Gu Chujun case retrial until late at night, no prosecutors to add a lot of new evidence.


Gu Chujun case retrial until late at night, no prosecutors to add a lot of new evidence.

Original title: Gu Chujun case retrial until late at night, the prosecution added a number of new evidence, "false evidence" argument.

7 years in prison and 13 years in redress of grievances, Gu Chu Jun, 59 years old, came to the Supreme Court for retrial. At 8:30 a.m. on June 13th, the court of first instance of the Supreme Court held a public hearing of the Gu Chujun case. Gu, who was sitting in the dock in a suit, was repeatedly familiar with the case and the law.

In 2005, he was jailed in prison. After early release in 2012, a high profile was reported and complained. At the end of last year, the Supreme Court formally confirmed the retrial - last December 27th, the Supreme Court announced two major cases of property rights, the Zhang Wenzhong case and the Gu Chujun case. Not long ago, the Supreme Court rejudged Zhang Wenzhong, founder of the Wumai group, who was acquitted. Whether this case was reassessed was also widely concerned. For entrepreneurs, especially for entrepreneurs who are "made in China", the case of Gu Xiao Jun is a typical and landmark case.

The court hearing in June 13th lasted from 8:30 a.m. to the end of the day, and the trial ended at 23:30.

In the court investigation stage, only 1 of the 15 new evidence provided by the defense were adopted; and the seven new evidence provided by the prosecutor raised a fierce challenge to the defence, the most controversial of the evidence involving the crime of misappropriating funds, and the emergence of a three version of the "Notice of payment", which triggered a "perjury" debate.

At 8:30 a.m. on June 14th, the trial continued and the court debate began. As of the document, the trial has not been completed.

The retrial of the case of Gu is regarded as an important signal for the central government to properly handle the property rights cases formed by history, insist on correcting the mistakes, and make the entrepreneurs form a stable psychological expectation. What will the final result be?

Both sides have new evidence to provide

Gu is the founder of the green corring group. Before entering prison in 2005, Gu Chu army was in the capital market and was called "capital Predator".

In 2000, Gu Lin science and Technology Holdings Limited was listed in Hongkong, which was the first listed company of Gu holdings; after that, he bought the famous state-owned Guangdong Kelon Electrical Holdings Co (Hisense Cologne, 000921.SZ, Cologne electric) in October 2001 and MeiLing power in May 2003. 000521.SZ, the acquisition of 600213.SH in 2003, and the acquisition of Xiangyang bearing (000678.SZ) in April 2004. In a few years, five listed companies have been held.

All this ended with the CSRC's 2005 investigation of Kelon Electrical appliances. In September 2, 2005, Gu Chujun was arrested; in 2008, the Foshan intermediate court made a decision on the trial of Gu. Gu Chujun made a false report of the crime of registered capital, the crime of disclosure, the non disclosure of major information and the crime of misappropriating funds. It was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment and a penalty of 6 million 800 thousand yuan; in March 2009, the Guangdong high court rejected Gu Chujun's top. Suing, maintaining the original judgment.

In 2005, Gu began to report to officials in prison and was acquitted after he was released from prison in 2012. In December 27, 2017, the Supreme Court made a review of Gu case after examination.

According to the "finance and economics" reporters, before the retrial, the May 18th collegial panel debate between the two sides called the front meeting, both sides provided new evidence, of which the prosecution provided 7 new evidence, the defense provided 15 new evidence.

In the court investigation stage in June 13th, the Court adopted 1 new evidence provided by the defense (the Guangdong Green Cole company's "high technology enterprise certification certificate") for a court investigation. "Other evidence materials submitted by Gu Xiao Jun are mutually agreed that they do not belong to new evidence, but they can be put forward in court when they are controversial."

The 7 new evidence provided by the prosecution was adopted as a court investigation. The 7 new evidence materials include a new evidence related to the crime of false reporting of the registered capital; two new evidence related to the disclosure of violations, non disclosure of major information and four new evidence related to the crime of misappropriation of funds.

According to the "finance and economics" reporter, before the retrial before the court meeting, the new evidence was questioned by Gu's 7 new evidence "technical examination opinions" issued by the supreme inspection judicial authentication center (hereinafter referred to as the technical review proposal). In the June 13th trial, when the Chief Trial officer asked "what the defendants of the original trial had to hold on the defender", he called the technical review opinion a perjury, and asked the prosecutors to issue perjury to avoid it. The court held that the reasons for the evasion of the application by the Gu could not be established. For the question of perjury by the Gu, it said that "we should decide after the trial today after the trial".

What kind of "technical review opinion" is it that made Gu Chu call "false testimony"?

Many copies of the "Notice of payment", arguing true and false

The "technical review" is only three pages of content. This new evidence is to prove that Gu's misappropriation of funds involves 63 million yuan.

In the three accusations of Gu Chu army, the crime of misappropriating funds is the most serious and the term of imprisonment is 8 years. At first, the prosecution alleged that Chu Qian had misappropriated funds up to seven. The court of first instance and second instance ruled out five strokes, but two of them were identified.

