Jiangxi Zhongsheng Zhumu Technology Co., Ltd., which blatantly falsified the case file, illegally designated a bankruptcy administrator, and had high-quality assets and whose total assets were ten times greater than its debts, was firmly determined to be bankrupt by the Lichuan County People's Court in Jiangxi Province, and tossed and turned for four consecutive years.
Recently, the media exposed this absurd case under the title of "Vice President of the Fuzhou Intermediate Court in Jiangxi Province: Pulling Out the Case of Absurd And Perverted Law Enforcement".
The article pointed out that the case was originally manipulated by Zhou Jianping, vice president of the Fuzhou Intermediate Courtyard. I thought that Zhou Jianping's downfall would allow the case to be corrected, but the result was that the Lichuan court made mistakes again and again, resolutely did not correct, and the dead pigs were not afraid of boiling water.
In desperation, Zhongsheng Company had to make real-name reports on the suspected violations of laws and regulations by Xie Xiaoya, the presiding judge of the Lichuan Court, and Chen Xiaoyi, the bankruptcy administrator of Jiangxi On Yan Law Firm.
The whistleblower letter pointed out that judge Xie Xiaoya colluded with the bankruptcy administrator, Mr. Chen Xiaoyi of Jiangxi Research Law Firm, to possess the assets of Zhongsheng Company, and jointly maliciously applied legal provisions in violation of the law, perverted the law, and deliberately created a bankruptcy case of Zhongsheng Company, seriously infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of Zhongsheng Company. To this end, Zhongsheng Company requested the higher courts, discipline inspection commissions and other departments to investigate and deal with their illegal acts, so as to correct the situation and maintain the business environment in Jiangxi.
【Attached: Report Letter】
Whistleblowing and complaints
Whistleblower: Jiangxi Zhongsheng Bamboo Technology Co., Ltd., domicile: Industrial Park, Lichuan County, Fuzhou City, Jiangxi Province, unified social credit code: 91361022060750903A, legal representative: Zhao Huihua, general manager and executive director Shareholder: Chen Mingzhong
Reported: 1. Judge Xie Xiaoya of the People's Court of Lichuan County, Jiangxi Province
2. Mr. Chen Xiaoyi of Jiangxi Nongyan Law Firm
Complaint Request:
Request the relevant departments to investigate and deal with judge Xie Xiaoya of the Lichuan County People's Court of Jiangxi Province for colluding with the bankruptcy administrator Jiangxi On Research Law Firm Chen Xiaoyi to maliciously and illegally apply the law and regulations, bend the law and deliberately create a bankruptcy case of the whistleblower company, seriously infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of the informant, and request that their illegal acts be investigated and punished, so as to correct the situation and safeguard the business environment in Jiangxi Province.
Facts and reasons:
On July 25, 2018, the presiding judge of the Lichuan County People's Court in Jiangxi Province illegally rendered the (2018) Gan 1022 Breaking Shen No. 2 Civil Ruling for Xie Xiaoya's private interests, ruling that "the bankruptcy liquidation application of the applicant Yu Xiaoping against the applicant Jiangxi Zhongsheng Bamboo Technology Co., Ltd." was accepted. On August 13, 2018, Xie Xiaoya, the presiding judge of the Lichuan Court, in order to jointly and maliciously possess the informant's assets and privately divide the manager's fees, colluded with lawyer Chen Xiaoyi of Jiangxi Onan Law Firm to make the (2018) Gan1022 Breaking 2 Decision: "Designate Jiangxi Nongyan Law Firm to serve as the administrator of Jiangxi Zhongsheng Bamboo Technology Co., Ltd." (hereinafter referred to as the "bankruptcy administrator"), and the main criminal clues are as follows:
1. Xie Xiaoya, the presiding judge of the Lichuan Court, for privately dividing the management expenses, operated in violation of the law and perverted the law, and forcibly ruled that the whistleblower who did not meet the bankruptcy conditions would be reviewed on the grounds that "after compulsory enforcement by the enforcement court, it is still unable to pay off the debts due", resulting in serious damage to the assets of the whistleblower's company and a very bad social impact.
