The words are divided into two ends, one for each side. Pen ~ fun ~ pavilion www.biquge.info

As mentioned above, the Anyan Company task force organized by the Bao'an Political and Legal Department wrote a report to the Central Political and Legal Commission, which was highly valued by the superiors and directly instructed: "It is necessary to strictly investigate and deal with it." As a result, Shenzhen's political and legal departments are also in full swing, on the one hand, they are stepping up the investigation of the relevant personnel in Zhu Chier's fraud case, and on the other hand, they are also actively preparing to start a retrial procedure for the loan case. It was precisely at this juncture that Liu Linlin, the former person in charge of Anwei Village, where the Public Security Bureau placed residential surveillance and one of the criminal suspects, actually played a golden cicada shell and slipped away alive under the noses of the public security.

Another fraud case investigated by the Su Public Security - Chen Lianping's case of defrauding the real estate of the industrial village, also racked the brains of the Su Public Security, constantly changing the investigation methods, constantly breaking through, digging deeper, expanding clues, looking for loopholes, and finally found a lot of decent evidence.

The Su police excerpted the main points of the investigation record as the basis for vetoing the legality of the loan, and of course, the most important issue was to deny the legality of the mortgage for discussion at the meeting. As far as an application for retrial is concerned, it should be reported to the Provincial High Court, and the final judgment of the Provincial High Court clearly states that this is not an economic case. If it is sent to the provincial high court, it is obviously suspected of being a melon field and a plum. Then it would be much more ideal to send it to Beijing B and have the Supreme People's Court suppress it for retrial. Yes, send it to the Supreme People's Court.

As a result, after several deliberations, the lawyer hired by the Su Public Security Bureau and the industrial village, who was engaged in the case, wrote an "Application for Retrial" appealing to the Supreme People's Court in the name of the industrial village, the full text of which is as follows:

Application for retrial

Applicant for retrial: Shenzhen Baoan Industrial Villagers Committee.

Residence: Bao'an Industrial Village, Shenzhen.

Legal representative: Chen Shengli, position: director of the village committee.

Person who was applied for retrial: Hubei Branch of the People's Bank of China.

Residence: Hubei Road, Luohu, Shenzhen.

Legal representative: Wang Xianyao, position: president.

Applicant for retrial: Shenzhen Baoan Welfare Bed Industry Co., Ltd.

Residence: Building 2, Haibin Road, Xin'an, Shenzhen.

Legal representative: Chen Lianping, general manager.

Application Request:

1. Ruled to initiate a retrial of the Provincial High People's Court's (1998) Yue Fa Jing Er Shang Zi No. 170 Civil Judgment.

2. Ruling to revoke the above-mentioned Civil Judgment No. 170 and the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court (1997) Shen Zhong Fa Jing Chu Zi No. 1170 Civil Judgment.

3. The ruling rejects the lawsuit of the Hubei Branch of the Citizen Bank of China, which is the subject of the application for retrial, and transfers the case to the Bao'an Branch of the Municipal Public Security Bureau for investigation and handling.

4. The two respondents to the retrial shall bear all the litigation costs of the case.

Facts and Reasons:

The applicant for retrial, the Shenzhen Bao'an Industrial Villagers Committee, was dissatisfied with the judgment of the Provincial High People's Court (1998) Yue Fa Jing Er Shang Zi No. 170 and the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court (1997) Shen Zhong Fa Jing Chu Zi No. 1170 Civil Judgment, holding that the courts at the two levels did not find the fact of Chen Lianping's fraud and avoided the facts of the suspected financial fraud in this case, which would inevitably lead to an error in the determination of facts and an error in the application of law, so it hereby filed an application for retrial with your court for the following reasons:

1. Chen Lianping changed the name of the borrower, the amount of the loan, and the term of the loan without authorization, and changed the mortgage of one loan to two mortgages. Therefore, the mortgage in this case was not an expression of the applicant's true intentions.

