/kloc-at the beginning of 0/0, the People's Court of Dianjun District, Yichang City, Hubei Province issued an execution ruling, involving the execution of 200 million yuan debt between Hubei Bank and Shaanxi Steel Group, Hangang Company, Yichang Zhong Yi Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Zhong Yi Company") and Hubei Zhong Yi Steel Structure Co., Ltd.
It is noteworthy that after the court found that the effective account of Hangang Company in Shaanxi Coal Industry and Chemical Industry Group Finance Co., Ltd. was frozen and it was not allowed to open new accounts, Hangang Company, the executor, still opened new accounts twice to avoid execution, and the transaction amount with its holding company, day trading of Shaanxi Steel Group, was huge, which seriously hindered the normal execution of debts.
According to the reporter of China Business News, the 200 million yuan financial debt dispute between Hubei Bank and Hangang Company has not been successfully implemented for more than four years from civil litigation to enforcement litigation.
Ensure "back pot"
On March 13, 15, Hubei Bank signed a credit agreement with Zhong Yi Company, stipulating that during March 20 13 to March 20 15, the bank would provide Zhong Yi Company with a revolving financing line of RMB 200 million. On the same day, Hubei Bank also signed a maximum guarantee contract with Hangang Company, stipulating that Hangang Company and Hubei Zhong Yi Steel Structure Co., Ltd. will voluntarily undertake joint and several liability guarantee for the debt of 200 million yuan.
From June 6, 20 15 to March 6, 20 10,10, Zhong Yi Company and Hubei Bank signed a 9-point bank acceptance agreement according to the stipulations in the Credit Agreement, stipulating that Hubei Bank would accept the bank acceptance bill issued by Zhong Yi Company, and Zhong Yi Company should deposit the due amount of the bill in Hubei before the maturity date.
It is understood that there are 27 bills * * * under the nine bank acceptance draft agreements, with a total face value of 2,85710,000 yuan, the deposit paid by Zhong Yi Company * * * is 85713,000 yuan, and the bank actually advances open funds198.8 million yuan.
On July 27th, 20 15, Hubei Bank signed a mortgage contract with Zhong Yi Company, stipulating that Zhong Yi Company would provide mortgage guarantee for the debts under the bank acceptance bill agreement with all its property. However, from August 24, 2005 to August 24, 2065438, Hangang Company reported that Zhong Yi Company and Hangang Company were suspected of illegal and criminal acts in the process of signing the agreement. The former was put on file by the public security organ for alleged contract fraud.
After learning of this situation, Hubei Bank filed a civil lawsuit against this debt from September 2065438 to September 2005, and recovered the debt from Zhong Yi Company, and made Hangang Company jointly and severally liable for this debt.
The reporter noted that Hangang Company claimed in the trial that Hubei Bank and Zhong Yi Company colluded maliciously and the maximum guarantee contract should be invalid. However, this statement has not been recognized by the court.
20 16 12. In the judgment of first instance, the court ruled that Zhong Yi Company repaid the principal and corresponding interest of the acceptance bill of Hubei Bank1970,000 yuan, and Hangang Company was jointly and severally liable for the debt.
However, Hangang Company refused to accept the first-instance judgment and appealed to the Supreme People's Court on July 20 17.
In the second trial, Hangang Company held that the bill had no real trade background, the bill fraud involved by Zhong Yi Company was still under criminal determination, and the company had no property to execute at present, and the bank was at fault in credit granting and bill payment, so Hangang Company should not be jointly and severally liable for the debt.
Hubei Bank believes that there is no objection to the authenticity of the two key materials: the Credit Agreement and the Maximum Guarantee Contract. The bank is unaware of Zhong Yi's bill fraud and other criminal acts, and Hangang Company should bear joint and several liability for the debts of Zhong Yi Company.
2065438+June 9, 2008, the Supreme People's Court ruled that the crime committed by the debtor Zhong Yi Company was not the legal reason for the guarantor Hangang Company to be exempted, and whether the guarantor was exempted needed to be examined according to the Guarantee Law, but Hangang Company could not provide enough evidence to support it. Therefore, the Supreme People's Court upheld the original judgment and rejected the appeal of Hangang Company.
