The case of e-renting treasure was pronounced by the Beijing Higher People's Court in the second instance on 29 October 2065165438; The Jin case was recently pronounced by the Jing 'an District People's Court in Shanghai.
At the symposium on network security and informatization held on April 9, 20 16, e-Lease Baohe was rated as a negative example of Internet finance. The two cases have been pronounced one after another, which has a certain guiding role for the industry and investors.
Admiralty and Erbao have different sentencing.
2017165438+129 October, the Beijing Higher People's Court publicly pronounced the appeal cases of 26 people, including Anhui Yucheng Holding Group, Yucheng International Holding Group Co., Ltd., Ding Ning, Ding Dian and Sharla Cheung, in the second instance.
2065438+On September 2, 2007, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court made a first-instance judgment on the case, and fined Yucheng International Holding Group Co., Ltd. RMB18.03 million yuan for the crime of fund-raising fraud and smuggling precious metals. Anhui Yucheng Holding Group was fined 1 100 million yuan for fund-raising fraud; Ding Ning was convicted of fund-raising fraud, smuggling precious metals, illegal possession of guns and smuggling, and was sentenced to life imprisonment, deprived of political rights for life, confiscated 500,000 yuan of personal property and fined 6,543.8 billion yuan. Ding Dian was sentenced to life imprisonment, deprived of political rights for life and fined 70 million yuan for the crime of fund-raising fraud. At the same time, Sharla Cheung and other 24 people were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment 15 to 3 years, deprived of political rights, and fined.
After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, two defendants did not appeal, while 23 defendants, including Ding Ning, Ding Dian and Sharla Cheung, appealed. After hearing the case, the Beijing Higher People's Court held that the court of first instance, based on the facts, nature and circumstances of the crime and the degree of harm to society, found that the facts were clear, the evidence was indeed sufficient, the conviction and applicable law were correct, the sentencing was appropriate and the trial procedure was legal, so it rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
The case is the well-known e-rental treasure. The judgment of Beijing Higher People's Court is final.
Recently, the Admiralty case has returned to people's field of vision. Shen Jia, general manager of Admiralty Beijing Branch, and Li Wei, deputy general manager, were sentenced by the People's Court of Jing 'an District of Shanghai in the first instance, and it was found that the defendants Shen Jia and Li Wei, as senior managers of Admiralty Beijing Branch under Cathay Pacific Group, violated laws and regulations, illegally absorbed public deposits and disturbed the financial order, and the amount was huge, all of which constituted the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits.
Court decision: 1. Defendant Shen Jia was convicted of illegally absorbing public deposits, sentenced to three years and six months in prison and fined 200,000 yuan; 2. Defendant Li Wei was convicted of illegally absorbing public deposits, sentenced to four years and six months in prison and fined 200,000 yuan; 3. The funds seized and frozen in this case shall be returned to the fund-raising participants in proportion respectively; After the property seized or detained is changed in price, it will be returned to the fund-raising participants in proportion; The insufficient part shall be ordered to continue to make restitution and be returned separately according to the principle of equivalence.
The amount of principal involved is increasing.
2065438+On April 19, 2006, the symposium on network security and informatization held in Beijing mentioned the cases of e-Rent Bao and Admiralty system that occurred some time ago, and condemned these two cases for "illegally raising funds under the banner of' network finance', which brought serious property losses to the people concerned and caused very bad social impact." The meeting demanded that the development of new technologies and new businesses must be alert to the spread of risks.
Liang Changyu, a researcher at Shanghai Internet Finance Evaluation Center, pointed out that the judgments of E-Rent and Admiralty are conducive to promoting industry rectification actions. "There is a two-way' wool party' in the Internet finance industry. There are both corporate crimes that attempt to exploit investors' wool and investors who want to exploit financial platform wool. t
It is worth mentioning that because e-Rent and Admiralty are negative examples of the Internet finance industry, many people think that the Admiralty case is too light and has no deterrent effect on criminals. Especially after Epro and Admiralty, Jin Lu Financial Bank and Today Fortune, two financing platforms under Shanghai Kuailu Group, are also suspected of illegally absorbing public deposits. 2065438+was put on file for investigation in September 2006, and the relevant responsible persons were enforced according to law. What people are concerned about is what kind of legal responsibility will be borne by the judgments in the Kuailu case, the two-person insurance case and the Admiralty case.
According to the law, the penalties for the crime of fund-raising fraud and the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits are different.
"The crime of illegally absorbing public deposits is not a felony in itself, and the maximum is 10 years in prison." Gao Yongfeng, senior partner of Shanghai Jinli Law Firm, specializes in corporate disputes (mainly equity litigation), real estate disputes and criminal defense. He answered people's comments. "The original intention of legislators is that such crimes are less harmful to society, and the maximum sentence of ten years is enough to punish criminals. However, in the later trial practice, the amount involved in the' no smoking' case is getting higher and higher, with tens of millions at every turn. However, there is a statutory maximum sentence limit. In order to punish crimes, we must punish criminals.
Many netizens said that the tens of millions of defendants involved in the case only need to sit in prison for a few years, which is far from their psychological expectations.
Related Q&A: The inquiry of Shanghai Admiralty Case 20 19 is to seal up the news that the case was reported to the public security department of Baoshan District at that time and there is no compensation so far. E-Rent Bao asked for verification before compensation, but China and Jin haven't seen the notice of this pair.