Introduction:
Recently, a precedent was released on the Judgment Opinion Network. In an intricate case involving economics, contracts, and litigation, we witnessed a wonderful drama of legal battles.
on the Internet).
The contradictions between Liu Xiang and Hunan Jiasheng Company and Yiyang Jiasheng Company not only reflect the risks and disputes in commercial exchanges, but also reveal the limitations of the law in resolving disputes.
Basic facts of the case: In the first half of 2005, defendants Liu Xiang and his father Huang Youru and Zhang Xiong of Zhuzhou Tianrenda Real Estate Development planned to develop a project in Yiyang City, Hunan Province. Due to lack of funds, Liu Xiang and his son invited Tan Ming and Li Wangfei of Hunan Jiasheng Real Estate to invest in continued development. Tan Ming and Li Wangfei promised to pay Liu Xiang and the other five people 2 million yuan in upfront costs, but Zhang Xiong and the other three withdrew from the project after receiving 1.11 million yuan. Liu Xiang and his son did not accept 890,000 yuan, but continued to develop together with Hunan Jiasheng Company.
On August 8, 2005, Liu Xiang signed a cooperation agreement with Hunan Jiasheng Company, stipulating the payment of expenses and the distribution of profits.
On November 15, 2005, Tan Ming and Li Wangfei registered Yiyang Jiasheng Company for project development, while Liu Xiang became the deputy general manager.
In 2007, Liu Xiang left Yiyang Jiasheng Company. In April 2007, Tan Ming transferred the equity to Luo Wei's name, but the actual operation was still in charge of Li Wangfei and Tan Ming. In order to develop the project, Tan Ming and Li Wangfei borrowed more than 11 million yuan from Jiang Jiuguang respectively. Due to financial problems, they will Yiyang Jiasheng Company, Splendid Family Project and the company's name 7828 acres of land were transferred to Jiang Jiuguang for 36 million yuan.
On August 13, 2007, Li Wangfei, Luo Wei and Jiang Jiuguang signed an equity transfer agreement, promising that there would be no other debts in addition to the disclosed debts. However, the agreement did not stipulate Liu Xiang's upfront investment and after-tax profits in the Fairview project.
On August 15, 2007, Yiyang Jiasheng Company's license, materials and seals were handed over to Jiang Jiuguang. Liu Xiang repeatedly asked Li Wangfei and Tan Ming for money, but the two refused to pay 30% of the after-tax profits of the Splendid Family project on the grounds of losses.
In January 2008, Liu Xiang filed a civil lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Zhuzhou City, Hunan Province, requesting confirmation of his 30% right to distribute after-tax profits in the Splendid Family project developed by Yiyang Jiasheng Company, and demanding that Hunan Jiasheng Company and Yiyang Jiasheng Company jointly and severally reimburse 2 million yuan for the upfront costs. Subsequently, Liu Xiang applied to withdraw the lawsuit on the grounds that the two parties had agreed to settle, and the Zhuzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled on April 17, 2008 to allow it. Tan Ming and Li Wangfei promised to pay Liu Xiang 2 million yuan, and according to the shares, Tan and Li should each pay 1 million yuan.
On January 12, 2010, Tan Ming and Liu Xiang signed a people's mediation agreement, under which Tan Ming compensated Liu Xiang a total of 800,000 yuan, but the economic dispute with Li Wangfei was not resolved. On February 1, 2010, Luo Wei and Jiang Jiuguang signed an equity transfer settlement agreement, agreeing that more than 1,500 yuan had been paid, and 2 million yuan was still unsettled, and that Yiyang Jiasheng Company's claims and debts before August 15, 2007 were borne by Luo Wei, and Tan Ming and Li Wangfei assumed the guarantee liability.
At the beginning of 2010, Liu Xiang used the blank paper stamped with the administrative seal of Yiyang Jiasheng Real Estate Development left during his work in Yiyang Jiasheng Company, and forged two IOUs owed by Yiyang Jiasheng Company to him for more than 18 million yuan to ask Jiang Jiuguang for payment. Liu Xiang handed over the forged IOUs, 6.6 million yuan of IOUs, as well as the letter of commitment for cooperation rights and interests, the letter of commitment for transfer and distribution, and other materials, and agreed that if the judgment was won, it would be divided into 46 with Fu Damao. In mid-June 2010, Fu Damao hired a lawyer to file a civil lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Yiyang City, Hunan Province on behalf of Liu Xiang, requesting that Yiyang Jiasheng Company be ordered to pay Liu Xiang a total of 18 million yuan in the preliminary investment costs, share transfer and distribution, investment compensation and interest, and filed an application for property preservation.
The public prosecution accused Liu Xiang of defrauding others of property with fictitious facts for the purpose of illegal possession, and the amount was particularly huge, so he was prosecuted for the crime of fraud.
The court ruled: The Heshan District People's Court of Yiyang City, Hunan Province found in the first instance that Liu Xiang was guilty of fraud and was sentenced to 5 years in prison and fined 30,000 yuan. Liu Xiang was not satisfied and appealed.
After trial, the Intermediate People's Court of Yiyang City, Hunan Province, found that the facts were unclear and the evidence was insufficient, and remanded the case for retrial. After retrial, the Heshan District People's Court of Yiyang City, Hunan Province, found that Liu Xiang's conduct of forging evidence such as a commitment to cooperate rights and interests, a commitment to transfer and distribution, and an IOU of 6.6 million yuan for the purpose of illegal possession did indeed exist. However, according to the Supreme People's Procuratorate's Policy Research Office's "Reply to Questions Concerning the Application of Law to the Conduct of Defrauding the Court's Civil Judgment into Possession of Others' Property by Falsifying Evidence", for the purpose of illegal possession, the act of defrauding the civil judgment of taking possession of other people's property through the fabrication of evidence mainly infringes on the normal trial activities of the people's court, and may be handled by the people's court in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, and it is not appropriate to pursue criminal responsibility for the crime of fraud. Therefore, the prosecution did not establish the charge that Liu Xiang committed the crime of fraud, and ruled that Liu Xiang was not guilty.
Typical significance: In the litigation of economic disputes, the litigation fraud carried out by the parties themselves by fabricating evidence or fabricating facts does not meet the characteristics of the crime of fraud, and the Criminal Law does not stipulate that it is a crime of fraud. At the same time, considering the causal nature of this type of litigation fraud, it should not be found to be a crime of fraud, but the perpetrator should be given a civil penalty or convicted of other crimes committed by his means.
Conclusion: This case is not only a dispute resolution, but also a test of the legal system.
First of all, we need to rethink the design and performance of contracts, as well as establish a more robust risk prevention mechanism in business activities. There is also an urgent need to improve corporate governance to avoid complex disputes caused by equity changes.
Second, the role of law in dispute resolution, especially the handling of falsified evidence, requires more sophisticated regulations and supervision.
In addition, the improvement of relevant laws and regulations and the upgrading of the judicial system are urgent tasks.