On June 7, 2014, Liu Moumou, a businessman from Inner Mongolia, was criminally detained by the Public Security Department of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region on suspicion of bribery of non-State officials; on July 14 of the same year, his arrest was approved by the People's Procuratorate of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region for the crimes of contract fraud and bribery of non-State officials. As a result, Liu and the other five co-defendants experienced nearly a decade of imprisonment for investigation, prosecution, first trial, second trial, retrial, and then second trial.
On May 3, 2017, the Baotou Intermediate People's Court made a guilty verdict against Liu: “Defendant Liu Moumou is guilty of contract fraud and sentenced to life imprisonment, deprivation of political rights for life, and confiscation of all personal property ......” The other five co-defendants in the case were also All were convicted of fraud and sentenced to heavy punishment.
After this case was appealed, according to the defendant's wishes, the family found the lawyers Tian Wenchang and Cao Shuchang of Beijing King&Capital Law Firm through their friends. At this point, we accompanied the defendant on a long journey to seek fairness and justice.
Rain and wind, only fine but diligent. After more than six years of hard work by Mr. Tian Wenchang and Mr. Cao Shuchang, during which time the case was remanded by the High Court for a retrial and a second trial. Until January 11, 2024, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Higher People's Court finally made a final judgment, revoke the Baotou Intermediate People's Court retrial made: “the defendant Liu Moumou guilty of contract fraud, sentenced to fifteen years of imprisonment and a fine of nine million yuan.” The second first instance judgment.
So far, after more than nine years in custody, Liu Moumou finally reunited with his family.
A difficult and decisive first step
In June 2017, King&Capital law firm with the defendant's family contract, Tian Wenchang, Cao Shuchang through the reading of the file, meet the defendant and a comprehensive understanding of the case, that: the defendant Liu Moumou in the borrowing process did not fabricate the facts, conceal the truth; and its large assets are enough to pay back the borrowed money, and his own repeated willingness to pay back the loan, there is no purpose of illegal appropriation, does not constitute a crime of fraud.
In order to verify our views carefully handle this case, but also specifically hired Gao Mingxuan, Zhao Bingzhi, Cui Jianyuan, Lu Jianping, Ruan Qilin, Che Hao and other criminal law experts on the case. The expert's conclusion fits with our judgment: “Liu moumou objectively did not implement the deception of fictitious, conceal their repayment ability and willingness to repay, subjectively does not have the purpose of illegal possession of the embezzlement of borrowed money, so his behavior does not constitute contract fraud. ”
On the basis of thorough preparation, we met with the presiding judge of the case on July 28 of the same year, elaborating on the view that the crime of contract fraud could not be established, presenting the Expert Opinion and our Legal Opinion. Subsequently, we continued to receive calls from the court urging us to submit a defense statement, judging that the case would most likely be upheld in a written trial, and that the direction was not optimistic.
Under such severe circumstances, we reflected to the relevant departments through various channels, and finally met with the leaders of the Criminal Division of the High Court, and submitted our “Reflections on Emergency Situations”, hoping that the trial would be held in accordance with the law.
Thereafter, we still relentlessly fought for the progress of the case, but in the middle we were still caught in the cycle of communication and waiting.
Second, the long struggle and wait
Our series of efforts finally made the first step of progress: the Higher People's Court of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region issued a ruling on May 2, 2018: the criminal verdict of the Baotou Intermediate People's Court (2015) Baotou Criminal No. 26 was revoked, and the case was remanded back to the Baotou Intermediate People's Court for a new trial.
After the case was remanded for retrial, the Provincial Public Security Bureau conducted additional investigations; the Baotou Intermediate Court held a pre-trial conference on January 8, 9, and 10, 2020, and the case was heard in public session from August 10 - 13, 2020.
Resistance and waiting time is always particularly long, in the blink of an eye is another 3 years. During this period, our two lawyers constantly running, many times to communicate, in the case of a number of calls are unable to advance the pace of the defense, field communication to promote the progress of the case, and actively appear in court to respond to the lawsuit, reasoned and argued.
Finally, “although late but to” the first “victory”, let us feel gratified. 2021 July 12, Baotou intermediate people's court verdict: the defendant Liu Yongsheng guilty of contract fraud, sentenced to fifteen years of imprisonment, and a fine of 900 yuan. million yuan; guilty of bribery of non-state staff, sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment; and decided to carry out the sentence of sixteen years of imprisonment and a fine of 9 million yuan. The limited result of this effort was that the sentence was changed from life imprisonment to a term of imprisonment, and the additional sentence was changed from confiscation of all personal property to a fine, but the charge of contract fraud remained.
There was a hint of joy in this outcome, and our efforts were rewarded. However, the characterization of the case has not been corrected, and this kind of gaming compromise “limited” justice is not real justice. In the initial success, we are still persevering, guiding the defendant to continue to appeal request, quickly organize the appeal materials, and legal issues on the dismantling and research, from the legal theory, practice and other perspectives, to promote the resolution of the case.
Third, justice has finally come
Another three years have passed, and the hardships in between are self-evident.
