80 The billionaire real estate tycoon claimed to be caught in a "routine loan" carefully organized by many people. This business war involving private lending, equity competition, illegal crimes, and hundreds of lawsuits have been filed, but there is still no final conclusion.
According to the New Yellow River report, in 2007, Shaanxi Hongrun Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Hongrun Real Estate") founded by Hu Xufeng, a billionaire real estate tycoon born in the 1980s, took over Xi'an's Mujiangwang Village-International Happy City Renovation project development rights.
Hongrun Real Estate is 95% controlled by Shaanxi Hongrun Industrial Group Co., Ltd. (referred to as "Hongrun Group") founded by Hu Xufeng. After winning the Mujiangwang Village renovation project, Hu Xufeng, who was under financial pressure, sought private loans everywhere. He recalled that Zhu Jiang, who had helped him in his early business days, offered to help after he inquired about it.
On May 14, 2010, Zhu Moujiang proposed to borrow 80 million yuan on the condition that Hu Xufeng pledged 18% of the equity of Shaanxi Hongrun to his Xi'an Zhongxia Investment (referred to as "Zhongxia Company"), and agreed to wait until Zhongxia Company obtained The shares will be returned free of charge after 18% of the project proceeds.
Zhu Jiang also introduced Wang to lend 6 million yuan to Hongrun Real Estate on January 11, 2012. He also agreed to use equity as pledge and the loan period was 3 months. Hu Xufeng would give 75% of the shares of Hongrun Real Estate free of charge. Transferred to Wang, and after Hu Xufeng repaid the loan, Wang transferred it back to Hu Xufeng free of charge.
Since then, Wang and others have successively borrowed money from Hu Xufeng, with the total loan amount reaching 139 million yuan. On March 15, 2013, Li, a mysterious businessman who had founded a foundation in Shaanxi Province and had public fundraising qualifications, was introduced by Zhu Jiang and summoned Hu Xufeng, Wang, Zhu Jiang and others to his club.
Hu Xufeng said that he was illegally detained and had no choice but to sign the "Equity Transfer Agreement" and other agreements. At Li's request, he changed the legal person of Hongrun Real Estate to Zhu Jiang.
According to Hu Xufeng, the day before he borrowed 6 million yuan from Hu Xufeng, Wang went to the Xi'an Industrial and Commercial Bureau and applied for a change in the 75% equity of Shaanxi Hongrun Real Estate held by Shaanxi Hongrun Group without knowing Hu Xufeng. registered in his name. Among the registration materials he submitted to the Xi'an Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce for equity change registration, there was a "Shareholder Transfer and Capital Contribution Agreement" signed on January 10, 2012, which stated that the shareholders' meeting of Hongrun Real Estate discussed and agreed to transfer 75% of the equity to Wang. . However, the "Loan Agreement" between Wang and Hongrun Group was dated January 11, 2012.
Hu Xufeng didn’t know about this until July 2014. He applied for appraisal from the Judicial Appraisal Center of Northwest University of Political Science and Law. The appraisal opinion shows that the signatures of Hu Xufeng and Wang on this "Shareholder Transfer Capital Contribution Agreement" are not their own signatures.
In 2017, Zhu Moujiang was sentenced to 13 years for two crimes: job embezzlement and illegal absorption of public deposits. Six years later, in September 2023, Hu Xufeng accidentally learned that there was another document in the file that did not belong to his signature.
Hu Xufeng said that in Zhu Jiang’s judgment, “Hu Xufeng’s testimony” appeared. In the testimony, he said, “Li actually holds 93% of the shares of Hongrun Real Estate Company (valued at 328 million yuan). Zhu Jiang wanted to To purchase Li's shares, the funds raised by "Adno Company" (a company actually controlled by Zhu Jiang) were mainly used to purchase these shares." According to previous media reports, Zhu Jiang once confirmed in court that he had Li was given 180 million yuan, of which 44 million yuan was in cash and the rest was transfer. However, the court and the public security organs did not trace the money involved.
