Li Dongming was once a billionaire who founded a number of enterprises in Yunnan and Guangxi, including Mengzi Mining and Metallurgical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Mengzi Mining and Metallurgy"), which has assets worth nearly 10 billion yuan. After Li Dongming's death on June 29, 2019 while serving a prison sentence in Guangxi, an Equity Transfer Agreement for 47.78 million yuan to transfer nearly 10 billion yuan worth of equity in Mengzi Mining and Metallurgy triggered a series of lawsuits. Li Dongming's wife, Ms. Qin, and her daughter sued Li Mouqing, the transferee of the equity transfer, in court, requesting that the "Equity Transfer Agreement" be terminated and the equity registration resumed.
Recently, the Honghe Prefecture Intermediate People's Court openly tried the case. In court, the plaintiff presented a "Judicial Appraisal Opinion" in court. According to the appraisal opinion, on March 9, 2018, the signature of "Li Dongming" on the "Equity Transfer Agreement" and the "Power of Attorney" is not the same person's handwriting as the signature of Li Dongming on file in the Market Supervision Bureau before his death. The plaintiff believed that someone had forged the "Equity Transfer Agreement" by impersonating Li Dongming's signature, and requested the court to transfer the case to the public security organ for investigation and restore the equity registration.
The plaintiff's signature on the relevant transfer documents was forged, and the plaintiff requested that the equity involved in the case be restored
Ms. Qin said that Mengzi Mining and Metallurgical is a large private enterprise in Honghe Prefecture, and in November 2002 and October 2007, her husband Li Dongming sold 6.2 percent and 0.3 percent of the company's shares to the second and third largest shareholders respectively, and her husband holds 93.5 percent of the shares.
On July 17, 2001, Li Dongming was sentenced to 20 years in prison for a major flooding accident at the Nandan mine in Guangxi, which was owned by Li Dongming. After he was imprisoned, he was released on medical parole for medical reasons, and later sent to prison to serve his sentence.
On June 29, 2019 (while serving his sentence in Guangxi Prison), Li Dongming passed away. "The business of the enterprise has always been ......managed by the person entrusted by her husband," Ms. Qin said, after handling her husband's funeral, she came to the door of the Mengzi Mining and Metallurgical Office Building to learn about the company's business conditions, but was stopped by the security guard.
In January 2020, Ms. Qin sent a letter to the Mengzi Municipal Administration for Market Regulation, probably informing the equity registration authority not to arbitrarily handle the registration of shareholder changes in Mengzi Mining and Metallurgy. At the same time, Ms. Qin also informed the equity registration departments of Zhenkang and Yunxian that "the equity cannot be changed". After receiving the letter, the equity registration departments of Zhenkang and Yunxian attached great importance to it, and the equity is still in Li Dongming's name today.
"On April 17, 2020, the husband's 93.5% equity in Mengzi Mining and Metallurgy was changed to Li Mouqing's name. According to the relevant staff of the Mengzi Municipal Market Supervision and Administration Bureau, Li Mouqing presented the "Power of Attorney" and the "Equity Transfer Agreement" signed by Li Dongming on March 9, 2018. I think things are very strange, Li Dongming is serving a prison sentence, the second shareholder is also serving a prison sentence, and he doesn't even have the resolution of the shareholders' meeting and the registration conditions, how can the equity be changed in Li Mouqing's name? Ms. Qin said that after the death of her husband, if she wants to change the shareholder, the registration can only be changed after the legal heir inherits the shareholder qualification and agrees. Moreover, in January 2020, she sent a special letter to inform Li Dongming of the Mengzi Municipal Market Supervision Bureau that he had passed away, and the change of equity in Mengzi Mining and Metallurgy could only be changed if the heirs were present and agreed.
"I have doubts about the authenticity of this share transfer agreement. At the time of signing the agreement, the husband was in extremely poor health and was serving his sentence in prison, which has a strict management system and cannot enter and leave at will. Moreover, the equity of Mengzi Mining and Metallurgy is the joint property between me and my husband, and my husband cannot transfer it to others without authorization. Ms. Qin said that the property under the name of Mengzi Mining and Metallurgy was nearly 10 billion yuan, and Li Mouqing only spent 47.78 million yuan to get the transfer, which is obviously unreasonable.
As a result, Ms. Qin and her daughter sued Li Mouqing to the Honghe Intermediate People's Court, requesting the court to order the dissolution of the Equity Transfer Agreement and to restore the equity involved in the case. At the same time, Mengzi Mining and Metallurgical and other shareholders participated in the lawsuit as a third party.
Ms. Qin said that Li Mouqing took the "Equity Transfer Agreement" and the "Power of Attorney" to change the equity at the Mengzi Municipal Market Supervision Bureau, which triggered a series of lawsuits, but Li Mouqing and his agent never showed the original "Equity Transfer Agreement" to the court.
The plaintiffs' attorneys stated that their previous requests for evidence and for appraisal were not granted. At the trial on April 23, 2024, the plaintiff presented the "Judicial Appraisal Opinion" to present evidence. According to the appraisal opinion of the opinion, "the signature of 'Li Dongming' on page 2 of the Equity Transfer Agreement submitted for inspection dated 'March 9, 2018' is not the same person's handwriting as the signature of the same name on the sample. ”
The defendant's handwriting appraisal was a unilateral commission and did not reach a conclusive conclusion
In court, the defendant's agent claimed that the original "Equity Transfer Agreement" had been notarized by a notary office in Kunming, and the relevant materials were kept in the archives of the notary office and confirmed in other effective legal documents, so the "Equity Transfer Agreement" was true and valid.
During the trial, the plaintiff's attorney believed that the appraisal opinion had confirmed that the signatures on the Equity Transfer Agreement and the Power of Attorney should have been signed by someone impersonating Li Dongming. Therefore, the Equity Transfer Agreement involved in the case is forged and suspected of a criminal offense, and the court is requested to transfer the case to the public security organ for investigation.
During the trial, after the plaintiff presented the Judicial Appraisal Opinion, the defendant's attorney believed that the judicial appraisal was unilaterally entrusted by the plaintiff, and the appraisal opinion only tended to believe that the signature handwriting submitted for inspection and the sample signature handwriting were not the same person's handwriting, and did not form a positive appraisal conclusion.
The evidence to be collected by the court is complex and significant, and it needs to be reported to the adjudication committee for discussion and decision
The plaintiff's attorney believes that the plaintiff issued a "judicial appraisal opinion" to the court, which confirmed that the "equity transfer agreement" involved in the case was not signed by Li Dongming and was forged by others. Although the Judicial Appraisal Opinion was unilaterally entrusted by the plaintiff, the defendant could not produce evidence to overturn the appraisal opinion, so the court should adopt the Judicial Appraisal Opinion.
At the same time, the plaintiff's agent requested the court to obtain the original relevant transfer documents from a notary office in Kunming, as well as the video footage and objective evidence of Li Dongming's signature in Qinzhou Prison in Guangxi Province to prove the authenticity of the Equity Transfer Agreement.
After the collegial panel adjourned for collegial deliberation, the adjudicators replied in court: Because the evidence that the plaintiff applied to collect was complex and significant, it needed to be reported to the adjudication committee of the Honghe Intermediate People's Court for discussion and decision.
At present, the case is still pending.
Reporter Bai Licheng