A rural commercial bank v. a bank in a contract dispute case
-- Determination of the requirements for accepting civil cases in intersecting civil and criminal cases
keyword
- civil
- contract
- Civil and criminal intersections
- Civil cases are accepted
- Same legal relationship
- Same subject
Basic facts of the case
A rural commercial bank claimed that a third-party asset management company initiated the establishment of the first phase of the asset management plan of "Wanjia Win-Win Xingyiyonghe No. 6 Special Asset Management Plan", with an amount of 200 million yuan, a starting and ending date from August 25, 2014 to August 25, 2016, and an expected annualized rate of return of 8.7%. The third party claimed that the beneficiary rights of the asset management plan were guaranteed by a bank. At the same time, a rural commercial bank and a bank signed an Asset Business Cooperation Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Cooperation Agreement"), stipulating that the bank should transfer the beneficiary rights of the asset management on August 25, 2016 and pay the transfer price of the beneficiary rights in a lump sum. According to the requirements of a bank, an asset management company of a third party signed a "Financing Business Entrustment Management Contract" with the Jingxian branch of a bank, stipulating that the financier shall open a bank account in the Jingxian branch, and the use of the financing funds by the financier shall be reviewed and approved by the Jingxian branch, and the Jingxian branch shall have the right to reject the application of the financier for the use of funds. After the above-mentioned contract was signed, a rural commercial bank entrusted the Yiwu Branch of Industrial Bank to pay the price of 200 million yuan for the beneficiary rights, and the asset management company remitted the 200 million yuan to the bank account of the financier in the Jingxian branch of a bank after receiving the price of 200 million yuan. The financier paid the interest before April 29, 2015 as agreed, and has not paid the interest since April 30, 2015, and has not paid the repurchase price after maturity. According to the Cooperation Agreement signed between a rural commercial bank and a bank, the bank should transfer the beneficiary rights of asset management on August 25, 2016 and pay the transfer price of the beneficiary rights in a lump sum. A bank refused to take responsibility on the grounds that Li Moumou, the vice chairman of the board of directors who handled the business, was suspected of committing a crime, so it sued the court. Request for an Order: 1. Order a bank to pay RMB 200 million for the transfer price of the beneficiary rights of asset management, RMB 23,345,000 in interest due and interest calculated at an annual rate of 8.7% from August 25, 2016 to the date of repayment; 2. A judgment was made on a bank to pay liquidated damages calculated at 5/10,000 of the transfer price payable of RMB 223,345,000 from August 25, 2016 to the date of repayment.
The court found through trial that the indictment of Hengshui Municipal People's Procuratorate Heng Jian Public Prosecution Criminal Prosecution [2016] No. 46 submitted by both parties stated that in order to defraud foreign bank funds, between the end of 2012 and 2014, the defendant Xiao instructed relevant personnel to forge a number of official seals of a bank and the seal of the legal representative "Cui Mouyi", and forged the financial statements of the financing enterprise, the basic information of a bank, internal data statements and other materials, and used the above-mentioned privately engraved seal of a bank to make a credit approval form and credit review report of a financing enterpriseand release false information that a bank can provide back-up guarantees for financing enterprises, and contact the lending bank through an intermediary company. During this period, defendant Xiao colluded with defendant Li and instructed him to use his status as vice chairman of a bank and office space to help defraud funds. When the staff of the lending bank conducted due diligence and signed in person, the defendants Li XX and others jointly defrauded the trust of the staff of the lending bank according to Xiao's arrangement of labor, and used the above-mentioned forged seals to sign the "Forward Transfer Agreement of the Right to Benefit from the Directional Asset Management Plan", the "Agreement on the Transfer of the Right to the Benefit of the Asset Management Plan" or the "Letter of Loan Guarantee" with the lending bank. From May 2013 to January 2015, defendant Xiao, together with Li and others, defrauded a rural commercial bank Co., Ltd., a bank co., LTD., and a rural commercial bank with a total of RMB 1.72 billion in the names of Hequ Xinsheng, Hengshui Xiangli Company, Aodelong Company, and Hequ Yongxing through the above-mentioned means, and all the above defrauded funds were at the disposal of Xuguang Industrial Group. At the time of the incident, divided by the name of interest payment, the funds were returned to RMB 102,061,422,360, and a total of RMB 1,617,938,577,640 was actually defrauded. At present, the "5.04" major criminal case has been tried in the Hengshui Intermediate People's Court of Hebei Province from June 19 to June 23, 2018.
