A civil contract dispute tripped two judges and lawyers to plead not guilty.
A civil contract dispute case was ruled for retrial, which led to three criminal cases and tripped two judges. On April 30, 2019, Wang Chengzhong, the former president of the Third People’s Court of Liaoyuan Intermediate People’s Court of Jilin Province, was heard in the second instance of Tonghua Intermediate People’s Court.
The Paper learned from the live broadcast of the trial that both the prosecution and the defense conducted cross-examination on the facts determined in the first instance judgment and the new evidence submitted in the second instance, and Wang Chengzhong’s defenders Xu Xin and Xiao Zhie defended him.
At the trial site, Wang Chengzhong shed tears several times. As in the first trial, he insisted that he was not instructed by others, and there was nothing wrong with his judgment. He also said, "If I were allowed to make another judgment, I would still make this judgment. If I didn’t do it, Zhang Chengzhong and Li Chengzhong would still do it."
After the trial lasted for 5 hours, the presiding judge announced an adjournment, and the next trial will be notified separately.
The civil case of forest right dispute was retried, and the judge of second instance was sentenced to three years in prison for perverting the law.
The Paper previously reported that the civil dispute that triggered the criminal case was triggered by the forest right of forest land.
On November 12, 2015, Guo Yonggui, who lives in Liaoyuan, and Guo Changxing, who lives in Changchun, signed the Agreement on Forest Tenure Transfer, which stipulated that Guo Yonggui would transfer all his 1150 mu forest tenure, but did not stipulate the price. The agreement was signed by Li Xiaoyan, Guo Yonggui’s agent, and Guo Changxing.
On the same day, Li Xiaoyan and Li Guohui, the third person authorized by Guo Changxing, signed a transfer agreement, stipulating that the transfer price was 6 million yuan. The next day, with the approval of Liaodong Forestry Bureau, the property right of the forest land involved was changed from Guo Yonggui to Guo Changxing’s name, and the transfer price in the agreement for filing was 600,000 yuan.
These three agreements with different prices laid the groundwork for the dispute between the two sides.
In December 2016, Guo Yonggui sued Guo Changxing, requesting that he be ordered to repay 5.42 million yuan (including 580,000 yuan transferred by Guo Changxing) for the transfer of forest rights. Guo Changxing believes that there is no buying and selling relationship between the two parties, but only an entrusted transfer relationship; If the sale is confirmed, the transfer price shall be 600,000 yuan filed by Forestry Bureau.
The dongliao county court found in the first instance that the relationship between the buyer and the seller was established, and sentenced the defendant Guo Changxing to pay the plaintiff Guo Yonggui 5.42 million yuan for the transfer of forest rights and forest land. Because he refused to accept the judgment of the first instance, Guo Changxing appealed to Liaoyuan Intermediate People’s Court, and the case was assigned to Wang Chengzhong, the former president of the Third People’s Court.
On June 26, 2017, Liaoyuan Intermediate People’s Court made a final judgment, dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment. The judgment of the second instance held that the price of the 600,000 transfer agreement filed with the Forestry Bureau was obviously inconsistent with the actual value, which was falsely issued by both parties to circumvent the law and was an invalid agreement.
However, the final review did not end the case.
In September 2017, the Judicial Committee of Liaoyuan Intermediate People’s Court held that the second-instance judgment of the case was indeed wrong and made a ruling on retrial of the case. One day later, Wang Chengzhong was criminally detained on suspicion of perverting the law in civil cases. The public prosecutor accused Wang Chengzhong of "deliberately refusing to accept the evidence that should be accepted and not investigating the facts that should be investigated and verified", and the final judgment made caused great economic losses to the appellant.
On February 9, 2018, the Xi ‘an District Court of Liaoyuan City made a first-instance judgment, and found that Wang Chengzhong was guilty of civil defamation and sentenced to three years in prison. Wang Chengzhong refused to accept the verdict and appealed. On November 22, the Higher People’s Court of Jilin Province made a decision to designate the case to Tonghua Intermediate People’s Court for trial in accordance with the criminal second instance procedure.
Four focuses of the second trial
In the trial of the second instance held on April 30th, both the prosecution and the defense conducted cross-examination on the facts ascertained in the judgment of the first instance and the new evidence submitted in the second instance. The Paper sorted out the four focuses of the second trial of the case according to the live broadcast of the trial.
1. "Inspiring" and "Greeting"
The prosecutor of the first instance once accused Li Xiaoyan’s wife and police officer Jin Baohua of Liaoyuan Intermediate People’s Court of asking Wang Chengzhong first, and then transferred the case to Wang Chengzhong after operation. The judgment of the first instance found that Wang Chengzhong "hinted" that two colleagues should take care of Guo Yonggui during the collegiate bench, and the fact was established.
At the second trial, Wang Chengzhong argued in court that the case was originally distributed to Zhao Yanxia, a judge of the Fourth People’s Court, through the division system, and was later redistributed to him because of the disharmony between Zhao Yanxia and Jin Baoyan, then vice president of Liaoyuan Intermediate People’s Court. Wang Chengzhong said that because he knew that the case involved hospital leaders, he reported to Li Ping, the leader of the competent hospital, three times during the handling of the case and formed four written reports.
According to Southern Weekend, a total of five people from the filing court, the trial management office and the Fourth People’s Court of Liaoyuan Intermediate People’s Court gave testimony to explain the case transfer process, without mentioning Wang Chengzhong’s participation, and the testimony was cross-examined by the defendant and the defender in court, but the first-instance judgment was not recognized.
