rights and interests of listed companies.
Guan Meis cry out for grievances has attracted wide attention in the market. Reporters also tried to restore the truth of Zhou Jiancan, the chairman of the board of directors who had fallen, to the greatest extent through this interview.
The Restoration of Head-cutting Interest of the Dead Chairman
According to common sense, it should not be difficult for Zhou Jiancan to find someone to borrow money in Zhejiang, where the people are rich. However, private lending in Zhejiang also has its own social circle. It is understood that in the second half of 2017, the sensitive Zhejiang private lending circle, aware of Zhou Jiancans debt repayment pressure, has included it in the dangerous list.
Under the pressure of huge capital demand, Zhou Jiancan can only raise money everywhere, and the object of borrowing is getting farther and farther. Henan, Chongqing, Hubei and Guangdong have all become places where Zhou Jiancan raises money. Therefore, most of Zhou Jiancans private borrowers in the second half of 2017 occurred in non-Zhejiang areas.
On February 11, 2018, Jindun shares received a notice from the Peoples Court of Changge City, Henan Province on the civil lending lawsuit. The reason for the prosecution is that on January 9 and 10, 2018, Shan Xinbao signed the Guarantee Loan Contract with Jindun Shares, which is 20 million yuan and 10 million yuan respectively, with a period of 15 days and 10 days respectively. When the agreed repayment expires, the defendants Jindun shares default on the principal of the loan.
Before the lawsuit, Shan Xinbao and Zhou Jiancan had borrowed and lent several times, totaling about 80 million yuan, so all the loans were paid to Zhou Jiancans account. The 30 million yuan lawsuit against Danxinbao received on February 11, 2018 is a new loan, which was also paid to Zhou Jiancans account.
According to Zhang Xun, the manager of Zhou Jiancans loan, who was in charge of the investment and Financing Department of Jindun Holding Group at that time, as early as September 29, 2017, Zhou Jiancan had his first loan with Shan Xinbao, amounting to about 15 million yuan. Later Zhang Xun, suspected of illegally absorbing public deposits, has been investigated by public security organs.
According to Zhang Xun, Zhou Jiancan had never dealt with Henan Changge before, and his loan to Henan Changge was also introduced by the intermediary. When the first person from Henan Changge came to borrow money, Zhou Jiancan personally participated in the negotiations. However, Zhou Jiancan himself did not participate in the subsequent borrowings, all of which were operated by Zhang Xun according to the previous model.
Judging from the flow of banks, when Zhou Jiancan and Dan Xinbao first borrowed 15 million yuan, Zhang Xun paid 1.8 million yuan in advance to Dan Xinbao. At the same time, before paying Zhou Jiancan 15 million yuan in loans, Shan Xinbaos bank account actually did not have 15 million yuan. So, where does the 15 million yuan loan to Zhou Jiancan come from? The banks running water also shows that there are many other peoples accounts, which are remitted to the single Xinbao account several times, plus Zhang Xuns advance payment of 1.8 million yuan in interest, which makes up 15 million yuan.
There are two problems in this kind of private lending relationship: cut-off interest rate and routine lending.
Why cut your head off? The industrys argument refers to usury or underground banking, which deducts a portion of the principal from the borrowers loan, which is called haircut interest.
In civil litigation, we can not inquire about the flow of banks, only the courts, public security and so on have such authority. To Dawn Lawyer. According to the flow details of relevant banks and payment vouchers, since September 29, 2017, Shan Xinbao and Zhou Jiancan have made a lot of loans. Loans are usually 10-15 days. On the day of each loan, Zhang Xun prepaid haircut interest from his account. The amount of haircut interest payment usually ranges from 8-15% of the loan amount.
According to Dong Miguanmei of Jindun Stock, the daily interest of the loans and the amount of haircut interest paid by Shan Xinbao, Zhou Jiancan and others is actually about 1% and 360% annually, which is the true super usury and haircut interest.
