After seven years in jail, Shen Yu was 13, and Gu Chujun, 59, came to the Supreme Court for retrial. At 8:30 on the morning of June 13, the court of the First Circuit of the Supreme Court opened the court to hear the case of Gu Chujun. Gu Chujun was dressed in a suit. The defendant's seat. He was familiar with the case and the law. He repeatedly gave speeches in court.
Gu was jailed in 2005 and raised a high-profile report and appeal after being released from prison in early 2012. He was officially re-examined by the Supreme Court at the end of last year. On December 27 last year, the Supreme Court announced the direct review of two major IPR cases, including Zhang Wenzhong. Case and Gu Chujun case. Not long ago, the Supreme Court reconsidered and sentenced the founder of the Wumart Group Zhang Wenzhong to be innocent. In the Gu Jujun case, whether he was similarly innocenced was widely concerned. For entrepreneurial groups, especially for engaging in 'Made in China' For entrepreneurs, the Gu Chujun case is a typical and iconic case.
The trial on June 13 lasted from 8:30 in the morning until 23:30 in the middle of the day. The hearing from early to late night was rare.
At the court investigation stage, only one of the 15 new evidences provided by the defense was adopted; and the seven new evidence provided by the prosecution caused fierce suspicion by the defense, and the controversy over the reinforcement evidence involving the crime of misappropriating funds occurred. This version of the "Payment Notice" sparked a debate about whether or not 'perjury'.
At 8:30 in the morning on June 14, the trial continued and the stage of court debate began. As of this writing, the trial was not yet completed.
The retrial of the Gu Chujun case was seen as the central government's proper handling of historically formed property rights cases. It insisted on correcting mistakes and made entrepreneurs form an important signal for stabilizing their psychological expectations. What will the end result be?
Both sides of the prosecution have new evidence to provide
Gu Chujun is the founder of the Greencool Group. Before he was jailed in 2005, Gu Chujun rushed forward in the capital market and was called the 'capital predator'.
In 2000, Gu’s Greencool Technology Holdings Co., Ltd. was listed in Hong Kong. This was Gu's first listed company; Gu Chujun then acquired the famous state-owned company Guangdong Kelon Electric Co., Ltd. (Hisense Kelon) in October 2001. Predecessor, 000921.SZ, hereinafter referred to as Kelon Electric), acquired Meiling Electric (000521.SZ) in May 2003, acquired Yaxing Bus (600213.SH) at the end of 2003, acquired Fuyang Bearing (000678.SZ) in April 2004. ), In a few short years, has already controlled five listed companies.
All this ended with the CSRC's investigation of Kelon Electronics in 2005. On September 2, 2005, Gu Chujun was arrested; in 2008, the Foshan Intermediate People's Court made a verdict on Gu, Gu Chujun made false reports of registered capital, and breached regulations. Disclosure, not to disclose the crime of major information and misappropriation of funds, was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and a fine of 6.8 million yuan. In March 2009, the Guangdong High Court refuted the court’s appeal and maintained the original verdict.
In 2005, Gu Chujun went to prison to start reporting relevant officials. He was acquitted after being released from prison in 2012 and began to appeal. After December 27, 2017, the Supreme Court made a retrial decision on the case.
According to the “Finance” reporter’s understanding, before the retrial, on May 18, the collegial panel organized the prosecution and defense parties to hold a pre-trial meeting. The prosecution and the defense both provided new evidence. The prosecution provided 7 new evidences, and the defense provided 15 New evidence.
At the court investigation stage on June 13, the court adopted a new piece of evidence provided by the defense (Guangdong Green Co., Ltd. “High-tech Enterprise Credentials Certificate”) for a court investigation. 'Other evidence materials submitted by Gu Chujun, both parties agreed that no It belongs to new evidence, but it is controversial. It can be put forward during the court hearing.'
Seven new evidence provided by the prosecution were all adopted as court investigations. The seven new evidence materials included a new piece of evidence relating to the crime of misrepresenting registered capital; two new evidences related to the disclosure of non-disclosure and non-disclosure of major information crimes. And four new evidences related to the crime of misappropriating funds.
According to the “Finance” reporter’s understanding, at the pre-trial conference before the retrial, Gu Chujun provided the prosecutor with seven “new technical documents issued by the Supreme Judicial Expertise Center” (hereinafter referred to as the “Technical Review Opinion”). The new evidence was challenged. At the trial on June 13th, when the presiding judge asked 'whether the defendant of the original trial had any opinion on the defender', Gu Chujun said that the "Technical Review Opinion" was a perjury and required perjury. The prosecutors concerned evaded. The court held that Gu Chujun's application for an evasion reason could not be established. For the Guzheng Jun's perjury question, he said, 'This will be decided after the court hearing today.'