First, the court of second instance decided that the two funds for the misappropriation of the CLC were related to the Yangzhou green company, which was privately controlled by the Cologne company and the Jiangxi Kelon Company 290 million yuan for the registration of Yangzhou Green Co., and the other was to embezzled 63 million yuan from Yangzhou star bus company to Yangzhou green company. Use。

For the 63 million yuan, according to the original trial decision, Gu young army, in the case of Yangzhou mechanical and electrical Assets Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yangzhou mechanical and electrical company), has issued the "Notice of payment" to Yangzhou Mechatronics company in the name of Yangzhou Yaxing bus company, which will be paid to Yangzhou mechanical and electrical company to Yangzhou. The transfer of share transfer of Yaxing bus company is used by the Yangzhou green control company, which is privately controlled by Gu Xiao Jun, and "appropriating the funds of this unit for personal use".

After the judgement of the court of first instance, Gu Xiao Jun emphasized in his complaint that 63 million yuan is entirely a loan between the companies, which has nothing to do with the crime of embezzlement of funds. After being investigated by the SFC in 2005, Cologne was quickly run by the bank and supplier. In order to pass the difficulties, he put forward a loan request to the main leaders of the Yangzhou municipal government and agreed to borrow 63 million yuan from the rich Yangzhou mechanical and electrical company of Yangzhou to Yangzhou Green Cole company. "The court of first instance and second instance denied the real" loan agreement "and accepted the forged" payment notice "and carried out the identification of the violation of the truth.

The "technical review opinion" is to prove the authenticity of the notice of payment, but it also leads to many different versions of the "Notice of payment".

In June 13th, Mr. Gu said in the court investigation phase that he had seen two copies of "payment notice" in the first instance court, a official seal with Yangzhou mechanical and electrical company, and signed by Wang Daqing, a former legal representative of Yangzhou mechanical and electrical company, but not the official seal of Yangzhou star bus company (this is version two of the notice of payment. Another copy of the "Notice of payment", which has also been miswritten by the name of Yangzhou mechanical and electrical company, is covered with the official seal of Yangzhou Yaxing bus company, but there is no official seal from the Yangzhou Mechatronics company in Daqing (this is version three of the letter of payment notice).

The court of first instance approved the version two of the notice of payment, but Gu Chujun thinks that "Yangzhou Mechatronics is a state-owned enterprise. It is impossible to pay a huge amount of money to the Yangzhou green company in accordance with a notice of payment without a seal, which is not in conformity with the basic facts and logic." Both the version two of the notice of payment and the version three of the letter of payment are forgery.

In view of the version of the notice of payment issued by the technical review opinion, Gu Xiao Jun also declared "forgery" in court.

In April 13, 2018, Wang Daqing explained in version two of the letter of payment notice that it was possible that the original official seal could not be printed with a light seal, and that the original piece had a red seal, which could provide the original certificate. On this basis, we have the version 1 of the notice of payment - the official seal of Yangzhou Yaxing bus company and the signing of Wang Daqing, but there is no official seal of Yangzhou mechanical and electrical company.

The highest inspection will make a technical identification of the version 1 of the notice of payment and the version two of the notice of payment. The results are that the title, the text of the 2 trial materials and the printed text of the refunds can be rejoined by the coincidence comparison, and the handwritten text on the left side of the payment office can coincide with the "agreed to pay the king 4.25". "

This identification result shows that the version of payment notice and the version of the notice of payment are the same "payment notice".

In court, Gu Chujun referred to the version of "payment notice" as "forgery" on the grounds that it was a coincidence comparison between version 1 of payment notice and version two of payment notice, and it was very obvious that it was impossible to overlap.

In response, Liu Shuo, one of the examiners of the technical review opinion, appeared in court to respond. Liu Shuo said that if it is a copy, we need to consider the problem of scaling, because different duplicates can be adjusted to different sizes. If the scaling ratio is not consistent, it is impossible to overlap. It is considered that the defense reference to the version 1 of the payment notice and the payment notice version two cannot be weighed. The problem of scaling may not be considered.

Liu Shuo further said that the "payment notice" version 1 and "payment notice" version two can be rejoined, "two documents have handwritten handwriting, people's handwriting handwriting is a lot of accidental factors, the two handwriting can be completely coincided, it shows that the scaling ratio of the two documents has been adjusted and unified."

15 hours of adjournment of the court is not adjourned

The Gu Chujun case involved 9 defendants. In addition to Gu himself, he also included Jiang Baojun, the former dragon electric appliance financial inspector, Yan Yousong, Zhang Hong and the former executive director Yan Guoru, Liu Ke, Liu Yizhong, Zhang Xihan and Zeng Gong.

In a previous second instance, Jiang Baojun and Gu were convicted and sentenced to five years of imprisonment for several crimes, and a fine of 120 thousand yuan, deducted from custody, and decided to execute a period of four years of imprisonment. Among the remaining seven, only Ceng Junhong, the chief director of the procurement center of Kelon Electrical appliances, was convicted, and the other six were sentenced to two years to two years in prison, but they were all suspended. Their charges involve the crime of false registration of registered capital, illegal disclosure, non disclosure of major information and misappropriation of funds.

The retrial of June 13th, Gu Chujun, Jiang Baojun, Zhang Hong, Zhang Xihan, Yan Yousong, Yan Guoru, Liu Ke seven people to the court (nine accused of innocence, one has passed away), they are all innocent defence.

Mr. Gu, who was sitting on the side of the defendant's seat, was full of white hair, but the speed of speech was very fast. It involved the opening of the related questions and called himself "reading legal books most of the time" in prison for 7 years.

In accordance with the order, when retrial, the court conducted separate court investigation and evidence cross examination on the charges involved by Gu Chujun and others.


Waonews is a news media from China, with hundreds of translations, rolling updates China News, hoping to get the likes of foreign netizens