Hu Xufeng said that this was completely different from what he said when he reported the case to the police. Both the signature and the content of this transcript were obviously forged. He went to the Keqiao District Court in Shaoxing, Zhejiang to retrieve the transcript and entrusted the Judicial Appraisal Center of Northwest University of Political Science and Law to conduct handwriting appraisal. On October 24, 2023, the center issued an appraisal report stating: "The signature handwriting is not from the same person's handwriting."
The transcript states that this inquiry took place on August 18, 2015, and the interrogators were police officers Qi and Hu from the Economic Crime Investigation Brigade of the High-tech Branch of the Xi'an Public Security Bureau.
Staff from the High-tech Branch of Xi'an Public Security Bureau told the "New Yellow River" reporter on this matter that if Hu Xufeng thinks there is a problem, he can contact them, but he cannot disclose other situations.
As early as 2014, Hu Xufeng’s wife took Hongrun Real Estate to court on the grounds that the signature on the “Shareholder Transfer and Capital Contribution Agreement” was forged, and requested the court to invalidate the “Shareholder Transfer and Capital Contribution Agreement” and put Hongrun Real Estate’s industrial and commercial The registration information is restored to the state before the change.
The Xi'an Intermediate People's Court ruled that the agreement was invalid. Wang appealed, and the second-instance judgment of the Shaanxi Provincial High Court revoked the first-instance judgment of the Xi'an Intermediate People's Court. Hu Xufeng refused to accept the decision, and on March 29, 2019, the Supreme People's Court upheld the decision of the Shaanxi Provincial High Court.
However, the Supreme People's Court found that the "Shareholder Transfer Capital Contribution Agreement" signed on January 10, 2012 was a pledge guarantee by changing the equity holder, and it did not have the effect of equity transfer because it was not the true expression of intention of the parties. As for both parties, "whether the equity pledge in the loan relationship complies with legal regulations can be resolved through separate legal channels."
In addition, Hu Xufeng also initiated an administrative lawsuit against the Xi'an Municipal Market Supervision Bureau (formerly the Xi'an Industrial and Commercial Administration Bureau) on the same grounds that the signatures on the aforementioned "Shareholder Transfer Capital Contribution Agreement" were forged, and accordingly requested the cancellation of the industrial and commercial change registration involved in the lawsuit. .
However, the Xincheng District People’s Court of Xi’an held that the Industry and Commerce Bureau did not find any signature issues on the shareholder transfer capital contribution agreement during the review process, which “is a flaw in the industrial and commercial change registration and does not affect the legality of the administrative action.” The results of the second trial and retrial upheld the original verdict.
reports show that in October 2023, the Shaanxi Provincial Market Supervision Administration accepted Hongrun Group’s report that Hongrun Real Estate Company was suspected of providing false materials to make changes. Regarding the situation reported by Hongrun Group, the Shaanxi Provincial Market Supervision Administration conducted a preliminary investigation The case was later filed in November of the same year. At present, the case is still under investigation and verification.
According to Southern Weekend’s report on September 27, 2023, Wang once replied in a text message: “The whole lies and stories fabricated by Hu Xufeng have troubled me for more than ten years and caused a lot of harm to me and my family. The pressure and shadow. At present, there are irrefutable conclusions in all aspects... Whoever violated the law and committed the crime will definitely be given by the government departments."
Lawyer Fan Chen of Beijing Jingshi Law Firm told "Fadu Law", Xi'an The behavior of police officers Qi and Hu of the Economic Crime Investigation Brigade of the Municipal Public Security Bureau’s High-tech Branch in forging interrogation records is unbelievable and shocking. Two public security officers have embarked on the path of no return by forging interrogation records. Their behavior of forging evidence is not only illegal, but also suspected of crime. It may also violate party discipline and should be investigated. The actions of the two police officers have damaged the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved in the case, the image of the country's judicial organs, the image of the people's police, and the correct implementation of the law, and must be severely punished.
Lawyer Fan Chen said that public security officers should be models of law enforcement and law-abiding, and should be loyal to their duties and strictly enforce the law. People's police must take an oath before joining the job. The "Chinese People's Police Oath" requires that they must be "loyal to the party, serve the people, enforce the law impartially, and maintain strict discipline." The two police officers' behavior of forging evidence completely violated their oaths.
