Someone else carved your seal privately. As long as you don't sign the IOU and put your finger on it, you can claim that the IOU is forged and you don't have to bear the repayment responsibility. You can prove that you don't know, that his private credit is false, or that he is not responsible for other illegal acts, or you can sue the person who signed your name for compensation.

Here is a case that seems to be worth looking at;

On May 6th, 20 10, the Intermediate People's Court of Yulin City, Guangxi Province pronounced a sentence, upholding the judgment of Rong County People's Court that Ranting was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for forging IOUs and instructing witnesses to commit perjury.

The defendant Ran Ting was originally a part-time tour guide of a travel agency in Rong County. On July 8, 2008, Ranting's cohabiting boyfriend, Liang, made a question note to Mo because of his work relationship. A few days later, Ranting got the transcript of the problem from Liang, that is, using the blank part of the transcript that was not signed by Mo Moumou and stamped with his handprint, he forged the loan of Mo Moumou for 865,000 yuan in three times. On August 25th of the same year, Ranting filed a civil lawsuit in Xiangrong County People's Court with forged IOUs, demanding that Mo Moumou repay the loan, and instructed Wu to commit perjury to the court. The Rongxian People's Court accepted the case on the same day, and later, Wu and others made perjury. During the trial, Rong County People's Court found that Ranting's loan was suspected of forgery, so it was transferred to the public security organ for investigation.

After hearing the case, Rongxian People's Court held that Ranting's act of instructing others to make false statements to the judicial organs constituted a crime of obstruction of testimony, and sentenced the defendant Ranting to two years' imprisonment according to law.

Ranting appealed to the Yulin Intermediate People's Court on the grounds that his behavior did not cause the victim's property loss and the original sentence was too heavy.

After hearing the case, Yulin Intermediate People's Court held that Ranting's purpose did not succeed, but her act of instructing others to commit perjury disturbed the normal activities of the judicial organs. According to the degree of obstruction caused by Ranting's criminal behavior to the normal activities of the judicial organs and the consequences of social harm, the court of first instance sentenced Ranting to two years' imprisonment within the statutory penalty range, which conforms to the principle of suiting crime to punishment. Accordingly, it ruled that Ranting's appeal was rejected and the judgment of the court of first instance was upheld.