On January 1994 (author's note: sic), our village signed the "Cooperation Contract" with Shenzhen Baoan Yinhe Industrial Development Company, and the two parties agreed that our village would provide four real estate certificates (including three in this case) and four factories as collateral, and the Yinhe Company would borrow from the bank; the loan amount was 6 million yuan, and the term was 12 months, from August 1, 1994 to August 1, 95; the loan was used by our village, and Yinhe Company received 20% of the annual profit of the loan of 2 million yuan. After signing the contract, our village provided four copies of the "Mortgage Statement" and other loan procedures to Chen Lianping, the legal representative of Galaxy Company, as agreed. In the statement, our village confirmed that the borrower was Yinhe Company, the loan amount was 6 million yuan, and the loan period was from August 3, 94, which was the true mortgage intention of our village.

However, Chen Lianping maliciously altered the "Mortgage Statement" and changed the true intention of our village without authorization: He changed the statement of 6 million yuan in quadruplicate into two loans; one changed the loan amount to 15 million yuan and the other to 3.2 million yuan; changed the borrower to Shenzhen Bao'an District Welfare Bed Industry Co., Ltd.; and changed the loan time from August 3, 1994 to December 27, 1994, and the two mortgages after the alteration totaled 18.2 million yuan. Therefore, Chen Lianping changed the borrower, the amount of the loan, and the term of the loan without authorization, and changed one mortgage to two loan mortgages, which fundamentally violated the original intention of the 6 million yuan mortgage loan in our village. The evidence is as follows:

Evidence 1: The Municipal Public Security Bureau's Wenjian Zi No. 8050 "Appraisal", the appraisal conclusion: the altered handwriting on the "Mortgage Statement" was written by Chen Lianping.

Evidence 2: On May 8, 1998, the Bao'an Public Security Bureau's review of Chen Lianping was recorded. Please see the attachment:

On page 4, in the third line, Chen confessed: "Zhang Jinxiu of the industrial village handed me the real estate certificate of the four industrial villages in accordance with the provisions of the contract. and the procedures for a loan of 6 million yuan, such as the power of attorney of the legal representative of the industrial village, the loan mortgage certificate stamped with the official seal of the industrial village, etc. ”

Question: "In the Meilin Branch (formerly Meilin Financial Services Society) and Hubei Branch (formerly Hubei Financial Services Society) handled real estate mortgages of 15 million and 3.2 million respectively, altered with correction fluid, filled in 15 million yuan (that is, the amount of loan mortgage), 3.2 million, and then stamped with the official seal of Bao'an Notary Office, are these procedures approved by Zhang Jinxiu of Bao'an Industrial Village?"

Chen replied: "Zhang Jinxiu of the industrial park did not know about the above procedures, and he did not know about the procedures for me to apply for a loan. ”

It can be seen from the above confession that Chen Lianping confessed to altering the statement without authorization.

Evidence 3: On November 28, 1995, Chen Lianping issued the "Plan": "There is a contract for our company to cooperate with the industrial village to borrow funds, but our company has not completed the original contract, and now we will negotiate again: return all the mortgaged real estate before the Lunar New Year in 1996, if it is not done by then, our company shall be responsible for all economic and legal liabilities arising therefrom." Obviously, the "plan" shows that Chen Lianping's loan of 18.2 million yuan was carried out under the condition of concealing my village, and the loans have recently expired, and Chen Lianping also falsely claimed that he had not received the loan, and also lied that he had returned the real estate certificate to my village. This evidence further shows that Chen Lianping's alteration of our village's statement was concealed and had an obvious fraudulent purpose.

The above evidence fully confirms that the loan amount and loan term listed in the "Mortgage Loan Statement" in this case were unilaterally altered by Chen Lianping without the consent of our village, and are not the true expression of our village's intentions, and have no legal binding force on our village.

2. The mortgage relationship created in this case is invalid.

The invalidity of the mortgage relationship established in this case is not only reflected in the fact that the loan mortgage explained in the first major point above is not the true intention of our village, but also in the illegal procedure of creating the mortgage.

1. The notarization procedures of the "Mortgage Declaration" are illegal and should be deemed invalid.

(1) Chen Lianping added notarization matters to the power of attorney without authorization, and he did not have the right of notarization agency in the village.

