"It is a crime to sue a bank." In the police interrogation record, Liang Xiufen deeply "reflected".
20 1 1 February, VIP client Liang Xiufen sued Shang Lin Bank in Linyi, Shandong Province, demanding to return 3 million yuan of its "deposit" of 6.58 million yuan. The court heard the case in June. In July, Liang Xiufen was detained by the police on suspicion of financial voucher fraud. 20 12 1 1, Liang Xiufen was convicted of forging financial tickets in the first instance 12. In September this year 10, the case was heard in Linyi Intermediate People's Court. Liang said in court that the interrogation record of "admitting to prosecuting bank crimes and giving up the right to sue" was coerced.
□ case
The president absconded from important people to save money.
Liu Shuwei is the source of Liang Xiufen's case. Liu Shuwei, aged 4 1, used to be a senior employee in Linyi financial circle. According to the archives, from 65438 to 0998, Liu Shuwei entered Linyi Luo Zhuang Commercial Bank. After the reorganization, Liu Shuwei was renamed as. In 2002, he served as the president of Linyi City Commercial Bank (predecessor of Shang Lin Bank) Luo Zhuang Branch, and later served as the president of Rossi Branch.
Liang Xiufen, 56, used to be the actual controller of three companies, holding abundant funds. Because Liu Shuwei visited the bank for many times, they became "acquaintances and friends", and they had frequent exchanges between banks and enterprises and funds, and became VIP customers of Shang Lin Bank.
Little known is that Liu Shuwei, as president, privately collects money from various channels and engages in private lending activities. From June 5438 to October 2007, Liu Shuwei absconded after the capital chain broke. On July 5th, 2008, Liu Shuwei was detained by the police on suspicion of fraud. 201016. Liu Shuwei was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment 17 years for committing crimes of financial fraud, defrauding loans and accepting bills of exchange.
Before and after Liu Shuwei's imprisonment, the judiciary did not investigate Liang Xiufen until she "jumped out first".
Liang Xiufen holds two cash payment orders from Shanglin Bank, with the amounts of 6.58 million yuan and 20 million yuan respectively, both of which are signed by Liu Shuwei himself and the official seal of the bank. Due to factors such as the winning bid amount, Liang Xiufen tried to recover the smaller "deposit" first. On 20 1 1 February11,Liang Xiufen sued Liu Shuwei, listed Shang Lin Bank as the second defendant, and demanded to return 3 million yuan from the "deposit" of 6.58 million yuan.
Sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment for "counterclaim" 12 years
On 2011February 12, Linyi lanshan district court accepted the case of a dispute over a savings deposit contract, which was heard on June 15. Liang Xiufen said that she had a cash payment slip of 6.58 million yuan drawn from Liu Shuwei. After Liu Shuwei was killed, she went to Shang Lin Bank to withdraw money, but she didn't have the money.
In this regard, Bank of Shang Lin pointed out to the court that the evidence held by Liang Xiufen was seriously flawed. It claimed that Liu Shuwei absconded to Xinjiang on June 65438+1October 65438+1October 9, 2007, and the cash payment voucher held by Liang Xiufen was dated June 25, 2007, which was processed after Liu Shuwei absconded and could not be used as evidence. The Bank of Shang Lin believes that the essence of the certificates of deposit involved in the case is that both parties collude maliciously to transfer the personal loan risk to the bank.
The lanshan district court did not immediately pronounce a verdict on this civil lawsuit.
On March 24, 201/kloc-0, that is, more than a month after she sued Bank of Shang Lin, Bank of Shang Lin reported the case to the police and filed a case on May 26. On July 1 1, Liang Xiufen was detained by the police before the civil litigation judgment was issued.
On June 5, 20 12, the procuratorate of Luo Zhuang, Linyi City filed a public prosecution on this case, and the first trial was held in Luo Zhuang court. Liang Xiufen and Liu Shuwei were charged with two crimes: the crime of forging financial instruments and the crime of lending at high interest rates. The judgment of the first instance showed that Liang Xiufen denied the alleged criminal facts and charges. Liu Shuwei denied the crime of usury, but admitted the crime of forging financial instruments. On June165438+1October 2 1 the same year, the court found Liang Xiufen and Liu Shuwei guilty of forging financial tickets. Liu Shuwei committed the crime of negligence. Considering the attitude of pleading guilty, he was sentenced to 1 1 year and fined 1 ten thousand yuan. For several crimes, Liu Shuwei was sentenced to 20 years in prison, an actual increase of 3 years. Liang Xiufen was sentenced to 12 years and fined 200,000 yuan.
After the judgment of the first instance was issued, Liang Xiufen appealed.
Is it a deposit or private loan?
On the morning of September 10 this year, the second trial of Liang Xiufen's case was held in the court of Linyi Detention Center of Linyi Intermediate People's Court. Liang Xiufen and Liu Shuwei sat side by side in fetters for trial.
Liang Xiufen said that his company had an account in Shang Lin Bank Rossi Sub-branch, and President Liu Shuwei visited his company many times. Later, after a unified summary, Liu Shuwei issued two cash payment orders, with the amounts of 6.58 million yuan and 20 million yuan respectively.
The file shows that the invoice dates of the two documents are both 65438+2007125 October, and both are signed by Liu Shuwei himself, but the name of Liang Xiufen is written as "Liang Xiufen".
In fact, the document shows that Liu Shuwei fled Linyi on October 25th, 65438/KLOC-0. Liang Xiufen said that she didn't remember whether the bookkeeping day was this day. However, Liang Xiufen said that Liu Shuwei didn't commit a crime at that time. Out of trust in the "president", she didn't look at the date carefully.
Liang Xiufen believes that this transaction is a "deposit". However, Liu Shuwei denied this and interpreted it as a personal loan for both parties.
