Preamble.
As a lawyer, dealing with legal affairs will expose you to many dark sides of human nature, so you need to be especially careful, and if you are not careful, you will fall into the pit.
For example, when we review liability insurance cases, many cases have a very high risk of preservation errors, and many practitioners, in order to get the case to pass the legal examination of the insurance company, will artificially package the case with various tricks, such as "packaging the counterclaim case as a lawsuit case", "packaging the case remanded for retrial as a new case for prosecution in the first instance", and so on.
However, these packaged cases often leave clues.
As an independent third party in the insurance industry, our company provides insurance companies with risk control services for the whole process of liability insurance, and in order to improve efficiency and management level, we have developed an intelligent legal "Fa Xiaobang Mini Program", and all the reviewed case information will be entered into the Mini Program.
At the same time, in order to ensure that "the same case has the same opinion", there is a very important function in our Mini Program, called "Reminder of the Same Case". Recently, this feature helped us identify a high-risk case that was packaged!
Discovery process. January 1st:
The partner reported a private lending case, and the case was prosecuted 2500 million yuan in arrears, and the court of first instance ruled in favor of a total of about 20 million yuan in principal and interest; After the plaintiff appealed, the second-instance judgment remanded for a new trial. In the first instance stage of the retrial, the plaintiff applied for preservation of the defendant's value of 2500 million in property.
Seeing that the principal and interest supported by the first-instance judgment totaled about 20 million, the preservation was 2500 million, there is a very high risk of excess preservation, so our team gave a refusal opinion.
30 February: Two partners reported the same private lending case, and the case was prosecuted 2500 million in arrears, and the plaintiff applied for preservation of the defendant's value of 2500 million in property.
Because there was a reminder of the same case in the system, the legal staff went to check the same case on November 1 and found that it was the same case.
The difference is that the case materials have been changed, the time of the indictment has been revised to a recent time, and all the materials remanded for retrial have been removed: the first-instance judgment and the second-instance ruling have disappeared without a trace.
Judging from the existing information on these cases, it is particularly easy to think that it is a newly prosecuted case and submit it for review.
After comparing the information of the two cases, our legal team suddenly understood the painstaking efforts of the relevant personnel
It is estimated that all the original first-instance judgments and rulings remanded for retrial will be provided to preserve the other party's 2500 million property, our team refused to underwrite, and other insurance companies will not agree to underwrite.
However, if it becomes a new private lending case, everyone will not be vigilant, and it will be easy for the law to pass the review.
Fortunately, "the magic is one foot high and the road is one foot high", our company's intelligent legal law Xiaobang applet, all reported cases have data retention, the review process has traces, and all the same cases have reminders, this kind of trick is difficult to easily fool through here.
Enlightenment. Some dishonest people will do whatever it takes for the sake of profit, so we hereby remind the insurance companies in the same industry to keep their eyes open and not easily fall into the trap!