Evidence 1: The appraisal conclusion of the Municipal Public Security Bureau's Wenjian Zi No. 8013 "Appraisal": The handwriting of "notarization and other rights" in the authority column on the legal person's authorization certificate was signed and sealed by Zhang Jinxiu, director of the industrial village committee, and then Chen Lianping added it (see attachment).

Evidence 2: On May 8, 1998, the Bao'an Public Security Bureau examined Chen Lianping's records.

On page 4, line 7, ask: "Did Zhang Jinxiu's legal person power of attorney in the industrial park entrust you to handle 'notarization and other rights'?"

Chen replied: "No." I handled the notarization at the notary office behind my back Zhang Jinxiu. ”

Asked: "Does Zhang Jinxiu know about this?"

Chen replied: "He didn't know, I went to do the notarization without his knowledge." ”

The above transcript shows that Chen Lianping confessed that he had added and fraudulently obtained the authorization of notarization and other rights without authorization.

(2) The notary office clearly knew that the validity period of the certificate of authorization of the legal person was September 9, 1994, and three months had already passed, but still accepted the certificate on December 27 of the same year, which was obviously negligent and at fault.

(3) The notarization of the declaration shall not be handled in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of the "Notarization Procedure Rules (Trial)", but the Bao'an Notary Office violated these regulations and accepted Chen Lianping's agency qualifications.

(4) The more obvious illegal facts of the notary office are reflected in the fact that Zhang Jinxiu, the legal representative of our village, was not at the notary site, and the notary office did not implement the proofreading seal on the "Statement" altered by Chen Lianping without authorization. Therefore, the notarization is manifestly untrue.

2. The mortgage registration procedures were obtained by Chen Lianping by fraud and should be found to be invalid.

(1) The Declaration and Notarial Deed on which the mortgage registration is based are false and illegal.

(2) The mortgage registration application form was filled in by Chen Lianping after Chen Lianping changed the time of my village's seal without authorization, and it was not the true intention of my village. The date of application was changed from 15 June 1994 to 15 December 1994.

(3) Chen Lianping fraudulently obtained the authorization of mortgage registration by adding "other rights". My village did not entrust him to go through the registration formalities at all.

The above facts show that Chen Lianping defrauded our village of notarization and registration agency rights by adding other rights, and then defrauded the notarization and registration procedures. Therefore, not only is the content of this mortgage registration untrue, but Chen Lianping's formalities were also obtained by fraud, and should be confirmed as invalid in accordance with the law.

3. Chen Lianping maliciously tampered with a number of mortgage legal documents in our village, fraudulently obtained notarization and mortgage registration procedures, and refused to repay the loan after taking out the loan, which has constituted the crime of financial loan fraud.

With the true intention of handling a mortgage loan of 6 million yuan, our village provided Chen Lianping with the following legal documents:

1. The identity certificate of the legal representative Zhang Jinxiu;

2. Two copies of the certificate of authorization of the legal person;

3. The "Mortgage Declaration" is in duplicate;

4. Application Form for Mortgage Registration in duplicate;

5. Three copies of stamped blank letterhead.

Except for the identity certificate of the legal representative, Chen Lianping did not falsify the rest of the procedures. Mainly embodied in:

1. Altering the "Mortgage Statement" in duplicate without authorization, tampering with a loan of 6 million yuan into two loans, which are 15 million yuan and 3.2 million yuan respectively. 2. Unauthorized addition of "notarization, other rights" authorization items to the power of attorney of the legal person, defrauding the notarization and registration agency rights of our village's mortgage. 3. Unauthorized alteration of the time of our village's seal on the "Mortgage Registration Application Form" to defraud the mortgage registration procedures. 4. Concealing our village, using the stamped blank letterhead to issue three certificates: August 18, 94, December 20, and January 4, 95, which were used for the loan procedures of 15 million yuan and 3.2 million yuan respectively, contrary to the willingness of our village to issue three blank and stamped letterheads for a loan of 6 million yuan.

The above facts fully prove that Chen Lianping forged a false "Mortgage Statement" and obtained two huge loans by deceptive means to obtain notarization and mortgage registration procedures, and refused to return them after the loans expired. Chen Lianping's above-mentioned series of acts, in accordance with the provisions of Article 193 of the Criminal Law, have constituted the crime of financial loan fraud.

