In June 2014, Yang (given name disguised) sued Company M to the Huangpu District People’s Court (hereinafter referred to as “Huangpu Court”), demanding Company M to repay the principal on a loan of 40 million yuan plus the interest since 2007, totaling 130 million yuan. After thorough comparison, Company M decided to hire lawyer Zheng Dapeng to represent the company in this case.

Complicated intersecting criminal and civil case

This case is not a simple loan dispute. Yang filed a civil lawsuit in 2014, but after trial, the Huangpu Court considered the case suspected of an economic crime and ruled that it should be transferred to the public security organ. Afterwards, clues to the case were returned by the public security organ, as Yang's application for withdrawal of the case was approved by the court.

After accepted the entrustment, Lawyer Zheng Dapeng comprehensively rationalized hundreds of loan transactions between Company M and Yang, carefully analyzed various disputes among nearly 100 commercial entities and individuals directly related to the two parties, accurately distinguished all the facts involved in the intersecting criminal and civil case, and timely formulated a systematic plan knitting criminal and civil responses together.

Restoring the truth from details

In view of the fact that Yang’s boss behind the scenes, Jin (given name disguised), had actually exploited disputes among Company M’s shareholder and once controlled Company M’s official seal (engraved privately by Jin) and bank accounts, which make the key questions and major challenge of the case lie in how to confirm the true will of the legal person of Company M, how to distinguish between the true and the false official seals and how to identify the nature of fund flow. However, in terms of evidence, due to the chaotic management state in Company M during the relevant period, materials of various types were conspicuously absent, leading to major flaws to the defendant's evidence system. On the other hand, the plaintiff had clear flow of funds and conclusive loan contracts, which made the litigation basically one-sided and unfavorable to the defendant.

Ascertaining the facts of the case and removing falsification from truth depend on consideration of details and rationality of the case. Lawyer Zheng Dapeng actively contacted the Public Security, the procuratorate and the court to gain support of organs handling the previous criminal case; clarified the destination of fund flow involved with various parties; comprehensively collected evidence of all types on Jin’s forgery of the official seal of Company M used in the contracts involved, and on the fact that the funds in question were not borrowed; and restored the case details that the two official seals, legal person seal and financial seal of Company M had been under the control of Yang and the outsider Jin, and that Company M did not actually operate during the period relevant. The puzzle was solved piece by piece and ready for the final victory.

Overall victory via effective defense

The case went through five trials--two first trials by Huangpu Court (one of which was withdrawn by the plaintiff), a second trial at the No.2 Intermediate Court who remanded the case for retrial, thus a retrial at Huangpu Court and again another second trial at the No.2 Intermediate Court. During the trials, the defenses put forward by Attorney Zheng Dapeng and Attorney Fu Rong were all adopted. For example, as a project company, Company M had no borrowing demand during the period involved in the case; Yang had no lending capacity, and was unable to provide sufficient evidence on the loan process, the specific handlers and other details requested by our side during the trial; the seal of Company M used in the contracts involved was under the control of outsider Jin during the relevant period; the flow of funds in question was transferred among affiliated companies under Jin's control. In addition, in response to Yang’s application to the court for an audit to obtain Company M’s business secrets, Attorney Zheng Dapeng provided sufficient evidence to prove that the audit was unnecessary, which was supported by the court.

By far, the No.2 Intermediate Court has rejected all of Yang's claims and closed the case.