On April 30 this year, the court made a retrial judgment, revoked the original civil mediation document, rejected the plaintiff's claim in the original trial, and took punitive measures against both parties who concocted the false litigation case in accordance with the law, and transferred the clues of the false litigation case to the public security organs for investigation.
It is reported that this case is the largest false litigation supervision case successfully handled by the Henan Provincial Procuratorate in recent years.
The whistleblower letter revealed a corner of the 100 million yuan case
In May 2022, a whistleblower letter from Jiang, a resident of Changzhou City, Jiangsu Province, attracted the attention of the civil prosecutor of the Pingdingshan Municipal Procuratorate.
Jiang claimed in the report letter that a construction company in Jiangsu had failed to repay the loan from him when it was undertaking a construction project in Pingdingshan City, and the Changzhou Zhonglou District Court made a second-instance judgment on August 30, 2019, ordering the company to pay him the principal and interest of the loan of 21.5 million yuan and interest since February 10, 2018. In the course of the enforcement of the case, the Zhonglou District Court learned that the main property of a construction company in Jiangsu was only a project payment claim of Pingdingshan City A Real Estate Company. Just as the court was about to take enforcement measures against the above-mentioned project payment creditor's rights, it found that the Pingdingshan Intermediate People's Court had preemptively taken freezing measures within the limit of 100 million yuan for the project money on September 20, 2019 during the trial of the case of Jin Mouming v. a construction company in Jiangsu (hereinafter referred to as the "Jin Mouming case"), and the Zhonglou District Court could only wait for freezing.
Jiang believed that the plaintiff in the case heard by the Pingdingshan Intermediate Court, Jin Mouming, was a resident of Liyang City, Jiangsu Province, and the defendant, a construction company in Jiangsu, was also an enterprise in Liyang City, and that the lawsuit between the two parties in the Pingdingshan Intermediate Court was suspected of being a false lawsuit, so he wrote to the procuratorate to report it.
After carefully studying the report letter, Yan Haichao, the civil prosecutor of the Pingdingshan City Procuratorate, believed that this false litigation clue was traceable, and found more problems after obtaining the trial file of Jin Mouming's case.
On September 18, 2019, Jin Mouming filed a lawsuit for a dispute over a sales contract with the Pingdingshan Intermediate Court, alleging that he supplied steel to the two project sites of a construction company in Jiangsu in Pingdingshan, and that the company owed him about 98 million yuan in steel payment, profit sharing, interest, etc., and applied for the seizure and freezing of 100 million yuan of property such as bank deposits of a construction company in Jiangsu or the company's claims for project money and other property enjoyed by a real estate company A. On September 20 of the same year, the Pingdingshan Intermediate People's Court ruled to freeze the bank deposits of a construction company in Jiangsu and the company's claims against a real estate company, with a limit of 100 million yuan. On November 7 of the same year, the Pingdingshan Intermediate People's Court issued a civil mediation letter: a construction company in Jiangsu should pay a total of 92 million yuan in installments to Jin Mouming for steel and interest, and if a construction company in Jiangsu defaults, the debt amount will be calculated according to 98 million yuan.
"A construction company in Jiangsu was sentenced by the Changzhou Intermediate Court to assume huge debts on August 30, 2019, and the company's main property was seized and frozen by the Pingdingshan Intermediate Court on September 20, 2019. Such a large amount of money was actually settled through mediation? The plaintiff and the defendant in the Pingdingshan case are residents and enterprises in Liyang City, Jiangsu Province, respectively, but why did they go to Pingdingshan across provinces to file a lawsuit? Yan Haichao looked at the execution settlement agreement and the execution of the final ruling in front of him, and put many question marks in his heart.
On May 26, 2022, the Pingdingshan Municipal Procuratorate decided to file a case for investigation into the case of Jin Mouming v. a construction company in Jiangsu. In view of the fact that the case was likely to be a false lawsuit of collusion between the parties, and the amount of the subject matter was particularly huge, the court set up a special case team to carry out investigation and verification work in line with the principle of first investigating the basic circumstances of the case, collecting objective evidence, and avoiding alarming the parties.
The task force is studying the facts of the case.