Article 26 of the Provisions of the Supreme Peoples Court on Several Questions Concerning the Law Applicable to the Trial of Private Lending Cases states that the interest rate agreed by both parties is not more than 24% of the annual interest rate. If the lender requests the borrower to pay the interest at the agreed interest rate, the peoples court shall support it. The interest rate agreed by the borrowers and lenders exceeds 36% of the annual interest rate, and the interest agreement over part of it is invalid. If the borrower requests the lender to return the interest paid above 36% of the annual interest rate, the peoples court shall support it.
However, in practice, corporatization usually collects haircut interest in the name of service fee, handling fee and consultation fee. In the practice of non-governmental borrowing, lenders usually use multiple related subjects or seemingly unrelated subjects to collect separately, in order to avoid supervision and conceal the truth of super high interest rates, and at the same time, the borrowers are usually unable to prove the cut-off interest in litigation.
According to the flow details of relevant banks and payment vouchers, Zhou Jiancan borrowed 140 million yuan from the plaintiffs in Changge four cases. The total amount of haircut interest paid on that day reached 16.28 million yuan. The income accounts of haircut interest were: Shan Xinbao himself, Yang Li, Huatian in Wuhu and Lin Chuanchuan. Among them, Yang Li not only collects money on behalf of Danxinbao, but also on behalf of Huatian in Wuhu. Among the money lent by Shan Xinbao to Zhou Jiancan, Yang Li immediately paid to Shan Xinbao after receiving the cut interest.
According to the bank flow shows that Yang Li, for example, after receiving haircut interest, Yang Li quickly transferred the money to Shan Xinbao, which is a way for lenders to avoid haircut interest and usury. Thats what lawyer Xiang Dawn said.
In Zhejiang Province, where private lending is active, when the borrower and the lender have a lending relationship, they often rely on the borrowers repayment strength. When the borrower and the lender agree orally on the repayment time limit and interest, they can lend money. In order to prevent the occurrence of running, sometimes the borrower will give the lender a blank sheet of paper signed and sealed in advance as a guarantee of repayment.
This kind of private lending behavior formed by personal credit is not easy to cause disputes if the borrower performs the contract normally. But once there are breaches of contract, running away, loss of connection and so on, a series of litigation disputes will arise. Because on the blank paper which has been signed and sealed beforehand, the lender often draws up a loan contract which is beneficial to itself, such as interest, repayment method, guarantor, litigation territory, etc., so as to maximize the protection of its own interests.
At that time, Zhou Jiancan, chairman of Jindun Holding Group, with his own legal awareness and team of lawyers, should draw up a formal loan contract when borrowing money. However, there is an urgent need for capital turnover, which also follows the rules of private lending.
Under the normal performance of the contract, Zhou Jiancan and all creditors are at peace. However, the turning point took place on January 30, 2018. After Zhou Jiancan died in a falling building in Shangyu, the dispute over private lending came along.
On February 1, 2018, Changgesha Court frozen many bank accounts of Jindun Share on the grounds of accepting the case of Xinbao Document v. Jindun Shares private lending dispute. Up to now, because of the death of former chairman Zhou Jiancan, Jindun shares have triggered a series of incidents, resulting in 40 lawsuits, the total amount of the target is 2.560 billion yuan.
Lawyer Shuguang pointed out: The gold shield seal on theGuarantee Loan Contractsubmitted by Shan Xinbao to Changge Court is forged, and there is no signature of Zhou Jiancan himself. The court of Changge and Xuchang held that Zhou Jiancans acts constituted apparent agency lacked basis. First, there was no evidence to prove that Zhou Jiancan was an actor. Second, Zhou Jiancan was not the legal representative of Jindun shares and had no right to represent the company in civil acts. Third, all the money was remitted to Zhou Jiancans personal account. It is the actual borrower. Fourth, the plaintiff has obvious faults or even malicious intentions, and is not a bona fide counterpart. It is understood that Jindun shares have appealed to Henan Higher Court.