Defender Xu Xin pointed out that Wang Chengzhong had never met Li Xiaoyan and Jin Baohua after taking over the case, nor had he accepted a dinner party. Xu Xin believed that "asking for help" should be a two-way behavior. At present, there is no evidence to prove that he accepted the request, and the statement that "Wang Chengzhong was instructed by Jin Baohua" in the indictment was only reflected in the judgment of first instance as "influenced by Jin Baohua".
The first-instance judgment found that Wang Chengzhong admitted that he had informed Wang Yiyuan and Wang Tao of the background of the case. The testimony of two colleagues said that it must have been greeted by the top, and Wang Chengzhong "reminded us" to take care of "the family of Dean Jin".
Defender Xiao Zhie believes that Wang Chengzhong told Wang Tao and Wang Yiyuan the background of the case, which may be a request for "care" or a reminder of risks. The judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court on the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that the speculative, critical and inferential testimony of witnesses shall not be used as evidence.
2. repentance
At the trial of the first instance, the public prosecutor showed the court a handwritten repentance book by Wang Chengzhong. In the repentance book, Wang Chengzhong said that due to Jin Baoyan and Jin Baohua’s intercession, they tried the case in a preconceived and tendentious way and wrongly identified the facts, thus maintaining the judgment of the first instance and leading to the occurrence of wrong cases.
In the court of second instance, Wang Chengzhong said that the content of the repentance book was untrue, "it was written under the instructions of the relevant leaders." Defender Xu Xin said that he found that on September 3, 2017, investigators took Wang Chengzhong away from the interrogation room when they asked him to write a repentance book with paper and pen, and also explicitly said "write again in another place". Xu Xin believes that this repentance should be excluded as illegal evidence.
In this regard, the second-instance court prosecutor said that there is no evidence that the repentance book was not written by Wang Chengzhong voluntarily, and the content is true and the source is legal.
3. "buying and selling" vs "selling"
In the court of second instance, Wang Chengzhong insisted that the civil ruling he made on June 26, 2017 was completely legal and objective.
The prosecutor in court said that Wang Chengzhong mistakenly identified the entrusted transfer relationship between Guo Changxing and Guo Yonggui as a buying and selling relationship. At the trial of the first instance, the public prosecution agency presented the criminal file of Li Xiaoyan’s alleged fraud case. The public prosecutor believes that the signing of the 6 million yuan contract was made in order to deceive Li Xiaoyan’s creditors, not what Guo Changxing really meant, which can confirm Li Xiaoyan’s fraud.
According to the trial video of Li Xiaoyan’s alleged fraud case released by China Trial Network, Li Xiaoyan was accused of defrauding others’ property by using fictional facts for the purpose of illegal possession, which was suspected of fraud. The prosecution believes that Li Xiaoyan owed Guo Changxing 1.3 million yuan since 2010. After signing the forest land transfer agreement with Guo Changxing in 2015, the price and time were not clearly agreed. In 2016, Li Xiaoyan sued Guo Changxing with a forest land transfer agreement with a price of 6 million yuan signed on behalf of Guo Changxing, and both judgments won, resulting in the freezing of Guo Changxing’s stock account and agricultural bank card.
Defender Xiao Zhie believes that Wang Chengzhong, as a civil judge, has no obligation to obtain evidence ex officio. Xu Xin believes that Wang Chengzhong can only be responsible for the facts and evidence of the case he tried, and cannot be responsible for the facts and evidence outside the case. "What’s more, the facts of civil cases involve fraud by a third party in civil cases."
4. Yin-Yang contract
Regarding the basis for accepting the 6 million contract, Wang Chengzhong responded that at the second trial, Guo Changxing, as the appellant, had no other evidence except providing an evaluation report, and no one applied to the court for appraisal, but entrusted it by himself. Wang Chengzhong said that the result of the appraisal at that time was nearly 2 million yuan, much higher than the price of 600,000 yuan. "Guo Changxing himself thinks that it is more than 600,000 yuan, so it is obviously unreasonable for the court to accept 600,000 yuan."
In addition, Guo Yonggui said in the first trial of the forest right case that the 600,000 yuan agreement was signed for tax avoidance, and admitted in the second trial that he did not pay taxes at the time of transfer. Wang Chengzhong believes that the 600,000-yuan agreement is issued in a virtual way to circumvent the law and is an invalid agreement.
The defender submitted new evidence at the second trial, saying that the handwriting appraisal of Liaoyuan Public Security Bureau proved that Guo Changxing’s signature in the three agreements mentioned above was not made by himself. Xu Xin believes that handwriting identification can prove that the 600,000 yuan agreement is false, and Wang Chengzhong’s choice not to accept the letter is correct.
The prosecutor in court believes that the evidence has nothing to do with the case.
After the trial lasted for 5 hours, the presiding judge announced an adjournment, and the next trial will be notified separately.
Franco-prussian station:
The Paper noted that in civil trials, a judge’s misjudgment is not necessarily a miscarriage of justice. According to the "Provisions of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on the Standards for Filing Cases of Dereliction of Duty and Infringement Crimes", there are six types of cases in which civil and administrative crimes of perverting the law should be filed:
1. There are three main types to see the results of perverting the law:
(1) the parties suicide and other consequences.
(2) causing great personal economic losses.
(3) significant economic losses of legal persons and other organizations (all of which have specific amount requirements).
2. There are three main types of perverting the law:
(4) Forge or alter materials and evidence, and create a false case.
(5) colluding with the parties to create perjury, destroying evidence or tampering with court transcripts.
⑥ Admitting evidence for selfish reasons, knowing that it is forged or altered, or deliberately refusing to accept evidence that should be accepted, or deliberately violating legal procedures, or deliberately applying the law wrongly.