A review of the dossier revealed clues
"To investigate and handle false litigation cases, we must first discover suspicious points and specific clues from the review of the file. Where false litigation involving multiple cases involves debts or enforcement in another case, special attention should be paid to the relationship between the cases. Yan Haichao said.
The investigation of the task force found that although Jin Mouming claimed that a construction company in Jiangsu owed him money for steel, he did not provide evidence of sales invoices and the source of steel procurement, and only provided sales contracts, delivery notes, and settlement agreements between the two parties, which could not form a complete chain of evidence, nor could it prove the total price of steel provided by Jin Mouming. In addition, the prosecutor found that Jin Mouming's case was full of suspicions-
First, the subject matter of Jin Mouming's litigation claim is about 98 million yuan, which is the sum of a construction company in Jiangsu that paid more than 4,400 yuan of steel and more than 2,000 yuan of "profit", and calculated the "interest" of more than 2,000 yuan. With such a high interest, the company has no objection?
Second, in several settlement agreements, the printed creditor was "Tang Moumou", and it was handwritten and changed to "Jin Mouming". In the lawsuit, a construction company in Jiangsu did not raise objections to the flaws in the evidence, and the trial process lacked confrontation.
Third, the Henan Provincial High Court rendered a judgment on June 8, 2020 in the case of a construction contract dispute between a construction company in Jiangsu and a real estate company, ordering that real estate company A should repay a construction company in Jiangsu with a project payment of 19.6 million yuan. The judgment shows that the total principal of the various litigation claims of a construction company in Jiangsu when it filed the lawsuit on June 5, 2018 was 98 million yuan, which happened to be consistent with the amount of the subject matter of the lawsuit in Jin's case.
On January 15, 2021, after Real Estate Company A transferred 19.6 million yuan of execution money to the account of the Pingdingshan Intermediate Court, Jin Mouming applied to the court for the execution of the mediation letter in the case of a construction company in Jiangsu. On the day when the enforcement money is obtained, the application for enforcement is withdrawn to the court. Doesn't the remaining 70 million yuan of debt need to be cashed out?
Fourth, after the Pingdingshan Intermediate Court deducted the enforcement fees, Jin Mouming transferred all the money to Shi Moufang and others on the day he got the 18.93 million yuan of enforcement money. Shi Moufang is the manager of the project department of the executed party, how can the execution money be returned to the person subject to execution?
By tracking the whereabouts of the execution money, the task force found that after Shi Moufang and others got the execution money, they transferred the execution money through multiple transfers, split the funds, and withdrawn large amounts of cash through multiple transfers, splitting the funds, and withdrawing large amounts of cash, and then transferred the execution funds by replacing other people's deposits. According to the registration status of a construction company in Jiangsu and the insurance information of employees, the people involved in the spin-off and the collection and transfer of the execution funds involved in the case are all employees of the company.
On June 22, 2022, the Pingdingshan Municipal Procuratorate transferred clues to the public security organs on the suspected false litigation crime of Jin Mouming and others based on the above information. However, after the preliminary investigation by the public security organs, nearly 530,000 yuan of execution funds have not been returned, and a complete closed loop of funds has not yet been formed, and Jin Mouming argued that he was a partner with Shi Moufang to supply steel to a construction company in Jiangsu, but the procurement and supply of steel were difficult to ascertain, and the public security organs decided not to file the case on September 1, 2022 on the grounds of insufficient existing evidence.
The task force inspected the real estate built by Real Estate Company A on the spot.
After the special case team went to the bank to obtain the transaction information of the accounts involved in the case, it found a breakthrough in the capital chain.
There is a breakthrough in the case handling in the capital chain
"It is often difficult to investigate and handle cross-provincial false litigation cases, and the difficulty lies in the collection of evidence, and it is difficult to identify them based on reading the case file and confessions." In order to thoroughly review and analyze the suspicious points related to the case, Yan Haichao and the members of the task force went to Liyang City, Jiangsu Province for a field visit.