1. In the (2016) Gan1022 No. 174 Ter Enforcement Decision made by Judge Xie Xiaoya of the Lichuan Court on August 27, 2017, "The judgment debtor Jiangxi Zhongsheng Bamboo Technology Co., Ltd. cannot pay off its debts as they fall due, and clearly lacks solvency... It was decided to transfer the judgment debtor, Jiangxi Zhongsheng Zhumu Technology Co., Ltd., to bankruptcy review", the presiding judge Xie Xiaoya colluded with Chen Xiaoyi, a lawyer at Jiangxi On Yan Law Firm, to privately divide the management expenses of the bankruptcy administrator, and then further possessed the assets of the whistleblower company by bankruptcy means, ignoring the real estate such as land and factory buildings and other real estate, as well as products, machinery and equipment and movable property of office facilities under the whistleblower's name, and in the case of repaying the debts of creditors, the above assets were not seized and auctioned. On July 1, 2017, the Lichuan court issued the (2016) Gan 1022 Zhi No. 174 Enforcement Ruling: The whistleblower Chongzhu 2986 was paid to yu Xiaoping for 240,000 yuan (see Annex 1 for details), so as long as the execution was normal, even if only part of the whistleblower's products or machinery and equipment were auctioned, it was enough to pay off the claims of the applicant executor Yu Xiaoping for enforcement, and there was no need for bankruptcy liquidation. Moreover, at that time, the informant's factory land was being leased to the outside world, and the rent for one year was enough to cover all the claims of the applicant for execution. Xie Xiaoya, the presiding judge of the Lichuan Court, forced the informant to carry out bankruptcy proceedings on the grounds that "after compulsory enforcement by the people's court, it is impossible to pay off debts" on the premise that the informant did not carry out normal enforcement procedures and the whistleblower did not receive the enforcement notice and other materials, which seriously violated the provisions of the law and did not apply at all" Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of the People's Republic of China (1) Article 4: Although the debtor's book assets are greater than the liabilities, there are any of the following circumstances, The people's court shall determine that it clearly lacks solvency: (3) It is impossible to pay off its debts after compulsory enforcement by the people's court. " stipulates that its conduct is a perversion of justice for the following reasons:
(1) Inability to pay off debts as they fall due refers to the objective property situation in which the debtor is unable to repay the debts as they are requested to be repaid due to the inability to repay them. The elements of non-liquidation are: the debtor is insolvent. The determination of whether the debtor has solvency shall be comprehensively judged on the basis of the debtor's property, credit, labor services and other factors. Incapacity is constituted when the debtor is unable to pay off the debt in all ways, including voluntary performance and court enforcement. However, by leasing plant and equipment, the whistleblower can earn two or three million yuan in rent per year (see Annex II for details), and still has a fixed income, which is enough to show that it does not meet the "obvious lack of solvency".
(2) The whistleblower submitted special audit reports to the Lichuan County People's Court several times, among which the relevant assets of the whistleblower in the Ganzhong Heng Appraisal Report (2019) No. 015 "Jiangxi Zhongsheng Bamboo Technology Co., Ltd. Manager's Asset Portfolio Asset Appraisal Report Involved in bankruptcy Liquidation" issued by Jiangxi Zhongheng Asset Real Estate Land Appraisal Consulting Co., Ltd. on April 3, 2019 were: 14 housing buildings, 1 industrial land, 28 machinery and equipment, The appraisal conclusions obtained from 13 items such as office facilities: the net value of the whistleblower's bankruptcy liquidation appraisal is 19422152 yuan (see Annex III for details), which is sufficient to prove that the whistleblower's assets can cover and far exceed its total liabilities. Moreover, when the presiding judge Xie Xiaoya illegally and forcibly ruled that the whistleblower was bankrupt, the compulsory enforcement claim accepted by the court was only 5294734.55 yuan.
Among them, Cai Haibo stamped the company's seal without the consent of the shareholders, and handled a total of 1.3348 million yuan in high-interest loans. Xie Xiaoya overpaid Liu Jinhua 194,000 yuan for the purpose of repeated execution of profit transmission. Zou Xinhui, a civil servant, lent money at low interest rates to high interest rates, and together with Cai Haibo, the loan amount was 2,200,610,440 yuan, and Zhang Lugan's loan amount was 867,3242 yuan, and the above two did not rule out the possibility of false litigation. The total amount of loan sharks and loan sharks is 4,402,285,640 yuan, which has entered Cai Haibo's personal pocket and is squandered, and the company should not bear the repayment responsibility. Another 240,000 yuan has been returned to Yu Xiaoping through the court. Therefore, after deducting the above-mentioned usurious loan that entered Cai Haibo's personal pocket and the repayment of Yu Xiaoping's 240,000 yuan, the actual debt that the company should bear is only more than 650,000 yuan, and it also includes the judgment amount of the false lawsuit.
