Main facts
Plaintiff Yang Moumou believed that there was a private lending relationship with Liu Moumou, so he sued Liu Moumou to Huangdao Court. Plaintiff Yang submitted evidence to prove that he transferred 1, 0 1 000 yuan to Liu's bank, and defendant Liu submitted1.2000 yuan in court, of which 1.263 million yuan was transferred through Chengyang Sub-branch of China Construction Bank for 8 pages.
Judge Ma, the organizer of this case, went to Chengyang Sub-branch of China Construction Bank for on-the-spot verification, and found that the above-mentioned eight pages of bank flow submitted by defendant Liu did not match the actual flow. After the defendant Liu Moumou admitted that the above-mentioned eight-page bank flow submitted by him was forged. In view of the fact that the defendant Liu moumou forged important evidence and hindered the people's court from hearing the case, he should be punished according to law.
court decision
According to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law and the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, the people's court may impose fines and detention on civil perjury according to the seriousness of the case; If a crime is constituted, criminal responsibility shall be investigated according to law. In accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph (1) of Article 111, the first paragraph of Article 115 and the third paragraph of Article 116 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), it was decided to impose a fine of 5,000 yuan on the defendant Liu.
The judge's statement
In civil litigation, it is not wrong for the parties to submit their own evidence to the court. However, in order to win the lawsuit, forge important evidence, seriously violate the principle of good faith, waste judicial resources, and hinder the normal conduct of civil proceedings, according to the provisions of Articles 111, 115 and 116 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), if the case constitutes a crime, the people's court may, according to the seriousness of the case, impose a fine, detain it and investigate its criminal responsibility. While safeguarding their own rights and interests, the parties concerned must abide by the law, be honest and trustworthy, and never shoot themselves in the foot because of penny wise and pound foolish.
Legal connection
1030 10 article 111 if a litigant participant or other person commits one of the following acts, the people's court may impose a fine or detain him according to the seriousness of the case; If the case constitutes a crime, criminal responsibility shall be investigated according to law: (1) Forging or destroying important evidence and obstructing the people's court from hearing a case.
In case of any of the acts listed in the preceding paragraph, the people's court may impose a fine or detention on the principal person in charge of the unit or the person directly responsible; If a crime is constituted, criminal responsibility shall be investigated according to law.
Article 115 The amount of fines imposed on individuals shall be less than 100,000 yuan. The unit shall be fined between 50,000 yuan and 6,543,800 yuan+0,000 yuan.
The detention period is less than fifteen days.
The detained person shall be handed over to the public security organ for custody by the people's court. During the period of detention, if the detainee admits and corrects his mistake, the people's court may decide to terminate the detention in advance.
Article 116 Arrest, fines and detention must be approved by the President.
An arrest warrant should be issued.
Fines and detentions should be based on written decisions. If you are not satisfied, you may apply to the people's court at the next higher level for reconsideration once. Execution shall not be suspended during reconsideration.
Related Questions and Answers: Related Questions and Answers: The running list provided by the plaintiff to the court is false. How to identify? Can it be identified as false litigation? What is the basis? First of all, the question itself is full of doubts!
1. No matter how the plaintiff and the defendant express themselves, the court has the obligation to "find out the truth". Therefore, according to the questioner, if the "IOU" is false, it must be a forged "bank receipt" and the original "bank statement" (10 million yuan loan is unlikely to be delivered in cash) and submitted to the court; In that case, why didn't the defendant raise it in court?
Even if the defendant does not raise questions in court, he can ask the court to investigate and confirm the above transaction records with the bank after the court!
Inferred from past experience and normal logic, it is more likely that the money will not be paid directly to the borrower, but to the account designated by the borrower, so the court found that the borrower had fulfilled its obligations as agreed. ......
2. The plaintiff's behavior of lending after borrowing from an unspecified public does not constitute the crime of high-interest lending; According to Article 175 of the Criminal Law, high-interest lending refers to "lending the credit funds of financial institutions to others at high interest for the purpose of lending"; In fact, illegal high-interest lending mostly exists in some law-abiding GY enterprises and listed companies, because these enterprises can obtain large (or even huge) low-interest (or even interest-free) loans, while many private enterprises can only "look at the banks and sigh"!
Secondly, because of the above doubts, there is naturally no "false litigation" problem;
Thirdly, if you can really find important new evidence, you can apply to a higher court for retrial; It should be noted that there is also a statutory time limit!
Thirdly, what I express is actually a supplement to the expression of "unknown lawyer", and I totally agree with his point of view; But I have to mention: borrowers should know that lenders have borrowed money from the uncertain public in order to lend themselves, right?
It can be inferred that there is something wrong with the "loan slip" advocated by the borrower, but the plan failed ~
To sum up, it is suggested that the questioner first confirm the credibility of what his friend said.
The Tao Te Ching finally said: "You were born as a human being, you cultivate yourself, you cross people, you are like water, and you live in a bad place and do good. There is nothing better than this."