Jin Yingbo

Overview:

On July 19, 2002, Shanghai Pudong Development Bank Hangzhou Branch sued the defendant China Construction Bank Wenling Branch for a dispute over the authenticity of registered capital, and filed a lawsuit with the Taizhou Intermediate People's Court. The Legal Advisor Office of Taizhou Branch recommended Lawyer Jin Yingbo from our firm as the specially authorized agent of the defendant to participate in the first instance hearing of the case. After thorough investigation and detailed and reasonable defense by the acting lawyer, this case was successfully concluded by rejecting the plaintiff's lawsuit.

Case Introduction:

Original information and main facts and reasons:

On December 31, 1997, the plaintiff loaned 3 million yuan to Hangzhou Yinhe Trade and Industry (Group) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yinhe Company), which was jointly and severally guaranteed by Hangzhou Yinli Tea Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yinli Tea Industry) and Taizhou Jincheng Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jincheng Company). After the loan expired, both Galaxy Company and the guarantors failed to fulfill their repayment obligations. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit with the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court, and after judgment, applied for execution. However, due to the high debt of Galaxy Company, Yinli Company, and Baihui Company, their assets have been executed separately, and Jincheng Company has also had its business license revoked due to not participating in the annual inspection in accordance with the law. After investigation, it was found that during the establishment process of Jincheng Company, the defendant issued a false "Certificate of Registered Capital" for it. Based on this "Certificate of Registered Capital", the Taizhou audit firm issued a capital verification report, which enabled Jincheng Company to be established. From the industrial and commercial archives of Jincheng Company, it was found that the defendant issued a "Certificate of Registered Capital", indicating that Galaxy Company had deposited 11 million yuan in the name of Jincheng Company for the purpose of declaring the registered capital of the unit, and had receipts on April 1 and April 3, 1997 as proof of payment. However, in reality, no funds were transferred to Jincheng Company's account. The auditing firm in Taizhou City was deregistered in 1999. Therefore, the plaintiff believes that the defendant, as a bank, did not fulfill its due review obligations and issued a false certificate of registered capital. The Taizhou City Audit Firm issued a capital verification report based on this as a basis, which is obviously also false. Therefore, the defendant is responsible for the losses caused to the plaintiff by Jincheng Company engaging in a series of civil activities without sufficient funds, and should bear the plaintiff's economic losses of 4 million yuan.

In response to the plaintiff's lawsuit, the agent retrieved the industrial and commercial registration materials of the above-mentioned enterprises from the Hangzhou and Taizhou Industrial and Commercial Bureaus, and after understanding with the relevant personnel in charge of the above-mentioned enterprises, submitted relevant evidence to the court, forming a defense viewpoint.

The agent believes that, in accordance with the provisions of the "Notice on How to Bear Civil Liability for Financial Institutions Issuing False or False Capital Verification Reports or Fund Certificates for Enterprises" issued by the Supreme People's Court, if the investor fails to make capital contributions or fails to make full capital contributions, and the financial institution provides false or false capital verification reports or fund certificates for the enterprise, and the relevant parties use the reports or certificates to engage in economic transactions with the enterprise and suffer losses, The enterprise should first bear civil liability. If the assets of the enterprise are insufficient to repay debts, the investor shall bear liability within the scope of false or false funds. If the property of an enterprise or investor is still unable to repay its debts after being enforced in accordance with the law, the financial institution shall bear responsibility based on the extent of the fault within the scope of the false or false capital verification. According to the evidence provided by the plaintiff, the original Jincheng Company was composed of four companies: Yinli Company, Baihui Company, Hangzhou Yintong Industrial Co., Ltd., and Hangzhou Yinhe Electromechanical Parts Co., Ltd. Among them, Yinli Company and Baihui Company have executed the procedures, but although Yintong Industrial Co., Ltd. and Yinhe Electromechanical Parts Co., Ltd. have had their business licenses revoked, they have not been liquidated in accordance with the law. Revoking the business license is only a form of industrial and commercial punishment, and until the liquidation is completed in accordance with the law, these two companies still exist as economic entities and can bear civil liability to the outside world. Although the plaintiff provided a civil ruling from the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court to prove its claim, the civil ruling only indicated the court's enforcement of two of the legal shareholders, and the remaining two legal shareholders were not the enforcers of the case. Due to the plaintiff's failure to provide evidence to prove that the two companies have been enforced and that they have no property available for enforcement; In fact, the two companies have not conducted effective and legal procedures. Therefore, it should be considered that the prerequisite for the plaintiff to sue the defendant Wenling Construction Bank has not been met, and the plaintiff's lawsuit should be dismissed in accordance with the law.

The final court accepted the agent's viewpoint and rejected the plaintiff's lawsuit.