In addition, the whistleblower repeatedly proposed judicial remedies for the above-mentioned illegal bankruptcy cases, but the Lichuan County People's Court, in the (2018) Gan1022 Breaking Shen No. 2 Civil Ruling issued on July 25, 2018, found that "the whistleblower's objection that there is no asset insufficient to pay off all debts and obvious lack of solvency is inconsistent with the facts, and this court does not adopt the objection" (see Annex IV for details), and the conduct of the lead judge Xie Xiaoya was obviously a perverse judgment, seriously harming the interests of the informant. Destroying the business environment in Jiangxi Province, the social impact of its behavior is very bad.
2. The Lichuan County Court illegally fabricated the time when the creditor Yu Xiaoping applied for bankruptcy, and on the premise that the applicant Yu Xiaoping had repeatedly requested the withdrawal of his bankruptcy application, he maliciously disagreed with the applicant's application for personal gain and forcibly promoted the bankruptcy of the informant, and his behavior was also a criminal act of perverting the law.
Creditor Yu Xiaoping filed the Creditor's Bankruptcy Application with the Lichuan County People's Court on 12 April 2017. According to Article 10 of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of the People's Republic of China, where a creditor submits an application for bankruptcy, the people's court shall notify the debtor within five days from the date of receipt of the application. If the debtor has objections to the application, it shall submit it to the people's court within seven days of receiving the notice from the people's court. The people's court shall decide whether to accept it within 10 days of the expiration of the objection period. Except in the circumstances provided for in the preceding paragraph, the people's court shall decide whether to accept the bankruptcy application within 15 days from the date of receipt of the bankruptcy application. Where there are special circumstances that require an extension of the time limit for accepting rulings provided for in the preceding two paragraphs, they may be extended by 15 days upon approval by the people's court at the level above. Therefore, the Lichuan County Court shall make a ruling on whether to accept the application within 30 days after Yu Xiaoping submits the application at the latest, that is, by May 12, 2017. However, the Lichuan County Court did not make any ruling within the stipulated time limit, and the presiding judge Xie Xiaoya had clearly violated the law.
The (2018) Gan 1022 Baoshen No. 2 Civil Ruling issued by the Lichuan County People's Court stated that "on January 31, 2018, the applicant Yu Xiaoping applied to this court for bankruptcy liquidation of the accuser on the grounds that it was unable to pay off the debts due after compulsory enforcement by the people's court". The determination was fabricated by the presiding judge Xie Xiaoya in violation of the law for personal gain. In fact, Yu Xiaoping did not file a bankruptcy application with any person on January 31, 2018, and the bankruptcy application time alleged in the above ruling was fabricated by Judge Xie Xiaoya without permission, which is an obvious act of perverting the law.
Yu Xiaoping's "Application for Withdrawal of Bankruptcy" on July 8, 2020 clearly stated: "After learning of the ruling, I repeatedly orally submitted a withdrawal of bankruptcy application to the Lichuan Court, and stated that I had never filed a bankruptcy application with any court since April 12, 2017, and that the application for January 31, 2018 was fabricated... Applying for bankruptcy to repay debts to the whistleblower is not my true meaning. Therefore, he once again submitted in writing to the court to withdraw the application for bankruptcy repayment of Jiangxi Zhongsheng Bamboo Technology Co., Ltd." However, the presiding judge, Xie Xiaoya, did not care about the facts and forcibly bankrupted the whistleblower (see Annex V for details).
To sum up, Judge Xie Xiaoya of the Lichuan County Court arbitrarily fabricated facts and illegally ruled that accepting an application for bankruptcy liquidation is a serious act of perverting the law, and his behavior has constituted a crime.
3. Xie Xiaoya, the presiding judge of the Lichuan County Court, and jiangxi non-research law firm, the designated bankruptcy administrator, maliciously colluded to collude with outsiders in the case to fabricate debts, maliciously inflate bankruptcy administration fees, and seize the informant's property.