The adjudication of similar cases is different
It is understood that after Zhou Jiancans death and Changge Courts property preservation, Jindun shares found that the companys seal was forged, and immediately reported the case to Shangyu Branch Bureau of Shaoxing Public Security Bureau.
Due to the criminal cases involved, the series of private lending disputes litigation of Jindun shares have changed again. Up to now, 15 of the 40 cases have been withdrawn by the plaintiff, 14 cases have been rejected by the court on the grounds of criminal involvement, and transferred to the public security organs for processing first. Seven cases are still in the process of trial.
Among them, after the first instance of Shaoxing Intermediate Court of Justice and the second instance of Zhejiang High Court rejected the case of Chuangying, Chuangying filed a complaint with the Supreme Peoples Court. According to the announcement of Jindun shares, the Supreme Peoples Court issued a civil ruling No. 4250 (2018) on September 26, 2018, which considered that the case has involved economic crimes, whether the contract involved is established or not, and whether the liability of Jindun Fan Company is assumed depends on the determination of the seals in criminal cases. The original court of trial considered that the case has been confirmed. According to Article 11 of the Provisions of the Supreme Peoples Court on Several Questions Concerning Suspects of Economic Crimes in Trial of Economic Disputes, it is not improper to dismiss the lawsuit of China-Thailand Company. The Supreme Court eventually rejected the application for reexamination of Chuang Ying from China and Thailand.
However, Jindun shares involved in the four Changge cases litigation disputes, but did not stop. Recently, Jindun shares received a civil judgment issued by Xuchang Intermediate Court, which rejected the companys appeals in four cases and maintained the original judgment. Compared with the lawsuit of Sino-Thai Chuangying, the real situation of the four cases of Changge is more complex, not only the degree of suspected economic crimes is more obvious, but also involves cutting interest, and the third party collects cutting interest on behalf of others. If we need to find out the true situation of the four cases, only through the public security organs to investigate. To Dawn Lawyer.
Four debt disputes involving Changge have been investigated by Shangyu Branch of Shaoxing Public Security Bureau in Zhejiang Province. The suspected economic crimes include forgery of company seals, fund-raising fraud and illegal absorption of public deposits. The case of illegal absorption of public deposits has been transferred to the procuratorate for examination and prosecution. It belongs to the same fact.
It is understood that during the trial of Changge 4 case, Shangyu Branch of Shaoxing Public Security Bureau of Zhejiang Province sent a letter to the court stating that the four cases belong to the scope of investigation of public security organs. Jindun shares also submitted to the court the Opinion on Indictment of Shangyu Branch of Shaoxing Public Security Bureau of Zhejiang Province. The Opinion on on Indictment has clearly confirmed the borrowing of the case. Section A belongs to the content of a criminal offence. Shangyu Branch of Shaoxing Public Security Bureau of Zhejiang Province sent another letter to the court of second instance requesting the transfer of the case to the public security criminal investigation, but the court of second instance refused to accept it and did not reply.
Guarantee indemnity is puzzling
Returning to the case itself, the role of the plaintiff Henan Hezhong SME Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd. is puzzling.
According to the lawsuit of joint guarantee, on January 17, 2018, creditor Wuhu Huatian Rongchuang Investment Center (Limited Partnership) signed a loan contract with Jindun Share, which borrowed 20 million yuan from Jindun Share to creditor Huatian Rongchuan, and the contract stipulated a 10-day loan period (from January 19, 2018 to January 28, 2018). In this loan, Henan Hezhong Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd. provides guarantee. Zhejiang Jindun Fire Fighting Equipment Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jindun Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Gloss Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd. and Zhou Chun provide the highest amount of joint and several counter-guarantee guarantee guarantee.
Before that, Zhou Jiancan and Henan Hezhong SMEs Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd. did not intersect at all, so it was unreasonable for the company to provide guarantee in this loan. Moreover, in other loan contracts, the guarantor is Zhou Jiancans company. Therefore, in this loan, Henan Hezhong Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd. appears redundant.
