Recently, Beijing King&Capital Law Firm, Yang Hangsheng, Yang Damin, Peng Qi team of lawyers in the first instance ruling transferred to the public security organs of the critical juncture, accepting the client's urgent entrustment, successful representation of a very representative “master vs. disciple” ownership confirmation disputes, to achieve the second instance procedures to turn the tables. The case involved “master vs. disciple”, “criminal-civilian crossover”, “500-600 million transactions”, etc. The court of first instance dismissed the case on the grounds of “suspected fraudulent acquisition of property by means of feudal superstition” and ruled that the prosecution should be dismissed. "The court of first instance ruled to dismiss the prosecution and transfer to the public security, resulting in the client being caught in the double predicament of civil procedure stagnation and criminal risk. King&Capital Law Firm team intervened, focusing on procedural loopholes, consolidating the foundation of civil trial, and eventually contributed to the second instance court to revoke the original ruling, directing the first instance court to conduct a substantive trial for the client to avoid criminal risk, and to win the key turnaround for the client to save the huge loss of assets!
First, the background of the case: worship cooperation, two prosecutions, the first instance referred to the public security impasse
This case stems from a very dramatic “master-disciple relationship” reversal. 2019 end, the other party due to the desperate business, unable to pay employee wages, in the case of extreme difficulties kneeling client as a “master”, pleading for guidance in life and business, The other party was in extreme difficulty and kneeled down to worship the client as “master”, asking him to guide his life and business and help him out. Based on the friendship between master and disciple, the client assisted the other party to utilize the medical equipment qualification of his company to expand the business of epidemic prevention materials such as masks and surgical gowns at the beginning of the epidemic in 2020.
The cooperation achieved explosive results in just a few months: the client not only introduced the suppliers who mastered the shortage of raw materials of non-woven fabrics and coordinated the key negotiations, but also helped to facilitate the export of surgical gowns with a large order of more than 600 million RMB. Overseas purchasers to pay for the goods quickly in place, the actual amount of more than 500 million yuan, according to estimates, this transaction for the other side of the profits of up to three to four hundred million yuan. According to the agreement, the client to get the corresponding commission, and the first commission of more than 10 million yuan for the purchase of the property in question, the relevant acquisition procedures by the other party. The other party issued a written commitment to this end, confirming that the house belongs to the principal all, and delivered the original real estate license, promised three years after the transfer.
However, before the expiration of the commitment period, the situation has taken a turn for the worse. The other party in the case of the principal without the knowledge of the replacement of the real estate license and the unauthorized establishment of a mortgage, refused to fulfill the promise of the transfer, resulting in “master and apprentice” against each other. The client was forced to file two lawsuits: the first intermediary contract disputes, the court found that the house was purchased with the commission of the client, but that ownership issues need to be dealt with in a separate case; the client then filed a claim for confirmation of ownership, this time, the other party claimed that the commissioner is suspected of “the use of superstitious means of defrauding” its huge sums of money.
After nearly a year of trial, a court of first instance in Beijing ruled that the lawsuit should be dismissed and the case should be transferred to the public security authorities. The civil rights road was suddenly interrupted, the client not only huge assets belonging to the empty, but also facing a serious criminal crisis!
Second, the case strategy: clarify the legal relationship and accurate characterization, and promote the case back to the civil trial.
In the face of the first instance unfavorable rulings and “criminal-civilian cross” procedural obstacles, King&Capital Law Firm team launched a systematic response to the work:
(a) close to the “legal facts of the same” principle, clarify the boundary between criminal and civil.
Lawyer team after in-depth study of the case that, the case for the confirmation of ownership disputes, the core legal fact is based on the resolution of the shareholders' meeting, commitment and other civil law acts to confirm the ownership of the house, as well as the nature of the purchase of the house from the commission money. The alleged fraudulent behavior, based on another contract in the performance of communication. The two are not “the same legal fact”, does not meet the prerequisites must be transferred to criminal processing. The civil legal relationship is clear and independent, the entity should be heard.
(ii) the introduction of the “point of contention” jurisprudence, refute the other side of the bad faith defense.
The legal team found that the other party had clearly recognized the validity of the agreement signed by both parties and the fact that the client had provided assistance in the procurement of key raw materials in the first lawsuit. The previous case has been on the validity of the contract, such as the first point of contention to make substantive judgments, resulting in “contention effect”, the parties should be bound by it. The other party in this case, the total reversal of the previous self-admission, claiming that the contract is invalid due to fraud, constituting litigation “estoppel”, contrary to the principle of good faith, the logic of its defense can not be established.
(C) active investigation and evidence collection, solid program rebuttal basis.
The lawyer team is not passive waiting, but actively to the court application for investigation and evidence collection, and to the judge, the client only through the police officer orally informed of the results of the criminal non-filing, the relevant written materials by the public security organs and the other party to hold this situation. Subsequently, the judge of the second trial contacted the public security organs, and through their coordination, the other party submitted the public security organs issued the “notification of non-filing” and subsequent maintenance of the decision of the “criminal reconsideration of the decision” and “criminal review decision”. The above evidence clearly demonstrates that the investigating authorities have determined that there are “no criminal facts” after examination. On this basis, the team strongly argued that the court of first instance's decision to transfer the case when criminal suspicion had already been excluded by the competent authorities in accordance with the law lacked a factual and legal basis.
(iv) Effective communication and promotion of court hearings, focusing on the substance of the service.
The second trial of such cases can usually be heard in writing by the speedy trial team of the court of first instance, and the lawyer team actively communicated with the panel court, and finally won the opportunity to have a trial. In the trial, the lawyer team clearly stated the commercial services provided by the client, that is, in the early stage of the epidemic under the background of the global supply chain tension, the client assisted the other company through its own resources to docking and facilitated the procurement of key raw materials, which is the key link for the establishment and fulfillment of the entire order of hundreds of millions of dollars (“no source material, that is, no order”). Individual, non-conventional communication expressions in the service process does not change the legal substance of the real, key commercial services and facilitate huge transactions.
Third, the case results: revocation of referral, directing the entity hearing
A middle court in Beijing adopted the main viewpoints of King&Capital Law Firm's team, and considered that the first instance court's decision to dismiss the civil lawsuit and transfer it to the public security authorities was inappropriate, and therefore ruled to revoke the first instance decision and instructed the court of first instance to conduct a substantive trial of the case.
Case Value: Crisis Intervention Demonstrates Professionalism, Procedural Reversal Defends Rights and Interests
The case was urgently entrusted to the client after the client lost the first trial. King&Capital Law Firm's team successfully helped the client clarify the boundaries between civil disputes and criminal offenses by virtue of their deep understanding of the rules of trial of “criminal-civilian crossover” cases, precise legal arguments and efficient litigation strategies, breaking the procedural barriers that hindered the realization of civil rights through criminal reporting, and safeguarding the correct implementation of the law and the client's rights and interests. The correct implementation of the law and the legal property rights and interests of the client were safeguarded. The result not only cleared the obstacles for the client's subsequent claim of substantive rights, but also demonstrated the professional value of King&Capital Law Firm's adherence to legal rationality and insight into the essence of the facts in dealing with complex disputes!