1. As the bankruptcy administrator, Jiangxi Nongyan Law Firm fabricated the fact that Zhao Huihua, the legal representative of the whistleblower, had disappeared, maliciously undermined the creditor-debtor settlement relationship that had been formed between the whistleblower and the creditor, and in order to encroach on the informant's assets, illegally failed to perform the duties of the administrator or abused his powers, the presiding judge Xie Xiaoya not only did not correct it, but instead played a trick for the tiger, making him arrogant, and his two acts should be punished by law. (See Annex VI for details)
On November 20, 2018, Xie Xiaoya, the presiding judge of the Lichuan County People's Court, convened the creditors, whistleblowers and administrators to hold the first creditors' meeting in the fourth trial division of the court, and in the process of presiding over the meeting, the administrator repeatedly announced to the creditors and the court that zhao Huihua, the major shareholder and legal representative of the informant, had disappeared, so the whistleblower could not operate normally. However, in fact, Mr. Zhao Huihua had already attended the meeting on the same day and participated in the creditors' meeting at the meeting site, and repeatedly expressed his identity to the administrator, and also explained to the administrator and the sponsoring judge Xie Xiaoya many times before and after the meeting that the whistleblower had reached a consensus of reconciliation with the creditors, and there was no need to declare the whistleblower bankrupt. However, the administrator and the presiding judge Xie Xiaoya ignored Mr. Zhao Huihua's opinions and requests in order to jointly seize the informant's assets. When the administrator issued the administrator's work report to the Lichuan County People's Court, he falsely claimed that Mr. Zhao Huihua had "disappeared and lost contact" and that the informant had no one to operate and manage. The two of them have committed a crime. What is even more incredible is that the national laws, regulations and policies clearly tend to support the reorganization of the company and avoid bankruptcy liquidation, but the presiding judge Xie Xiaoya and the bankruptcy administrator deliberately undermined the settlement relationship reached between the whistleblower and the creditors (that is, the whistleblower repaid the debt in installments by renting part of the factory to the creditors), rudely mailed the "Notice of Termination of the Lease Contract" to the creditors, requiring the creditors to move out of the factory, resulting in the settlement agreement reached between the whistleblower and the creditors unable to continue to be performed. The presiding judge Xie Xiaoya used his power to maliciously carry out the bankruptcy procedure, and his collusion with the designated administrator abused the rights of the administrator, causing huge losses to both the informant and the creditors, and the two of them have already constituted a crime and should be punished!
2. The bankruptcy administrator and the informant have a conflict of interest or interest, the lead judge Xie Xiaoya should not appoint Jiangxi Research Law Firm as the bankruptcy administrator, and the whistleblower has repeatedly raised objections to the court, but the lead judge xie Xiaoya of the Lichuan County People's Court violated the provisions of the law for personal gain and did not deal with it, and his behavior was also a perverse judgment. (See Annex VII for details)
On January 31, 2018, The Presiding Judge of the Lichuan County People's Court, Xie Xiaoya, ruled that the whistleblower entered the bankruptcy review procedure, while Xie Xiaoya, the lead judge of the Lichuan County People's Court, still designated Jiangxi Onyan Law Firm as the bankruptcy administrator of the whistleblower, and Zhang Lugan was the lawyer of Jiangxi Onyan Law Firm ,, on the premise that jiangxi on-the-wall law firm (lawyer Zhang Lugan) and the whistleblower had an unsolved creditor-debtor relationship (case number: 2016 Gan1022 Min Chu No. 415). The lead judge, Xie Xiaoya, ignored the whistleblower's request and still appointed Jiangxi Research Law Firm as the bankruptcy administrator, which was obviously in violation of the law. According to Article 23 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Appointment of Administrators in the Trial of Enterprise Bankruptcy Cases, "if a member of a social intermediary institution or liquidation group has any of the following circumstances that may affect their faithful performance of the duties of an administrator, the people's court may determine that it is an interest as provided for in Item 3 of Paragraph 3 of Article 24 of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law: (1) There is an outstanding creditor-debtor relationship with the debtor or creditor..." and Article 24 of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of the People's Republic of China states that "in any of the following circumstances, The Lichuan County People's Court shall replace the bankruptcy administrator, but the Lichuan County People's Court did not regard the lawyer as a member of the law firm when reviewing the interests, and refused to replace him on the grounds that "Zhang Lugan is an individual lawyer and has died", which is wrong, resulting in the bankruptcy administrator committing a series of violations and violations such as undermining the creditor-debtor settlement relationship between the whistleblower and the creditor, inflating the bankruptcy administration fee, and failing to examine the creditor's claim, that is, hastily approving the debt , seriously damaged the legitimate rights and interests of whistleblowers!
