Dong Jun, born in 1977, was born in Shengxiao Xiaoxing. He once said in the video that Dong Jun, the founder of Pinti, had to buy clothes from the United States, "only wearing a pair of underwear". (Video at the end)

So, how did Dong Jun rapidly develop from a pauper with only one pair of underwear to control a number of listed companies in a few years?

Today, let's reveal the fate of Ti Dong Jun-Sickle through the court judgment:

The first step, first when leeks learn sickle:

(20 13) No.69, Zi Chu, Cummins

(20 14) Gao Yunmin Zhong Er Zi No.34

(20 14) Kun Zhi Min Zi No.716-1

In this case, Dong Jun's role is exactly the same as that of today's building block victims! Dong Jun used to be a leek.

In 20 10, 33-year-old partners of Yunnan Company, such as Xing, signed loan contracts and guarantee contracts with Zhongxiang Company and Zheng Mohong, and lent Zhongxiang 765,438+069,000 yuan. After the expiration, Zhong Xiang didn't pay back the money. Zhong Ming sued Zhongxiang Company for paying back the money.

Zhong Xiang used a sickle: denying the loan relationship, denying the guarantee relationship, denying the receipt of money, denying the signature and seal, emptying the assets under his name and other means to breach the contract.

Dong Jun narrowly won the second trial, but when he applied for enforcement, he found that there was no real estate under Zhongxiang's name. At this point, the whole set of sickles, Dong Jun experience. (below)

Visible, the so-called sickle, is after borrowing other people's money, through cheap means to:

1. Deny the loan relationship,

2. Deny the guarantee relationship,

3. Stealing and denying the signature seal,

4. Disrupt the transfer process with a large number of empty shell accounts or deny receiving the money.

5. Delete and modify transaction evidence, such as contracts and web pages.

6. A series of methods, such as emptying the assets under one's name, can achieve the purpose of relying on historical interest, refusing to accept the account and not paying back the money, and the plaintiff wins the case-that is, legitimate fraud.

Step two, try the sickle.

After the sickle, Dong Jun immediately changed from leek to sickle.

Jia Mou case, female, (20 14) Kun Min San Chu Zi No. 143.

Duan Moping, female, (20 18) Yun01Minchu 2309, 231,23 12, 23 13, 23/kloc-.

Zhu case, female, (20 13)? Number 74, number 75, etc. This case was committed by Zhongxiang Industry, in which Dong Jun holds 20% of the shares.

Pan's case, female, (20 17) No.945 of Minchuyun 0 102.

........

In the end, the plaintiff didn't want the money back.

There are too many case numbers here. Let's go and see for ourselves. The content is the same. It's the same old trick. After borrowing millions from others, they don't recognize the interest and don't pay back the money.

It is worth mentioning that most of the victims selected by Dong Jun are women. The trait of bullying and being afraid of hard work is appropriate.

Step three, scythe.

Compared with the previous tens of millions of cases, the sickle really shows the building block case with tens of billions of loans at the peak. ?

The application of sickle in the case of building blocks, or repeat that set:

Immediately after the storm, the loan contract was deleted, the guarantee page of the dome plan was deleted, the evidence on the transaction page was deleted, the transaction App was deleted, the loan relationship was denied, and the guarantee relationship was denied. A large number of empty shell accounts disrupted the transfer process, and the building blocks were refused to accept money. Dong Jun became three people. .....

To sum up, it is not difficult to see:

Sickle, as a skill skillfully used by Dong Jun for many years, has been used repeatedly in civil cases for ten years. Because of loopholes in contract law, the victim's inexperience, difficulties in presenting evidence, the evidence being deleted and even judicial corruption, the victim has been dumb enough to eat Rhizoma Coptidis and no longer wants his money.

Civil litigation, including criminal conviction of non-abetting crimes, cannot solve this well-designed fraud. Only when the building block case is characterized as contract fraud or fraud, it is possible to recover the lender's eight-year principal and historical interest.

Building blocks have been filed for more than a year. If this old sickle trick of ten years ago can be repeated with the attention of tens of millions of money lenders and media all over the country, and if Dong Jun's premeditated fraud only needs to make up the difference according to the crime of non-storage, it can "legally" devour the huge historical interest generated by occupying tens of billions of funds for eight years. If the relevant departments do not plug the loopholes in the law, it will be of great significance to the legalization and modernization process of China as a whole.

I wonder, among these tens of millions of mutual lenders, who will be the next sickle and continue to "legally" endanger the socialist market economic order in this way?