Article 4 of the "People's Police Law" stipulates that "the People's Police must take the Constitution and the law as the guideline for their activities, be loyal to their duties, be honest, have strict discipline, obey orders, and strictly enforce the law." The two police officers' behavior of forging evidence violated the "People's Police Law". According to the provisions of the People's Police Law, a case should be filed for investigation and punishment.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 307 of the "Criminal Law" stipulate that "whoever helps a party to destroy or forge evidence, if the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention. Judicial personnel who commit the crimes in the first two paragraphs shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention." Severe punishment." The two police officers' behavior of forging evidence is suspected of helping to destroy and forge evidence, and they should be investigated and severely punished.
Article 7 of the "Regulations on Disciplinary Punishments of the Communist Party of China" stipulates that "Party organizations and party members violate the Party Constitution and other intra-party regulations, violate national laws and regulations, violate party and national policies, violate socialist ethics, and endanger the interests of the party, the country and the people. Any behavior that should be subject to disciplinary treatment or punishment in accordance with regulations must be investigated." Therefore, if the two police officers are party members, they must be subject to disciplinary sanctions in accordance with party disciplines and even be expelled from the party.
In addition, due to the effective judgments and rulings, the evidence cited has been proven to be forged. Based on this, the retrial procedure can be initiated, an application for retrial can be made, the errors can be corrected, and judicial justice can be provided to the parties involved.
Lawyer Lian Dayou, director of Beijing Jingben Law Firm, mentioned to "Fadu Law" that the prerequisite for the validity of civil legal actions is that the actor has the corresponding civil capacity, the expression of intention is true, and does not violate the mandatory laws and administrative regulations. regulations and do not violate public order and good customs. Without knowing Hu Xufeng, Wang went to the Xi'an Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce and applied to change the registration of the 75% equity of Shaanxi Hongrun Real Estate held by Shaanxi Hongrun Group in his name. It was obviously not an expression of Hu Xufeng's true intention and was not qualified. The prerequisite for the validity of civil legal actions.
Changes in the company's shares require industrial and commercial change registration. Regardless of the requirements of the previous "Company Registration Regulations" or the current "Market Entity Registration Management Regulations", the company or relevant personnel must be authorized, and the registration authority must also conduct a formal review. In this case, when Hu Xufeng discovered a registration error, he could apply to the registration authority to cancel the registration, and the registration authority should change the registration in accordance with the law. If the registration authority refuses to make changes, Hu Xufeng can initiate administrative reconsideration and litigation.
If it also constitutes forging a company seal, the forger will be suspected of forging a company seal. If forgery of signatures and seals is used to embezzle other people's legitimate property, the forger will be suspected of other criminal offenses. If the registration authority knows that the signature is false or the party concerned provides sufficient evidence to request a change, but the relevant personnel refuses to change it, they may also report and accuse the relevant department and demand that they be held accountable.
Lawyer Lian Dayou also mentioned that the transcripts in criminal cases are the records of witness testimonies by the staff of the case-handling agency. Article 56 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that witness testimonies collected using illegal methods such as violence and threats statement, should be excluded. If the collection of documentary evidence does not comply with legal procedures and may seriously affect judicial fairness, it shall be supplemented or corrected or a reasonable explanation given; if it cannot be supplemented or corrected or a reasonable explanation given, the evidence shall be excluded. To put the emphasis on lightness, witness statements collected through illegal methods should be excluded. Then the forged evidence has no legal effect and cannot be used.
If a case handler of a public security organ forges the testimony of a witness, he or she is suspected of violating Article 307, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Law, which stipulates the crime of assisting in the destruction or fabrication of evidence. Judicial personnel who commit the first two crimes shall be severely punished. In order to fabricate facts and frame others with the intention of subjecting others to criminal prosecution, public security personnel who fabricate evidence will also be suspected of violating Article 243 of the Criminal Law.
At the same time, if the investigators collude with others and conspire with others to achieve the purpose of illegally possessing Hu Xufeng's equity by forging witness statements, they may be guilty of other crimes at the same time and should be punished for several crimes.
In fact, the person responsible for the forgery of the transcript is clear, that is, at least the investigator who signed the forgery transcript is the directly responsible person, and should be reported and held criminally responsible by the relevant departments.