On January 11, 2024, the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Higher People's Court finally made the second second instance judgment, revoked the Baotou Intermediate People's Court on Liu Yongsheng contract fraud, only found Liu guilty of bribery of non-state workers, sentenced to two years and six months in prison. At this point, the whole case of contract fraud was completely denied, other co-defendants were also able to edict snow at the same time.
This result means that since June 7, 2014, until January 2024, the defendant Liu Moumou has been detained in the detention center for nearly ten years. Liu Moumou and his family embraced each other when he could not help but lament this prison time, which is an undeserved disaster.
Liu Moumou contract fraud case, from the initial sentence of life imprisonment, deprivation of political rights for life, and confiscation of all personal property felonies, to the complete determination of innocence, the difference between the two, relying on the unremitting efforts of lawyers, but also thanks to the court's fairness of discretion. Both are complementary and indispensable.
However, although the law finally returned to Liu Moumou a justice, this justice is too difficult to come, more too late. Late justice is also justice, but because of the late and brewed a tragedy. This is a defendant's tragedy, but also tens of millions of defendants are wronged epitome, often accompanied by countless families behind the wreckage, business bankruptcy and even a series of tragedy.
It is worth pondering and paying attention to: the deep-seated reason for the late justice in this case does not lie in the case itself, but in the inexplicability of its background. Why, originally is a clear lending relationship, in Liu Yongsheng and other defendants have enough fixed assets have the ability to repay and willing to repay the case, the creditor but refused to accept the assets must be held criminally liable, and the first instance to judgment of confiscation of property? And more puzzling is: in the retrial of the first instance defense to the court put forward to the victim to verify the evidence of the trial, and in court, the court declared that, after inquiries, as the creditor has been “out of touch” do not know where to go. And its litigation agent is still sitting in court to participate in the proceedings, the defense asked the agent about this matter, the other side but avoided answering. For such a can not find the “victim”, can not find the object of debt repayment, and even the agent is not known to the whereabouts of the principal of the fraud case, the trial court still made a guilty verdict!
How deep is the water behind this case? It is extremely frightening to think about!
As lawyers, we really do not want such a tragedy to happen again.
Finally, I would like to submit this case in the “to a certain so-and-so president of the emergency reflect” an article for the benefit of readers, I hope that more criminal defense lawyers can run for justice, for the rule of law in the world to advocate and call.
To a so-and-so dean's emergency reflect
Honorable president so-and-so:
Beijing King&Capital law firm accepted the commission assigned TianWenChang, CaoShuChang two lawyers as “your court is currently under trial, Baotou intermediate people's court for the first trial of ChangMou, LiuMouMou and so on for the defendant's contract fraud case” of the second trial defender. Intervene in this case, we meet with the defendant to understand the situation, review the relevant file materials. The amount of money involved in this case is as high as 500 million yuan, and the penalty imposed in the first trial is as heavy as life imprisonment, which is a big case in Inner Mongolia. The handling of this case will certainly have an impact on the economic development and rule of law environment in Inner Mongolia. We believe that the case of the first instance verdict [(20xx) package criminal second initial word No. xx] there are serious errors, the second trial appeared to be more urgent, so I write to you, I hope to be able to pay attention to in the busy schedule:
1, the first trial found that the defendant Liu moumou guilty of contract fraud, section to life imprisonment error is obvious
According to the first trial of the relevant evidence and the court of first instance found that the facts, (1) the defendant Liu moumou in the loan contract signing, fulfillment process, there is no any fictitious facts, concealment of the truth of the fraud; (2) due to the Ordos real estate market sudden change, make the loan due to repayment of the difficulties, but there is evidence that the defendant Liu moumou repayment will be clear, repayment of the attitude is positive; (3) with the loan contract At the same time signed mortgage contract, guarantee contract are true and effective, and the assets under the contract is sufficient to repay the loan. Such borrowing behavior and China's criminal law on contract fraud is incompatible with the provisions of the contract fraud, will be identified as contract fraud theory, social outcry, will also mislead entrepreneurs to the understanding of the law, thus affecting the social and economic development of Inner Mongolia.
2, the second trial in a hurry to close the case is difficult to ensure the quality of the case
We intervene in this case just one month according to the law, but was repeatedly urged to submit a defense statement to close the case. The case file materials up to more than 170 books, we are night and day but still not fully digested the content of the file, do not dare to hastily issue a defense, and to the court submitted a legal opinion. We believe that the efficiency of the case should be and must be the quality of the case as a prerequisite, there is no guarantee of the quality of the case, the higher the efficiency of the case the greater the social harm; in the face of the error is so obvious in the first instance judgment, in the face of more than 170 volumes of volume of materials, we request the court to give appropriate and reasonable time to read the file, request for the second instance trial of this case, with the aim of guaranteeing the quality of the case, and the real implementation of the central committee of the party to rule by law. The purpose is to ensure the quality of the case and truly implement the decision of the Party Central Committee to rule the country by law.
We hereby submit this request to
Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Higher People's Court
Beijing King&Capital Law Firm Lawyer: Cao Shuchang
2017-7-31
