Knowing financial fraud! Bank account manager or loan 80 million

category:Finance
 Knowing financial fraud! Bank account manager or loan 80 million


Using false materials to defraud 80 million loans

According to the criminal judgment of the first instance of the peoples Court of Songbei District of Harbin City, Heilongjiang Province, Jiang Mou defrauded loans, acceptance of bills and financial bills. In August 2014, Harbin Hongye Furniture Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hongye company) applied to Harbin Nangang sub branch of China Construction Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Nangang sub branch of China Construction Bank) for 80 million yuan of working capital During the loan process, Jiang Mou, its legal representative, provided the bank with false audit reports from 2011 to 2013 and the timber purchase and sale contract, and signed the mortgage contract for mortgage registration with Hongyes state-owned industrial land use right, above ground real estate and all real estate properties as collateral.

After the approval of Heilongjiang Branch of China Construction Bank, Nangang sub branch of CCB issued the loan on September 23, 2014. After the loan, Hongye company returned 13 interest periods, and no loan principal and interest was returned since November 2015.

After that, Nangang sub branch of CCB recognized the loan as a non-performing asset and transferred it to Heilongjiang Branch of China Huarong Asset Management Co., Ltd. at a price of 38.61 million yuan, the remaining 41.11 million yuan was written off.

In September 2016, when the loan of China Construction Bank was due, China Construction Bank sued Hongye furniture company in Harbin intermediate peoples court, and sold the land, plant and equipment I mortgaged to Huarong Asset Management Company at a price of 39 million yuan, and Hongye furniture company was entrusted by China financial asset management company. Jiang said in testimony in another case.

On August 10, 2017, Jiang arrived at the case by telephone and truthfully confessed his crime. Finally, Jiang was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended for three years and fined 100000 yuan

The total difference of net profit exceeded 120 million

In fact, the false audit reports used by Jiang when applying for loans were issued by Guo.

According to the judgment document, in April 2014, Guo was entrusted by Hongda Company to issue a financial audit report for the companys loan of 30 million yuan from Harbin Dazheng small loan Co., Ltd. and 80 million yuan from Nangang sub branch of China Construction Bank.

The financial audit report issued by Guos hand is shocking.

Hongye company was established on March 20, 2012. After comparing the 2012 tax statement reporting data with the audit data of hlxsz No. 034 audit report, the net profit difference amounts to 47.8201 million yuan; after comparing the 2013 tax statement declaration data of the company with the hlwyksz No. 035 audit report, the net profit difference amount is 74.1329 million yuan.

In other words, there is a net profit difference of more than 120 million yuan in the two audit reports that have been well documented.

The court found that the above three annual financial audit reports issued by Guo in 2011, 2012 and 2013 were seriously untrue, resulting in a loan of 80 million yuan and interest overdue to Nangang sub branch of China Construction Bank.

After investigation, Guo was arrested by the public security organ in Daoli District of Harbin City on June 23, 2017. Guo was finally sentenced to one year and two months imprisonment and a fine of 50000 yuan for committing the crime of major misrepresentation of supporting documents.

In this case, Ji, the customer manager of Nangang Branch of China Construction Bank, who was in charge of the loan, was also sentenced.

In the pre loan review, Ji did not conduct due diligence on the authenticity of the accounts receivable and accounts payable of Hongye company in accordance with relevant provisions, nor did he verify the accounting vouchers, account books and other relevant materials of Hongye company and the true purpose of the loan, so he issued the application materials of the loan. Ji made a report in the credit approval committee of Heilongjiang Branch of China Construction Bank according to the application materials issued by him, and sent the Heilongjiang Branch of China Construction Bank to agree to grant the loan to Hongye company.

After Hongye company obtained the loan on September 23, 2014, Jiang used the loan to repay his personal debt, which was not used to purchase raw materials. In the end, Hongye company was unable to repay the loan principal and part of the interest. Nangang sub branch of China Construction Bank sued Hongye company and asked it to repay the loan. The court ruled that Hongye company should pay the loan principal and interest of Nangang sub branch of CCB. If it fails to repay the loan within the time limit, Nangang sub branch of CCB may have the property mortgaged by Hongye company and Jiang, and the price obtained from the discount, sale or auction shall be paid in priority within the scope of its secured creditors rights.

After the judgment, Nangang sub branch of China Construction Bank transferred the non-performing assets to Heilongjiang Branch of China Huarong Asset Management Co., Ltd. at a price of 38.61 million yuan, the remaining 41.11 million yuan was written off by the head office of the bank.

Ji was detained in criminal detention on May 24, 2018, released on bail on June 6 of the same year, was detained in criminal detention on March 12, 2019, and arrested on March 19 of the same year.

The court of first instance held that Jis behavior constituted the crime of illegally granting loans. Ji can truthfully state the facts of the crime, and will be given a lighter punishment according to law. Ji was found guilty of the crime of illegally granting loans and sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of 30000 yuan.

After the verdict, Ji filed an appeal on the ground that it violated the internal regulations of CCB, not the national regulations, played a very small role in the loan issuance, and its behavior had no causal relationship with the result of particularly heavy losses, and he was not guilty. The defender put forward that the approval of the loan involved in the case has multi-level supervision, which has no causal relationship with Jis illegal behavior. Jis defense opinion is that Jis violation of the internal regulations of China Construction Bank is innocent.

The second instance of the court held that the fact that Ji committed the crime of illegally granting loans was clear, the evidence was accurate and sufficient, the sentencing was appropriate, and the trial procedure was legal. Witness Wang proved that the financial statements provided for the loan were false, Ji did not verify it, and witness Jiang proved that Ji did not verify the false timber purchase and sale contract used for the loan.

The evidence shows that Ji also confessed that in order to improve the performance of his work, he knew that Wang provided false financial data, and that he applied for a loan for Hongye company without verifying the financial statements and the purchase and sales contract. The video confirms that when asked whether the original notes have been checked at the credit approval meeting, Ji said that he had checked the original notes for the loan companys financial statements, asset status and other loan information, and made a field inspection. The loan information was true, which was in fact a false statement. The court of second instance held that the above evidence corroborated each other, and the evidence that Ji Mou handled the loan for the company involved in the case according to the false materials, knowing that the loan information was untrue, was sufficient. The original judgment did not determine that there was a causal relationship between the loan granting behavior and the result of particularly heavy losses. Whether there are other personnel within the bank should be investigated, which does not affect Jis responsibility. Ji, as the deputy general manager of the company business department of Nangang sub branch of China Construction Bank, reviewed the real situation of the borrower on behalf of the bank. He failed to perform the review obligation in accordance with the provisions of the commercial bank law of the peoples Republic of China, so he should be found to have issued loans in violation of the state regulations, so the original conviction is accurate. Finally, the court of second instance rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. Source: Yang Qian, editor in charge of China fund daily_ NF4425

The court of second instance held that the above evidence corroborated each other, and the evidence that Ji Mou handled the loan for the company involved in the case according to the false materials, knowing that the loan information was untrue, was sufficient. The original judgment did not determine that there was a causal relationship between the loan granting behavior and the result of particularly heavy losses. Whether there are other personnel within the bank should be investigated, which does not affect Jis responsibility. Ji, as the deputy general manager of the company business department of Nangang sub branch of China Construction Bank, reviewed the real situation of the borrower on behalf of the bank. He failed to perform the review obligation in accordance with the provisions of the commercial bank law of the peoples Republic of China, so he should be found to have issued loans in violation of the state regulations, so the original conviction is accurate.