The other party also knows that it is used for lending. "The amount is true, the document (document) is true, and the seal is also true", but it has nothing to do with the bank. He said that these two documents were a summary of previous loans and were issued under the coercion of Liang Xiufen, so he deliberately wrote Liang's name and date wrong.
Liang's defense lawyer pointed out that the file shows that "Liang Xiufen" was written on other materials, which is obviously a problem of writing habits. Whether the time is wrong has nothing to do with the fact that he gave the money to Liu Shuwei.
Are financial tickets forged?
In court, Liu Shuwei admitted the crime of forging financial bills, but argued that the two documents were written under the coercion of Liang Xiufen. Zhou Ze, a defense lawyer, pointed out that there was no evidence that he was coerced.
The public prosecution agency believes that although the bank note and seal are true, the amount on them is not true, and there is no relevant evidence in the account of Shang Lin Bank to prove that Liang Xiufen has a huge amount of money from individuals or companies entering the banking system. According to the interrogation record and other evidence materials, it is enough to conclude that Liang Xiufen and Liu Shuwei constitute the crime of forging financial tickets.
Zhou Ze said that the document held by Liang Xiufen was the authentic transaction voucher of Shang Lin Bank, and the seal was also authentic, and it was signed by Liu Shuwei, then president of Rossi Sub-branch. "Liang Xiufen didn't forge financial vouchers, nor did he instigate others to forge them, but Liu Shuwei, the governor of the bank, took the initiative to issue them to Liang Xiufen in the case of collection. In the whole incident, Liang did not have any act of forging tickets. "
Zhou Ze believes that Liang Xiufen has been found to have given the money to Liu Shuwei, the president of the branch. As for Shang Lin Bank's failure to record it, it only shows that there are loopholes in bank management.
Zhu Mingyong, another defense lawyer, said that it is true that Liang Xiufen did not deposit money at the counter, but Liang Xiufen's understanding of Liu Shuwei is based on the fact that he is the president of the bank, and the vouchers and seals issued by him are true. Liang Xiufen can be regarded as a bank debt and has reason to claim the right to return the money.
Is there any act of extorting a confession by torture?
At the trial site, Liang Xiufen also reflected that the public security organs used the method of extorting confessions by torture when interrogating them. The prosecutor thinks there is no confession.
According to the archives, Liang Xiufen was arraigned by the Economic Investigation Detachment of Linyi Public Security Bureau in Linyi Detention Center for three times on August/day of 20 1.
In the first transcript of the day, Liang Xiufen admitted: "I regret it now, because it is very wrong to sue someone else's bank because there is no cash deposited in the bank. I am willing to give up the lawsuit and never sue the Bank of Shang Lin again. Please go easy on me ... I put my money in Liu Shuwei for usury, knowing that I didn't put it in the bank. It is a crime to sue a bank. "
In the third transcript of the day, Liang Xiufen said that it was only after government education that she realized how ridiculous her crime was, and how stupid and naive it was for Liu Shuwei to sue the bank for forging two cash payment bills with no real deposit relationship. "I regret it very much now, and I am willing to withdraw the lawsuit. I am willing to hand over the two forged cash payment bills to the government for handling, and I will never do such stupid things again."
Zhou Ze pointed out that the interrogation record of the case-handling organ showed that it was against the regulations of the detention center to give Liang Xiufen "20 1 kloc-0/three days outside July 26th" and "29 July to August1three days outside" in the name of renovating the interrogation room of the detention center, and it was embarrassing that it was not directly stated in the interrogation record.
Zhou Ze said that when he met with Liang Xiufen, he learned that after the police handling the case brought her up, she was taken to a detention center outside the police's monitoring range and held for a week. "During the period, Liang Xiufen was not allowed to sleep, and she was given air conditioning, corporal punishment and confession in disguise. Finally, she got her guilty confession, and the place where she testified was recorded as a detention center. This is seriously illegal! "
In court, Liang Xiufen stressed: "Admitting to sue bank crimes and giving up the right to sue" was forced by the police. She couldn't figure out why recovering the "deposit" would lead to imprisonment.
On the day of the trial, more than a dozen family members of the two defendants attended the trial, but representatives of the Bank of Shang Lin did not attend. The presiding judge listened to the opinions of all parties and did not pronounce a sentence in court.
□ Statements of all parties
Bank of Shang Lin: No inconvenience caused by loss.
On the afternoon of September 10, at the head office of Shang Lin Bank, the head of the Legal Compliance Department told the reporter of Jinghua Times that he did not know about the second trial that day. Asked how banks manage financial tickets and badges, and whether they have supervisory responsibilities in this case, the person in charge refused to answer.
The director of the office of the head office of Shang Lin Bank said that Shang Lin Bank did not suffer any losses in this case. He said that the case is inconvenient to evaluate and should be based on the court's judgment.
Chen Hao Law Firm represented Liang Xiufen v. Bank of Shang Lin. Chen Guangwu, director of the institute, revealed that Liu Shuwei had pulled 70 to 80 million yuan from local entrepreneurs before absconding, but after Liang Xiufen sued the bank and was sentenced to "counterclaim", other creditors were afraid to come forward. "Take Liang Xiufen as an example. Once she is acquitted, it is not excluded that other creditors will follow up, and Shang Lin Bank may face higher repayment pressure."
The police investigation power of defense lawyers interferes with judicial power.
Zhou Ze believes that in this case, Liu Shuwei's illegal operation caused the bank to bear civil liability, while Shang Lin Bank evaded its responsibility and concealed it. The public security organ directly initiated the criminal prosecution procedure against Liang Xiufen, the plaintiff in the civil litigation, when the court tried the civil dispute case without transferring the criminal case. "The essence of this case is that the public security organ interfered with the judicial power of the court with the power of investigation."