What kind of "Technical Review Opinions" is it to allow Gu Chujun to call 'falsification'?
Multiple "payment notices" arguing true and false
The “Technical Review Opinion” contained only three pages of content. This new evidence is to prove the evidence that Mr. Gu Chujun’s misappropriation of funds involved a sum of RMB 63 million.
In Gu Chujun’s three counts, the most serious penalty is the misappropriation of funds and the term of imprisonment is eight years. Initially, the prosecutor accused Gu Chujun of diverting funds up to seven, and the court of first instance and second instance ruled out five, but confirmed two of them.
First, the court of second instance found that Gu Chujun’s misappropriation of two funds was related to its privately-controlled Yangzhou Greencool Company. One was the misappropriation of Kelon Electric Company and Jiangxi Kelon Company for a total of 290 million yuan for the registration of Yangzhou Greencool; another The pen is misappropriating 63 million yuan of Yangzhou Yaxing Bus Company for use by Yangzhou Greencool.
For this RMB 63 million, according to the judgment of the original judgment, Gu Chujun, on the condition that Yangzhou Mechanical and Electrical Assets Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yangzhou Electromechanical Co., Ltd.) did not make a loan, issued a “Notice of Payment” to Yangzhou Mechanical & Electrical Company in the name of Yangzhou Yaxing Bus Company. The book, remits the equity transfer payment that Yangzhou Electrical and Mechanical Company paid to Yangzhou Yaxing Bus Co., Ltd. to Gu Chujun’s privately-controlled Yangzhou Green Co., Ltd., 'appropriating funds from this unit for personal use'.
After the judgment of the court of first instance, Gu Chujun emphasized in the complaint that the $63 million was entirely a loan between the company and was totally unrelated to the crime of misappropriating funds. Gu said that after Kelon Electronics was investigated by the China Securities Regulatory Commission in 2005, it was quickly In order to tide over the difficulties, he made a loan request with the main leader of the Yangzhou City Government and received approval. The rich Yangzhou Mechanical and Electrical Company on the account borrowed 63 million yuan to pay Yangzhou Green Cole. The court of second instance denied the real "Loan Agreement" and took the forged "payment notice" and conducted a determination against the truth.
The "Technical Review Opinion" is to prove the authenticity of the "Payment Notice", but it also leads to different versions of the "Notification of Payment".
On June 13, Gu Chujun said in the court investigation stage that he had seen two “payment notices” in the first instance court, one had the official seal of Yangzhou Electromechanical Company, and the signature of Wang Daqing, the original legal representative of Yangzhou Mechanical & Electrical Co., Ltd. Batch, but there is no official seal of Yangzhou Yaxing Bus Company (this is the "Payment Notice" version 2); another "Debt Notification" with Yangzhou Electromechanical Company's name is also wrong, covered with the official seal of Yangzhou Yaxing Bus Company. However, there was no signature of Wang Daqing and the official seal of Yangzhou Electromechanical Company (this is the “Payment Notice” version 3).
The court of first instance approved version 2 of the “Notice of Payment”, but Gu Chujun believes that “Yangzhou Mechatronics Co., Ltd. is a state-owned enterprise and it is impossible to pay huge sums to Yangzhou Greencool in accordance with an unpaid “payment notice”. It is inconsistent with the basic facts and logic'. Gu's "Verification Notice" version 2 and "Payment Notice" version 3 are all forged.
For version 1 of the "Payment Notice" derived from the "Technical Review Opinion," Gu Chujun was also said to be 'falsified' in court.
On April 13th, 2018, Wang Daqing explained in the "Notice of Payment" Version 2 that if the official seal is not stamped, the original official seal may be printed lightly and it cannot be copied out. The original has a red stamp and can provide proof of the original. On this basis, there will be a "Payment Notice" version one - there is the official seal of Yangzhou Yaxing Bus Company and Wang Daqing's approval, but there is no official seal of Yangzhou Electromechanical Company.
The Supreme People's Procuratorate conducted technical appraisal of the "Payment Notice" version 1 and the "Payment Notice" version 2 and the result of the appraisal was 'the overlapped comparison, the titles of the 2 submission materials, the text and the printed body text of the payment's place can be overlapped. The left hand side of the text is 'Agree to pay King 4.25'. Handwritten text can be overlapped.'
This appraisal result shows that the "Payment Notice" version 1 and the "Payment Notice" version 2 are the same "Payment Notice."