In order to find out the hidden financial relationship, the task force retrieved tens of thousands of bank account transaction information, and in view of the omission of the preliminary investigation, focused on excavating and analyzing the flow information of each transaction and the cash deposit and withdrawal vouchers, and finally found a suspicious fund transaction: Jin Mouming's source of 530,000 yuan of litigation fees has a funding gap of 50,000 yuan, Shi Mouliang withdrew 50,000 yuan in cash that day, and 10 minutes later, Jin Mouming deposited 50,000 yuan in cash in another bank, and the two banks were only 100 meters apart.
Shi Mouliang and Shi Moufang, who received the execution money, are both surnamed Shi, what is the relationship between the two? The task force found out in a large number of judgment documents that Shi Mouliang was actually the son of Shi Mouping, chairman of a construction company in Jiangsu, and Shi Moufang was Shi Mouping's younger brother.
What's even more strange is that the task force found that both funds came from Shi Mouliang by tracking the source of Jin Mouming's payment of 530,000 yuan in litigation fees and the payment of lawyers' litigation agency fees. After the mediation was concluded, the court halved the refund of more than 260,000 yuan in litigation fees, which were finally transferred to Shi Moufang's daughter after splitting and transferring money many times.
After analyzing the details of the transfer of relevant steel sales funds, the task force found that Jin Mouming's funds for steel payments through Tang Mouquan's account came from Jiang Moufen and Shi Moufang, and Shi Moufang's funds also came from Jiang Moufen, and Jiang Moufen was the wife of Shi Mouping, chairman of a construction company in Jiangsu.
So far, the special case team of the Pingdingshan City Procuratorate has successfully confirmed that there is a closed loop of typical transactions of false litigation in the case, and the purpose of Jin Mouming's lawsuit against a construction company in Jiangsu has been clearly revealed: to help a construction company in Jiangsu evade the execution of a certain case in Jiang, and the target of its application for seizure and enforcement has always been clearly pointed to the claim of a construction company in Jiangsu against a real estate company A heard by the Henan Provincial High Court.
The closed loop of false litigation was confirmed, and the judgment was reversed
On September 27, 2023, the Pingdingshan Municipal Procuratorate submitted the case to the Henan Provincial Procuratorate for further review.
In the face of this major false litigation case with a subject amount of nearly 100 million yuan, the Henan Provincial Procuratorate reviewed and held that: Jin Mouming filed a lawsuit, applied for seizure and enforcement of the creditor's rights of a construction company in Jiangsu against a real estate company, so as to exclude Jiang's right to enforce the claims of a construction company in Jiangsu against a real estate company, the plaintiff's litigation fees and agency fees all came from the defendant, and the execution money and litigation fee refunds received by the plaintiff from the court eventually flowed to the accounts of the defendant's related personnel, and it has been confirmed that there is a closed loop of typical transactions of false litigation. It was confirmed that it was a sham lawsuit and a sham mediation, which seriously infringed upon the lawful rights and interests of stakeholders and obstructed judicial order.
On December 6, 2023, the Henan Provincial Procuratorate filed a protest with the Henan Provincial High Court against Jin Mouming against a construction company in Jiangsu over a dispute over a sales contract. The Henan Provincial High Court ruled to bring the case to trial.
On March 7 this year, the Henan Provincial High Court openly tried the case, and the Henan Provincial Procuratorate specially set up a protest team, and the prosecutors who appeared in court gave a detailed explanation of the litigation relationship, the identity relationship of the people involved in the case, the whereabouts of the flow of funds and the source, analyzed and explained them one by one, and fully exposed the truth of the false lawsuit in the case through comprehensive evidence. During the trial, although the parties tried their best to collude and defend themselves, all the lies were pale under the evidence presented by the procuratorate.
On April 30, the Henan Provincial High Court made a retrial judgment on the case, finding that the case was a false lawsuit filed by Jin Mouming and a construction company in Jiangsu in malicious collusion, and changed the judgment to reject Jin Mouming's litigation claim, revoke the original civil mediation document, and fine a construction company in Jiangsu 1 million yuan and Jin Mouming 100,000 yuan. At the same time, the Henan Provincial High Court and the Henan Provincial Procuratorate have transferred the clues involved in the false litigation to the public security organs.
(Source: Procuratorate Daily, Minsheng Weekly Edition Author: Dai Jia, Liu Lixin, Chen Yanpei)