4. The applicant is not at fault in this case, and this case is not an economic dispute case, but a fraud case, and your court shall rule to dismiss the prosecution and transfer the case to the public security organ for investigation.

Because Chen Lianping maliciously tampered with our village's legal documents, he concealed it from our village. The registration procedures obtained by tampering with documents are completely contrary to the true will of our village and are not legally binding on our village. In this case, there is no fact that our village issued procedures to mortgage the loan to the Hubei Branch of the person who applied for retrial because of its fault, so there is no economic dispute arising from fault.

In addition, on April 20, 1998, the Bao'an Branch of the Municipal Public Security Bureau filed a case for investigation into Chen Lianping's suspected fraud. In accordance with Article 11 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Involving Suspected Economic Crimes in the Trial of Economic Dispute Cases, your court should rule to dismiss the prosecution and transfer the case to the Bao'an Public Security Bureau for investigation.

To sum up, the new evidence submitted by the applicant for retrial is sufficient to prove that Chen Lianping constituted financial loan fraud, and the mortgage registration procedures in this case are completely not the true intention of the applicant for retrial, and the mortgage relationship established is invalid. The person applying for retrial is not at fault in this case and should not bear the liability for mortgage guarantee. This case is not an economic dispute case, but a typical fraud case, and the prosecution should be dismissed in accordance with the law and the case should be transferred to the public security organ for handling. The applicant for retrial sincerely requests that your court retry this case and correct the erroneous judgments of the courts of first and second instance.

Sincerely

Supreme People's Court

Applicant for retrial: Shenzhen Baoan Industrial Villagers Committee (India)

15 October 1998

After the "Application for Retrial" was finalized, it was sent to the Supreme People's Court in the name of the Bao'an Industrial Village Committee.

Guanguan: You may have a lot of feelings after reading the above article on the retrial application, or you think that it is full of strong words and the legacy of the Cultural Revolution. However, the little one has a small opinion that I would like to exchange with you: Su Gong'an - this farmer's child is still an honest man who is not bad in nature after all, although he has a lot of words about Xia, Ou Zhongzhong, and Liu Aihua when investigating the case, and he is angry about Xia buying a box lunch to entertain him, a law enforcement officer with public power, and there are many threats in his words to thoroughly investigate the case. However, when it comes to judging whether they have any economic problems in the summer, and whether the Hubei branch has conducted loan investigations and examinations, he still weighs the seriousness of the law and does not dare to make a mistake. In this way, in fact, it also leaves a spacious retreat for himself. Because when it turns out that what he did that day is not appropriate, he can still stand on the public security front, learn from this, and continue to practice the glory of his life. Therefore, respecting the law, being faithful to the facts, and acting in accordance with the law are the only ways that young people who have great ambitions and enthusiasm to step into state organs, especially law enforcement agencies, and serve as public servants of the people, should always keep in mind.

People may remember that before the political and legal department of Bao'an District intervened in the case, the General Office of the Municipal Party Committee asked the Municipal Public Security Bureau to know about the case, and it was Director Liang Guofan and two others who came to investigate. After they reported the investigation to the general office of the city party committee, the responsible comrades of the general office briefed the principal responsible comrades of the city party committee who were inquiring into the matter. After reading the relevant information, the principal responsible person of the municipal party committee, who had served on the provincial economic front for a long time, did not question the bank's approach, so the municipal public security bureau did not investigate further. Later, Bao'an reopened the investigation according to the people's representative's proposal and transferred the case to the Bao'an Public Security Bureau for investigation.

Fortunately, it is precisely because the political and legal organs of Bao'an have taken a sense of proportion on the key points of the case, a year later, when Chen Shengli, the director of the industrial village committee, invited and brought Xia and the judges of the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court to the industrial village, after browsing the village appearance of the industrial village and the three factories originally mortgaged, when the industrial village committee held a banquet in the most luxurious hotel in Bao'an District to entertain Xia and others, the voice of "I'm sorry for causing you trouble!" could be said so smoothly, so that Xia still felt comfortable and sorry after listening to it.

So, how is the application for retrial by the Industrial Village Committee studied and handled by the Supreme Court? (To be continued.) )