Case Facts

The public prosecution agency is the Zhanhe District People’s Procuratorate of Pingdingshan City, Henan Province.

The defendant Ma Jinchao, male, born on January 19, 1952, Han nationality, was a former employee of the China Construction Second Engineering Bureau Mechanized Construction Company.

On September 29, 1988, the China Construction Second Engineering Bureau Mechanized Construction Company (hereinafter referred to as the Machinery Construction Company) Labor Service Company signed an internal contract with Ma Jinchao, an employee of the unit, and Ma Jinchao contracted the labor Silk carpet factory affiliated to the service company. From July 1989 to September 1991, Jishi Company decided to liquidate the assets of the silk carpet factory and established an audit team. With the cooperation of Ma Jinchao, the audit team liquidated all the assets of the silk carpet factory. Based on the relevant information, claims, and debts provided by Ma Jinchao, the audit team conducted an investigation and issued an audit report. The audit results showed that the total debt of the silk carpet factory in September 1991 was 582,582.90 yuan. The total debt of 582,582.90 yuan includes 500 yuan owed to Dong Gai (Ma Jinchao’s wife, fugitive), 2,946.78 yuan to Dong Tinghuai (Ma Jinchao’s brother-in-law, fugitive), and 3,800 yuan owed to Dong Suying (Ma Jinchao’s sister-in-law, deceased).

In October 2000, Dong Gai, Dong Tinghuai, and Dong Suying borrowed the silk carpet factory from November 6, 1988 to April 3, 1990, with RMB 402,600 (excluding the handover of the silk carpet factory). The accounts showed that they owed 500 yuan to Dong Gai, 2946.78 yuan to Dong Tinghuai, and 3800 yuan to Dong Suying), and presented to him with Ma Jinchao 6 copies of the bottom line written by Ma himself and printed on a carbon paper set with the official seal of the silk carpet factory. He filed a lawsuit with the Xinhua District People's Court of Pingdingshan City, requesting that Jishi Company be ordered to pay the so-called loan principal, interest and liquidated damages. Ma Jinchao appeared in court as a witness to testify and provided the court with a large amount of false evidence to prove the fact of the loan. On April 22, 2002, the Xinhua District People's Court of Pingdingshan City entrusted relevant departments to identify relevant evidence during the trial, and on July 1 of the same year, it ruled to reject the litigation claims of Dong Gai and three others; Dong Gai and three others refused to accept The verdict was appealed, and on November 8 of the same year, the Pingdingshan Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict.

During 2001, after premeditation, Ma Jinchao and Xiao Ting'an (handled in another case) issued a debt note with official seal made by Ma Xiangxiao using the same method as above. The note stated "1988 On December 28, Xiao Ting'an borrowed RMB 50,000 in cash. The monthly interest is 25%, and the annual interest rate shall be paid in full once. If the interest cannot be repaid as agreed, a default penalty of 1% will be paid per month based on the total principal and interest owed. The interest will be paid once a year. The loan period is uncertain and the principal and interest may be paid off at any time. China Construction Second Bureau Silk Carpet Factory Ma Jinchao, December 28, 1988." Xiao Ting'an then filed a lawsuit with the Xigong District People's Court of Luoyang City as a creditor as the plaintiff. Ma Jinchao also appeared in court as a witness and provided false evidence to prove that the loan was true. On August 15, 2001, the Xigong District Court of Luoyang City ruled that Jishi Company should pay Xiao Ting'an a loan of 50,000 yuan. The interest on the loan will be calculated at a monthly interest rate of 2.5% on the 50,000 yuan from December 28, 1988 until the date of repayment of the loan principal. . Jishi Company was dissatisfied with the verdict and appealed. In November 2003, the Intermediate People's Court of Luoyang City rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment with the judgment that "Although there are flaws in the debt note, it does not affect the evidential validity of the debt note". The case has entered the enforcement process. Jishi Company A complaint has been lodged with the Henan Provincial Higher People's Court.

On March 13, 2003, Ma Jinchao and Ma Lansi (female, at large) took the second line of the IOU written by Ma Jinchao and printed on a carbon paper sleeve (stamped with the official seal of the silk carpet factory), saying that the silk carpet factory was in Before November 13, 1991, Malansi borrowed a total of 774,293.50 yuan in multiple installments. Malansi filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Yichuan County, Luoyang City as a creditor as a plaintiff. Ma Jinchao also provided false evidence to prove that the loan was true and requested a judgment. Order Jishi Company to repay the so-called loan and interest, and the Yichuan County Court will then file a case for trial.

Trial

The Zhanhe District Court held that the defendant Ma Jinchao, together with others, repeatedly forged IOUs and relevant evidence, fabricated facts, and used facts that did not exist but seemed to be true as evidence. According to this, for the purpose of defrauding the victim of large sums of money, by using the means of civil litigation and judicial coercion, although the company did not directly defraud the victim, it deceived the People's Court, the referee of the civil dispute, and made the People's Court The evidence and facts provided are believed to be true and relied on to make a judgment that is contrary to the truth, causing the victim to suffer undue legal censure, and this censure is guaranteed by the state's coercive force. The victim is therefore blamed for not voluntarily handing over the property. , but had to hand it over due to judicial coercion. Having to hand it over is of course against the victim's wishes, and it also satisfies the purpose of the crime. Defendant Ma Jinchao's behavior has constituted the crime of fraud. The public prosecution agency accused the defendant Ma Jinchao of committing fraud. The basic facts were clear and the accusation was found guilty. This court confirmed it.

Defendant Ma Jinchao and the defender argued that it was true that the silk carpet factory owed money to Dong Gai, Dong Tinghuai, Dong Suying, Xiao Tingan, and Malansi. It was clearly recorded in the accounts handed over to the company by the silk carpet factory in 1991, and the company had The signature certificate of accountant Yang Dedi has been handed over. The appraisal conclusion of Southwest University of Political Science and Law concluded that Yang Dedi's signature was not written by himself. Because the sample based on the appraisal was not authentic, the appraisal was also untrue. Ma's behavior did not constitute a crime of fraud. However, the defendant Ma Although Jinchao and his defender raised objections for the above reasons during the trial, they did not apply for re-appraisal or provide corresponding evidence. They also had a list of "receivables and payables" written by the defendant Ma Jinchao and a list of accounts payable in November 1991. The situation statements written on December 13, December 9, and September 23, 1999 confirmed the fact that the silk carpet factory did not owe Dong Gai, Dong Suying, Dong Tinghuai, Xiao Tingan, and Malan silk money. Therefore, his defense reasons cannot be established, and his opinion of innocence is inconsistent with the facts proved by the court, so his reasons cannot be established, and this court will not accept it. The defendant Ma Jinchao failed to obtain property due to reasons other than his will, and should be convicted and punished for attempted fraud according to law. The public prosecution agency recommended that the defendant Ma Jinchao be punished for attempted fraud. This court accepted the opinion, and he may be given a lighter punishment in accordance with the law. In accordance with the provisions of Articles 266, 23, and 25 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the verdict is as follows: The defendant Ma Jinchao committed the crime of fraud (attempted) and was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment. Ten years, and a fine of RMB 100,000 shall be paid within ten days after the judgment takes effect.