20 18 10 15, Hubei bank applied to the court for enforcement according to the judgment of second instance. However, due to the fact that Zhong Yi Company has no property to execute, Hubei Bank applied to the court to freeze the assets of Hangang Company.
Avoid debt execution?
On March 9, 2065438, the People's Court of Dianjun District, Yichang City, Hubei Province delivered an enforcement ruling and a notice of assistance in enforcement to Shaanxi Coal Chemical Industry Group Finance Co., Ltd., freezing the deposit of1990,000 yuan in the account opened by Shaanxi Steel Group, the parent company of Hangang Company, for a period of one year.
Shaanxi Iron and Steel Group filed an objection to the court, claiming that the deposit in the frozen account belongs to Shaanxi Iron and Steel Group, not the funds "collected" into the account by Hangang Company, and the account should not be frozen.
However, Hubei Bank said that after investigation by the court, the sales income of Handan Iron and Steel Company was automatically collected into the account opened by the parent company Shaanxi Steel Group in Shaanxi Coal Chemical Group Finance Co., Ltd., and the ownership of funds should be determined according to the legal requirements of fund collection.
During the execution, the court found that both Shaanxi Iron and Steel Group and Hangang Company opened accounts in Shaanxi Coal Chemical Group Finance Co., Ltd., and Hangang Company issued a power of attorney for internal fund management to Shaanxi Coal Chemical Group Finance Co., Ltd. on March 6, 2007, and authorized the account opened by the company in the finance company to Shaanxi Iron and Steel Group without the consent of Hangang Company. In this regard, the court frozen the account of Shaanxi Steel Group in the finance company.
/10 2020 On June 2, 2020, the People's Court of Yichang City, Hubei Province issued an enforcement ruling, saying that on March 5, 20 19, the court froze five active accounts opened by Hangang Company in Shaanxi Coal Chemical Group Finance Co., Ltd. for a term of 1 year, and requested Shaanxi Coal Chemical Group Finance Co., Ltd. not to hand them over to Hangang Company during the freezing period. On the same day, Hangang Company reopened its account in Shaanxi Coal Chemical Group Finance Co., Ltd. ... On March 19 of the same year, the court froze the newly opened account within the above amount for one year. On the same day, Hangang Company reopened another account in Shaanxi Coal Chemical Group Finance Co., Ltd. ..
It is worth noting that the court inquired about the transaction details of the account reopened by Hangang Company on August 5, 2020 from March 20 19 to August 4, 2020. About 6,500 transactions occurred, with a transaction amount of nearly10 billion yuan, of which the transaction amount between Shaanxi Iron and Steel Group and Hangang Company was several billion yuan, so the account was frozen that day.
The court found that after the effective account of Hangang Company in Shaanxi Coal Industry and Chemical Industry Group Finance Co., Ltd. was frozen and it was not allowed to open new accounts, Hangang Company, the executor, still opened new accounts twice to avoid execution, and the transaction amount with its holding company, day trading of Shaanxi Steel Group, was huge, which seriously hindered the normal execution of debts.
In response to the execution dispute, the reporter interviewed Hubei Bank. The bank said: "The court is based on facts and takes the law as the criterion, and the judgment is strong. The court has also carried out enforcement work according to law. The bank has formed a special working group to closely follow up the verdict and actively promote it. "
If the obligor for assisting in execution refuses to perform his obligation for assisting in execution, he shall bear corresponding legal responsibilities, said Han, a senior lawyer in Beijing. According to Article 114th of the Civil Procedure Law, those who fail to perform the obligation of assisting in execution may be ordered to perform and may also be fined. If the obligor assisting in execution is a unit, the principal person in charge or the person directly responsible may be fined; Those who still fail to perform the obligation of assistance may be detained; And may put forward judicial suggestions for disciplinary action to the supervisory organ or the relevant authorities.
(Article Source: China Business Network)
(Editor: DF537)
Solemnly declare: the purpose of publishing this information by Oriental Fortune Network is to spread more information, which has nothing to do with the position of this website.