Gu Chujun said in the court that version 1 of the "Payment Notice" was 'falsified' on the grounds that it compared the "Payment Notice" version 1 with the "Delivery Notice" version 2 and it was very obvious that it was impossible to overlap.
In response, Liu Shuo, one of the reviewers of the Technical Review Opinion, appeared in court to respond. Liu Shuo stated that if it is a copy, it needs to consider the issue of scaling, because different copies can be adjusted to different scales. If the scales are inconsistent, then it is impossible to reconcile them. It is considered that the defendants' reference to "Payment Notice" version 1 and "Payment Notice" version 2 cannot be overlapped. It may be that the scale ratio is not considered.
Liu Shuo further stated that the "Payment Notice" version 1 and the "Payment Notice" version 2 provided by the company can be overlapped. 'The two documents are handwritten and handwritten. There are many accidental factors in handwriting. These two handwritings Can be completely coincident, it shows that the scaling of the two documents has been adjusted to a unified. '
The 15-hour trial was not concluded
The Gu Chujun case involved 9 defendants. Apart from Gu himself, he also included the financial supervision of former Kelon Electrical Appliances, Jiang Baojun, former executive director of Kelon Electronics, Yan Yousong, Zhang Hong, and former management personnel, Guo Guoru, Liu Ke, Liu Yizhong, Zhang Xihan, Zeng Junhong, etc. Seven people.
In the previous two trials, Jiang Baojun and Gu Chujun were convicted of the same crimes. They were sentenced to five years imprisonment for several counts and a fine of 120,000 yuan. After deducting the period of detention, they were sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. Of the remaining seven people, Only former director of the Kelon Electrical Procurement Center, Zeng Junhong, was acquitted. The other six individuals were sentenced to one or two years imprisonment respectively, but all were suspended. They were involved in charges involving false reporting of registered capital, disclosure of non-compliance, non-disclosure. Serious information crime, misappropriation of funds, etc.
In the retrial on June 13th, Gu Chujun, Jiang Baojun, Zhang Hong, Zhang Xihan, Yan Yousong, Zang Guoru, and Liu Ke attended the court (the nine defendants were acquitted and one had passed away), and they all defended against guilt.
Gu Chujun, who was sitting on the side of the defendant, was full of white hair, but the speed of his speech was very fast. He had related questions and opened his mouth, claiming to be in prison for seven years, 'most of the time reading legal books'.
In accordance with the order, the court conducted a separate court investigation and evidence verification against Gu Chujun and others in the retrial.
First, it was the crime of misrepresenting registered capital. The prosecutor believed that in 2001 it was the acquisition of Kelon Electric. Gu Chujun established the Shunde City Greencool Enterprise Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shunde Greencool) with a total registered capital of 1.2 billion yuan, but In the process of registration and registration, reducing the proportion of intangible assets, it falsely reported 660 million yuan of registered capital. However, Gu Chujun believes that the practice of idling 660 million yuan in cash was the idea of the local industry and commerce bureau and was approved by the leaders of Shunde District. There was no intention of misreporting registered capital, and objectively there were no false reports of registered capital. In addition, according to the new "Company Law", Shunde Greenback's initial capital contribution ratio has been in compliance with the regulations, and it is not socially harmful.
The second is illegal disclosure, not disclosure of major information crimes. Prosecutors believe that in 2002 to 2004, Gu Chujun in order to prevent the continuous loss of Kelon electrical out of the market, through the pressure of goods sales and other means to increase revenue, and then inflated profits, Provided false financial reports; Gu Chujun argued that the disclosure of financial information of Kelon Electrical Appliances is true. Press storage sales are a common practice in the industry, and are sales patterns commonly adopted by the manufacturing industry. They are not false sales and do not result in false accounting reports. It does not constitute disclosure of non-compliance, and does not disclose the crime of major information.
Finally, it was the crime of misappropriation of funds. Gu Chujun was accused of misappropriating Kelon Electric Company and Jiangxi Kelon Co., Ltd. for a total of 290 million yuan for registering with Yangzhou Green Cole. In addition, 63 million yuan of Yangzhou Yaxing Bus Company was used for the use of Yangzhou Green Cole. Gu Chujun argued that in order to develop his business, the funds borrowed and mobilized between Greencool and Kelon were all to save Kelon's financial difficulties during its takeover and Kelon’s rapid development in the future. The procedures were reviewed and managed by the financial staff. He did not instruct him to implement his own personal account as a relative or friend, or misappropriated a penny fund for others. Therefore, he did not constitute misappropriation of funds.
The retrial of the Gu case on June 13 lasted from 8:30 in the morning to 23:30. The trial ended in 15 hours. The trial was continued at 8:30 on June 14th.