Sun bought a house overseas and applied for a loan. In the process of applying for a loan, he submitted a number of supporting documents through an intermediary, one of which was a bank card statement certificate for his account opening with a bank in Beijing. However, five years later, when Sun went to the bank to inquire in person, the bank told him that the bank card number did not exist at all, and the statement certificate was not issued by the bank.
It stands to reason that Sun should realize the seriousness of the problem and then think of a legal way to solve it. But unexpectedly, he chose to take the bank to court, asking the bank to issue him a certificate that "the bank card does not exist". Behind this, it is actually a "smart" method that Sun thought of in order to avoid taxes overseas. He wants to use this certificate to tell the overseas tax authorities that he does not have the income and savings shown on the statement so that he can pay less tax.
In doing so, we are treating the law as child's play and a serious challenge to the dignity of the law and the authority of the judiciary. At the pre-trial conference, although Sun admitted that the materials were forged, he still insisted that the bank issue a certificate for him. It's like a child who knows he's done something wrong, but still wants to deny it.
At the time of the trial, although Sun and his lawyer did not produce any new evidence, they still filed an application to withdraw the lawsuit. They may have thought they would be able to escape the law, but the courts didn't let them go so easily.
The court felt that Sun's actions had obstructed the normal order of civil proceedings. He knew that the transaction details of those accounts were fake, but he still used them as evidence to sue the bank, trying to use legal means to achieve his illegal goals. Not only does this waste the court's time and resources, but it also makes normal litigation a mess. Moreover, his sudden application to withdraw the lawsuit in the course of the litigation is also a serious violation of the principle of good faith.
The court finally decided not to accept Sun's application to withdraw the lawsuit, and also punished him for his behavior. This verdict is not only a punishment for Sun alone, but also a maintenance of the entire social integrity system. It tells us that in a society governed by the rule of law, it will not work to take advantage of lies and deception, and will only be punished by the law in the end.
This case is not only a lesson for Sun, but also a wake-up call for all of us. When participating in civil litigation, we must abide by the principle of good faith, tell the truth, respect the legal facts, and follow the rules. Only in this way can we work together to create a fair, just and orderly environment for the rule of law.
This case also reminds us of the problem of intermediaries. These institutions should abide by laws, regulations and industry norms when helping customers, and the information provided to customers should be true, legal and effective. If they falsify materials and deceive customers in order to make money, they should be punished by law. The relevant departments should also strengthen the supervision of these intermediaries, improve the regulatory system, improve the efficiency of supervision, and prevent similar things from happening again at the source.
This case is a typical civil lawsuit for dishonesty. It tells us that in a society governed by the rule of law, both individuals and institutions must regard honesty and credibility as the most basic principle, respect the law, abide by the rules, and maintain order. Only in this way can we work together to build a harmonious, stable and prosperous society governed by the rule of law.
When Sun took out a loan to buy a house overseas, the reason why he had to provide a forged bank card statement certificate through an intermediary agency was probably because his actual income and savings did not meet the loan requirements. In order to get a loan smoothly, he chose to take shortcuts and tried to use fake certificates to fool him around. However, he did not expect that this lie would be exposed five years later, let alone that he would get into legal trouble because of this lie.
In this process, intermediaries play an inglorious role. In order to earn intermediary fees, they do not hesitate to help customers falsify materials and deceive lending institutions. This behavior not only violates professional ethics and industry norms, but also violates laws and regulations. If the relevant authorities can strengthen the supervision of intermediaries and strictly review the materials they submit, similar incidents may be avoided.
This case also shows us the importance of the principle of good faith in civil litigation. In court, all parties should respect the facts and the law, and must not falsify evidence or conceal the truth. If one party violates the principle of good faith for the sake of selfish interests, it will not only damage the legitimate rights and interests of the other party, but also disrupt the normal order of litigation, and will only reap the consequences in the end.
We should draw lessons from this case and always keep in mind the importance of the principle of good faith. Whether in everyday life or in civil litigation, we should be honest, follow the rules, and respect the law.
Only in this way can we jointly create a fair, just and orderly environment for the rule of law, so that everyone can live and work in peace and contentment under the protection of the rule of law.