Category: Money tips Release Date: 2006-03-15
Investors lost the first trial
June 3, 2005, once shocked the nation, Nanchang securities "black market" case, Donghu District, Nanchang City People's Court after a trial of up to two years later, finally made a first instance verdict. Decision, announced dismissed the plaintiff's claim, and decided by the plaintiff bear the full cost involved in litigation. Hearing the same day, the court sent all of the judicial police at the scene to maintain order.
June 22, 2005 afternoon, Hu Gan to reporters sent into a long 7's "civil complaint," appellant bears Rochefort. Xiong Hua Jiao Nai Hu Gan Cheng's wife, Nanchang securities "black market" in the prosecution of five investors. Like "Qiu Ju," just like artificial Hu Gan into an explanation, running over two years.
Hu Gan Cheng said in a telephone for the first instance, accept the consequences, will continue to appeal to seek redress, "the Securities Nanchang opened inside the black market, back their losses."
It is understood that the day before sentencing, YANG Hua, Liu Wei, Ling-Ling Hu, Xiong Jiao, etc. to spend five plaintiffs already know that the first-instance verdict. In passing sentence the same day, the plaintiff couples, only Hu Gan into court.
Xiong Hua Jiao said that they had in the United Securities Co., Ltd. Nanchang Lu Su-po to conduct securities business department to open account trading. Since 2001, they perhaps through a middleman between Jiangxi province and Futai Investment Limited (hereinafter referred to Futai company) agent knowledge. These people under the banner of the name of sales department, saying its own funds to help get 2.3 times the financing.
As a result, the plaintiff in the defendant's "co-investment agreement" signed his name. Problems are out in the this "co-investment agreement", the agreement does not the defendant's signature or seal, taken away by the defendant, after the return has not been.
Subsequently, the defendant removed the plaintiff's funds, stock speculation began. In the following nearly a year of time, the plaintiff never received the defendants should provide the legal stock Jiaoge Dan, always only a self-made profit and loss account.
Until finally running out of money, the plaintiff did not realize this may be a fraud.
As a result, the plaintiff began looking for Futai, which seeks to provide equity Jiaoge Dan as an explanation, but unsuccessful. To this end, the plaintiff kept to a Public Security Bureau, the Commission, etc. complain. Through media exposure, they gradually found that there were dozens of people cheated, amounting to tens of millions.
Futai has nothing to do with this case?
The plaintiff and others to sue Futai company and its brokers to court, hoping to give them a fair court decision.
The plaintiff bears Rochefort that the respondent Futai company, joint stock Nanchang business department, as well as Li Shan, Rao Wan, Chen Guixia, Ng and other six individuals collude with each other, using her and other shareholders of the funds, false trading, by fraudulent, illegal possession of her stocks funds 220,000 yuan.
The defendant company did not submit pleadings Futai, but the court stressed that the company does not loan money to the plaintiff nor the plaintiff's shares received funds in the investment and cooperation agreement is not signed and sealed by the company, lent money to the plaintiff and the guarantee of is a natural person. In short, Futai has nothing to do with the case.
The Court has examined, with the Bears Rochefort (B) for investment cooperation and to provide financing is a natural person Li Shan, but the investment and cooperation agreement signed in the Party a column no.
In that case, Raowan for the introducer, Chen Guixia is removed from the bear to spend the cash paid into the account Jiao cooperation accounts - Ng 234 accounts personnel.
According to the court verdict, the defendant Raowan, Chen Guixia, Ng due to missing announcement did not appear after the expiry of delivery period.
The court held that the plaintiff and the defendant bears Rochefort made between Shan-called "co-investment agreement" is indeed non-governmental lending, agency stock sale and purchase agreement, the agreement is the true meaning of the parties that does not violate state laws and administrative regulations mandatory. The agreement should be legitimate and effective.
The plaintiff's claim against each defendant, and only my statements, but not introduce other evidence to support it, while the defendant of evidence sufficient to rebut the plaintiff Li Shan's claim.
Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim by the plaintiffs bear the case related costs.
YANG Hua, Liu Wei, Ling-Ling Hu, and other four plaintiffs in the case, get is essentially the same verdict.
The defendant's attorney, one of the Tu-yun spring on the phone right after the reporter said that the court's factual findings are accurate, is based on the facts to determine the. Some things are not just from the emotional factors to determine.
In this regard, Hu Gan Cheng was questioned. They have a lot of evidence, the court is not credible.
Securities litigation lawyer, Shanghai Yan Ming Yan Ming, director of law firm lawyers believe that if only from the available evidence, such as the agreement, investors in a variety of state promised to look at the words of the book, the court's ruling should be.
However, the court was necessary to provide some evidence Futai, and later extended Futai Ti out of the burden of proof, but in the course of the trial, but no such evidence.
Yan-ming, counsel, the Court's judgments seem rough. From the verdict, the plaintiffs can not see some of the evidence inadmissible grounds. "For example, on some of the authenticity of evidence, relevance have not fully discussed, and descriptions. While plaintiff Futai possible collusion between companies and natural persons, etc., the court wrote in explanation of this should be discussed, although the discussion The result may be lack of evidence and so forth. "
Yan-ming, in such securities lawsuits, the most important evidence is the stock liquidation Jiaoge Dan. However, such evidence does not appear in the trial process. "The plaintiff may be unable to obtain stock Jiaoge Dan, but the plaintiff lawyer should ask the court to help and get it."
Interview, the reporter repeatedly linked East Lake district court hearing the case, but the defendant's "The judge is not, can not be contacted."
No Party signed an investment agreement
According to a department in the brokerage business for many years a senior person's analysis, Nanchang experiences of these investors, it is highly likely to be offset by a carefully designed "bureau."
A total of 2 1 [2]
