Transfer property to evade debt?Borrow big data to find out the truth

"I have worked hard to return. I finally hope to come back. The money for his wife to treat the disease has also been settled. It is the fair justice of the procuratorial organs that let me see hope." Not long ago, the prosecutor of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Hulunbuir City Procuratorate was in When the visit to the civil prosecution supervision case, the parties Li Xin could not restrain the excitement.

The application for the court has not been paid for a long time

At the beginning of 2020, Li Xin first entered the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region's Ya Keshi City Procuratorate to apply for supervision. At this time, he was full of doubts but helplessness: Why did the court not get the court for half a year, why should the court start the re -trial procedure? Why can the parties with paid debt be changed to be unlocched?

Li Xin's affairs start from May 2015. At that time, Yang Quan applied for a construction land planning permit for construction land in the name of Jikeshi Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Company A") to develop and build a community construction project in the city. Because of the urgent need of money, Yang Quan borrowed 1.2 million yuan to Li Xin and reached an oral borrowing agreement with Li Xin. After Li Xin transferred 1.2 million yuan to Yang Quan, Yang Quan signed the "Commodity House Sales Contract" with Li Xin's request, and stamped the financial special chapter of the project department of the company A to guarantee the above borrowing. On June 11, 2017, Yang Quan transferred the construction project to Wang Xin, and Wang Xin continued to develop the project borrowed the qualifications of Bykshi Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Company B"). On May 2, 2018, Li Xin sued the court to ask Yang Quan, Company A, and Company B to repay the principal and interest of her loan in total of 2.064 million yuan.

The court was reviewed and determined that Li Xin borrowed funds for Yang Quan to use the construction construction of the community in the case, and Yang Quan illegally borrowed the company's development qualification and established the company's project department to carry out business. After being approved by Jikeshi Housing and Construction Bureau to upgrade to Company B, Company B has completed the relevant procedures such as the construction project construction permit of the project. In the end, the court ruled that Yang Quan should pay Lixin's principal and interest of 2.64 million yuan; Company A and Company B were responsible for the above money. After the verdict came into effect, Li Xin applied to the court for execution, but his debt was delayed.

In June 2019, the Judgment Committee of the Better City Court decided to re -review the case. The court retrial believes that Company A and Company B are two independent corporate legal persons and have no rights and obligations to each other. The judgment has paid Yang Quan's borrowing principal and interest of 2.64 million yuan. Maintain; cancel the liability for company B's joint and bring.

Li Xin did not accept the re -trial judgment, thinking that there was an act of transferring property and debt to the interests of the creditors. Subsequently, Li Xin applied for civil procuratorial supervision to the Jikeshi Procuratorate, and the institute asked the Hulunbuir Procuratorate to protest.

Two signs of the same ruling

After the case was accepted, the Hulunbuir Procuratorate and the Kukeshi Procuratorate quickly set up a case handling team. In response to the applicant's demands, after the case of the case of the case of the case handling the case, the details of the case of the case and the details of the case, the prosecutor's joint analysis believed that the re -trial judgment could not be determined in accordance with the existing evidence.

Subsequently, the case handling team reviewed the execution file of the case and found that after the retrial judgment came into effect, the court issued a decisional statement in August 2019, which lifted Li Xin's pre -complaint in April 2018. The content of the preservation ruling in the dossier archive is inconsistent with the contents of the ruling to Li Xin: the ruling of the archive in the dossiers is to relieve the applicant Li Xin, the judge Zhang; and Li Xin received received the person who received the case; Li Xin received received it The rules were lifted the security applicant as a company B, and the case handler was Zhang and Zhao, a judge Zhang, and the people's juror. The two rulings are the same, but the content and format are different. During the review, the case handling team repeatedly listened to the opinions of the applicant, and multiple parties investigated evidence to obtain evidence and found that there were illegal issues in the undertaking judge, and then transferred to the clue according to law. The Supervision Committee of the Discipline Inspection Commission of Jike has filed a case.

After discovering the illegal situation in the execution of the case, the case handling team felt that the case could indeed exist in the case that the applicant's multiple reflected on the company A illegally transferred the liability for settlement to the company B.

In order to find out the facts of the case, the two -level procuratorial organs at Hulunbuir and Kukeshi started integrated case handling mechanisms, conducted in -depth investigations, and repeatedly with relevant banks, tax departments, and market supervision bureaus, housing, and urban and rural construction bureaus. It proves that there is evidence of associated relationship between the two companies, but the results are very small.

With the wisdom of big data

"The current network information technology is so developed, why not fully use the wisdom of big data?" A young case handling personnel suggested reminding the case handling team to start the direction of investigation and evidence in the big data.

Through the search, querying and comparative analysis of the information of refereeing referee and corporate information with the China Magistrates Document Network, French Eye Network, Ai Enterprise Charity and other online platforms, the case handling team finally discovered a criminal judgment, civil judgment, and corporate affiliated personnel in other provinces. Key evidence of the series. The criminal judgment shows that in 2018, Company B had escaped the court to transfer the property to Company A due to evading the court in another case. After the data evidence is systematically sorted out, analyzed, and judged that the two companies A and B have complicated relationships in terms of personnel, finance, and management. The method of investigating criminal responsibilities is exactly the same. On May 14, 2021, the Hulunbuir Procuratorate filed a protest to the Intermediate Court of Hulunbuir City in accordance with the law. After the trial, the court determined that the two companies A and B had the same situation of shareholders and the same scope of business. They had been punished for transfers and evading legal liabilities for interests. The two companies had similar personalities in foreign relations. Recently, the court made a civil judgment in accordance with the law: the original first -instance court's retrial judgment was revoked according to law, and the original first instance judgment was maintained, that is, the company A and B jointly assumed the joint responsibility for the company. (The people in the text are a pseudonym)

(Source: Prosecutor's Daily Author: Shen Jingfang Ding Xiangui Liu Wei)

- END -