After Zhou Jiancans fall on January 30, 2018, Henan Hezhong Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd. remitted money to Huatian in Wuhu on January 31 and February 1, fulfilling its compensatory responsibility, and filed a suit with Changge Court on February 1. The Changge Court accepted the suit on the same day and made a property preservation ruling on the same day. The next day, it was in Shangyu, Zhejiang Province. Several bank accounts of Jindun Share were closed.
Henan Hezhong SME Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd. registered capital is 522 million yuan. According to the enterprise survey, there are three shareholders in the joint venture guarantee. Zhang Aimin, a natural person, only subscribes 21.5 million yuan. Henan Province Small and Medium Enterprises Credit Guarantee Group Co., Ltd. only subscribes 12.95 million yuan. The remaining shareholder is the State-owned Assets Supervision Committee of Changge City. In addition, Henan SMEs Credit Guarantee Group Co., Ltd. has 125 shareholders, involving the financial bureaus, SASASAC and state-owned enterprises of the counties and municipalities under the jurisdiction of Henan Province.
From the perspective of ownership structure, Henan Hezhong Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd. should be an enterprise absolutely controlled by Changge State-owned Assets Supervision Committee. As a state-owned holding enterprise, why the company should be involved in the radish stamp of the civil lending litigation seems to attract more attention. According to Guan Mei, after the judgment of the second instance of Xuchang Intermediate Court, the joint guarantee has transferred its creditors rights to the joint holding company, a state-owned holding enterprise. Why and why did it transfer creditors rights to private enterprises? Has the procedure of transferring state-owned assets been fulfilled? What is the transfer consideration? Has the consideration been paid? Guan Meimei asks many questions.
In the four cases of Changge, it is not only the guaranteed compensation of state-owned enterprises that is puzzling, but also the trend of creditors capital flow and the complex relationship chart can not be ignored.
The plaintiffs in the four Changge cases are Shan Xinbao (2 litigation plaintiffs), Henan Hezhong Small and Medium Enterprises Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd. and Bai Yongfeng. The first defendant is Jindun Share. It is common for creditors to appeal against the debtors failure to repay on time. However, there are various signs that there may be others who are the real gold owners of the Changge four cases.
At the same time, Jindun shares have also received notice of transfer of creditors rights, namely, Danxinbao transfers creditors rights to Zhang Aimin; Henan Hezhong Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd. transfers the creditors rights of Jindun shares to Henan Hezhong Investment Holding Co., Ltd., which is controlled by Zhang Weimin and Zhang Aimin; Bai Yongfeng transfers To Yang Baofeng.
Further inquiries revealed that Zhang Aimin and Zhang Weimin, Beijing Fenghu Jiayuan Equity Investment Management Center (Limited Partnership), Henan Hezhong Investment Holding Co., Ltd., Henan Hezhong Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd., Wuhu Huatian Rongchuang Investment Center (Limited Partnership), the above-mentioned units and individuals have extremely complex relationships.
Article 4 of the Circular on Standardizing the Behavior of Non-governmental Lending and Maintaining the Economic and Financial Order, issued jointly by the Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission and other four departments, stipulates that in non-governmental lending, the lenders funds must be the self-owned funds of his legitimate income, and it is forbidden to absorb other peoples funds in disguised form for lending.
Since then, problems have arisen. Who is the real gold owner behind the loan of Danxinbao, Huatian Rongchuang Investment Center in Wuhu (Limited Partnership)? Does the source of funds of the lender who provides the loan meet the requirements? Is there a case of illegal absorption of public deposits or illegal collection? The truth behind it is only to be investigated by the courts or public security organs.
In order to get a more comprehensive understanding of the details of Chou Jiancans and Changges haircuts, on July 9 and 10, the reporter also tried to contact Yin Jinhui, the plaintiffs lawyer, many times, but his phone call was either unanswered or hung up directly.
Source: e Company Responsible Editor: Wang Xiaowu_NF