3. The administrator confirmed the irregularity of the disputed claim declaration, and the presiding judge Xie Xiaoya still deliberately did not correct it, insisting on illegally carrying out bankruptcy procedures. (See Annex VIII for details)
Without the review of the creditors' meeting or the approval of the court, the administrator illegally determined that the informant should repay the creditors Lin Jinmu and Xu Xinping of 400,000 yuan and Rao Gaosheng's claims of 490,000 yuan. None of the above-mentioned amounts are the debts of the whistleblower and are clearly fictitious claims. After the whistleblower raised objections to the administrator's abuse of power, the case handling personnel of the Lichuan County People's Court still colluded with the administrator and the sponsoring judge Xie Xiaoya, and illegally determined that the whistleblower still needed to bear unnecessary debts.
4. The manager demanded unusually high remuneration, and under the premise of clearly violating the legal provisions, the whistleblower repeatedly raised objections to the Lichuan County People's Court and the sponsoring judge Xie Xiaoya, but the sponsoring judge Xie Xiaoya had a relationship of interest transmission with the manager, privately divided the informant's assets, and illegally adjudicated. (See Annex IX for details)
According to Article 2 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on The Confirmation of the Administrator's Remuneration in the Trial of Enterprise Bankruptcy Cases, "The people's court shall determine the administrator's remuneration in sections according to the total value of the debtor's final settlement of the property, within the following proportional limits...", the basis for calculating the remuneration of the administrator shall be "the total value of the property finally repaid by the debtor", but the administrator and Xie Xiaoya, the presiding judge of the Lichuan County People's Court, determined that the management fee should be calculated on the basis of "total debt". The management fee was raised to 1485329.12 yuan, and the whistleblower repeatedly raised objections to the administrator and the economic officer about the excessive management fee, but both ignored the whistleblower's objections, and also threatened that if the whistleblower did not pay the management fee in one lump sum, it would not promote the whistleblower and the creditor to reach a settlement, which was obviously malicious in forcing the whistleblower to pay an abnormally high management fee. It was not until the whistleblower reported to the regulatory departments at all levels that the Lichuan County People's Court re-ruled (2018 Gan 1022 Broken No. 2-11) to adjust the bankruptcy administration fee to 976633.22 yuan.
In fact, this bankruptcy settlement is the result of Judge Xie Xiaoya and lawyer Chen Xiaoyi colluding with each other to illegally exert pressure on the whistleblower, and the whistleblower is forced to make a temporary compromise in order to protect his business. Since the signing of the bankruptcy settlement agreement is not the true intention of the whistleblower, and it is a statement made in violation of the facts and the law under the dual pressure of the judge and the lawyer, the settlement agreement should be revoked in accordance with the law and the relevant false litigation should be thoroughly investigated.
In summary, the presiding judge Xie Xiaoya maliciously colluded with the bankruptcy administrator to forcibly and illegally carry out the whistleblower's bankruptcy liquidation for personal gain, and seriously violated the law in the bankruptcy liquidation procedure, damaging the legitimate rights and interests of the informant, undermining judicial fairness and fairness, undermining the local business environment, and causing an extremely bad social impact, leading the outside world to think that the judicial system in Fuzhou, Jiangxi is very "black", and that there is a crooked trend in Jiangxi that colludes with internal and external collusion to use judicial procedures to encroach on other people's assets, destroying Jiangxi's investment environment and business environment. Request relevant departments to eliminate these lawbreakers, to correct the situation, to protect the smooth implementation of the party and state policies, and to build a society based on the rule of law. Thank you!
To (send)
Supreme People's Court
The Discipline Inspection Commission and Supervision Commission of Jiangxi Province of the Communist Party of China
The Political and Legal Committee of the Jiangxi Provincial CPC Committee and the Education and Rectification Office of the Political and Legal Contingent
Jiangxi Provincial High People's Court
The Fuzhou Municipal Discipline Inspection Commission and the Supervision Commission of the Communist Party of China
Whistleblower: Jiangxi Zhongsheng Bamboo Technology Co., Ltd
When: September 16, 2021