On March 17, 2017, the Hebei Provincial High People's Court rendered the (2017) Ji Min Chu No. 16 Civil Ruling: it ruled that the lawsuit against a rural commercial bank would not be accepted. Dissatisfied, a rural commercial bank appealed to the Supreme People's Court. On June 21, 2017, the Supreme People's Court rendered the (2017) Zui Gao Fa Min Zhong No. 303 Ruling, so it ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the original ruling. Dissatisfied, a rural commercial bank applied to the Supreme People's Court for a retrial. On November 11, 2019, the Supreme People's Court rendered the (2019) Zui Gao Fa Min Zai No. 230 Retrial Ruling: revoking the (2017) Zui Gao Fa Min Zhong No. 303 Civil Ruling of the Supreme People's Court and the (2017) Ji Min Chu No. 16 Civil Ruling of the Hebei Provincial High People's Court; The case was filed and accepted by the Hebei Provincial High People's Court.
Reasons for the Adjudication
The effective judgment of the court held that a rural commercial bank asserted that the "Asset Business Cooperation Agreement" was signed by Li Mouhuai, then vice chairman of a bank, on behalf of a bank, and that it had issued various certificates of a bank, audited three-year financial statements of a bank, a letter of authorization of a bank's legal person, a letter of authorization of the legal representative of a bank and other supporting documents to a rural commercial bank when signing the contract, and that the place where the contract was signed was the office of Li Mouhuai, vice chairman of a bank, and that the bank should bear corresponding civil liability for constituting an apparent agency or fault. However, whether the claims of a certain rural commercial bank are valid and whether there is evidence to support them needs to accept the case and go through substantive trial and adjudication, and it is improper to directly reject it. According to Article 187 of the General Provisions of the People's Republic of China Civil Law, "where a civil subject shall bear civil, administrative and criminal liability for the same act, the assumption of administrative or criminal liability does not affect the bearing of civil liability; Where the civil entity's assets are insufficient to pay, priority is given to the use of civil liability. Even if the above-mentioned facts of the suspected contract fraud crime are the same as the Assets Business Cooperation Agreement in this case, they may face the issue of civil liability, and the civil case cannot simply be dismissed on the grounds that the act constitutes a crime. Since there is objectively a civil dispute in this case, and the parties to the lawsuit in this case are not defendants in the criminal case, and the facts and criminal cases are not exactly the same facts, it is reasonable to determine whether they should bear civil liability after acceptance.
Summary of the trial
Where the legally-designated representative, responsible person, or other staff of a legal person or unincorporated organization is suspected of a criminal offense or is found to have constituted a crime by a criminal judgment, and the victim requests that the legal person or unincorporated organization bear civil liability, the people's court shall accept this because the party being sued is not a defendant in the criminal case, the basic facts of the prosecution are whether the criminal defendant's conduct constitutes apparent representation, and the criminal case is not entirely the same fact.
Associate indexes
Article 187 of the People's Republic of China Civil Code (Article 187 of the General Provisions of the People's Republic of China Civil Law, which came into effect in 2017, is applicable in this case)
First instance: Hebei Provincial High People's Court (2017) Ji Min Chu No. 16 Civil Ruling (March 17, 2017)
Second instance: Supreme People's Court (2017) Zui Gao Fa Min Zhong No. 303 Civil Ruling (June 21, 2017)
Retrial: Supreme People's Court (2019) Zui Gao Fa Min Zai No. 230 Civil Ruling (November 11, 2019)