The public prosecution organ is the People's Procuratorate of Zhanhe District, Pingdingshan City, Henan Province.

Defendant Ma Jinchao, male, born in1952 65438+1kloc-0/9, Han nationality, former employee of Mechanized Construction Company of China Construction Second Engineering Bureau.

1On September 29th, 988, the Labor Service Company of Mechanized Construction Company of China Construction Second Engineering Bureau (hereinafter referred to as Jishi Company) signed an internal contract with its employee Ma Jinchao, who contracted the silk carpet factory under the Labor Service Company. 1July to September, 1989 199 1 day, Jishi company decided to liquidate the assets of the silk carpet factory and set up an audit team. With the cooperation of Ma Jinchao, the audit team cleaned up all the assets of the silk carpet factory. According to the relevant information provided by Ma Jinchao and the creditor's rights and debts, the audit team conducted an investigation and issued an audit report. The audit results show that the total debt of the silk carpet factory in September 199 1 was 582,582.90 yuan. The total debt of 582,582.90 yuan includes 2,946.78 yuan owed to Dong Gai (Ma Jinchao's wife, who is at large), 500 yuan (Ma Jinchao's wife, brother, who is at large), and 800 yuan.

On June 6, 2000, 5438+1October, Dong Gai, Dong Tinghuai and Dong Suying borrowed 402,600 yuan from the Silk Carpet Factory on June 6, 20001988+065438+1October 6, 2000 to April 3, 2000 (excluding the amount owed to Dong when the accounts were handed over by the Silk Carpet Factory) Ma Jinchao brought a lawsuit to Xinhua District People's Court in Pingdingshan City with six copies of the loan iou printed by Ma himself on carbon paper and stamped with the official seal of Silk Carpet Factory, demanding that Jishi Company pay the so-called loan principal, interest and liquidated damages. As a witness, Ma Jinchao testified in court and provided a lot of false evidence to prove the fact of borrowing money. On April 22, 2002, the Xinhua District People's Court of Pingdingshan City entrusted the relevant departments to identify the relevant evidence, and in July of the same year ruled that Dong Gai and others' claims were rejected. Dong Gai and others refused to accept the verdict and appealed. Pingdingshan Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal with the judgment of 165438+ on October 8th of the same year, and upheld the original judgment.

During the period of 200 1, with the planning of Ma Jinchao and Xiao Ting An (handled separately), Ma Xiangxiang issued a debit note with official seal, which read "198865438+borrowed 50,000 yuan from An on February 28th. Twenty-five thousandths of the monthly interest is paid once a year. If the interest cannot be paid as agreed in the contract, the liquidated damages of 1% of the total principal and interest in arrears shall be paid monthly. Pay interest once a year. The loan term is uncertain, and the principal and interest may be paid off at any time. Ma Jinchao, Silk Carpet Factory of China Construction Second Bureau, 19881February 28th ". Xiao Ting An filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Xigong District in Luoyang as a creditor, and Ma Jinchao also appeared as a witness and provided false evidence to prove that the loan was true. On August 1 2006, the court of Xigong District of Luoyang City ruled that Jishi Company paid Xiaoting 'an a loan of 50,000 yuan, and the loan interest was calculated at 2.5% of the monthly interest of 50,000 yuan from June 65438+February 28, 1988 to the date of repayment of the loan principal. Jishi company refused to accept the judgment and filed an appeal. In June 2003, Luoyang Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment with the judgment that "although the IOUs are flawed, it does not affect the probative effect of IOUs". The case has entered the execution procedure, and the machinery company has appealed to the Higher People's Court of Henan Province.

On March 13, 2003, Ma Jinchao and Ma (female, at large) made a copy of the iou printed on Ma Jinchao's own carbon paper (stamped with the official seal of the Silk Carpet Factory), calling it Silk Carpet Factory, June191Kloc-0//Kloc-. Ma Jinchao also provided false evidence to prove that the loan was true and asked the machinery company to repay the so-called loan and interest. The Yichuan County Court later filed a case for trial.

submit to trial

The Zhanhe District Court held that the defendant Ma Jinchao and others repeatedly forged IOUs and related evidence, fabricated facts, and used the means of civil litigation and judicial coercion to defraud the victims of large sums of money based on non-existent but seemingly true facts. Although he did not directly deceive the victim, he deceived the judgment of the people's court, which is a civil dispute. Make the people's court believe the evidence and facts it provides, make a judgment that goes against the truth, and make the victim suffer undue legal censure, which is guaranteed by the state's coercive force. Therefore, the victim blamed the involuntary delivery of property, but had to hand it over because of judicial coercion. It is against the will of the victim and the satisfaction of the criminal purpose to have to hand it over. The defendant Ma Jinchao's behavior has constituted a crime of fraud. The public prosecutor accused the defendant Ma Jinchao of committing fraud. The basic facts are clear and the charges are established, which is confirmed by our court. Ma Jinchao, the defendant, and his defenders argued that the loans owed by the Silk Carpet Factory to Dong Gai, Dong Tinghuai, Xiao and Ma were true, which were clearly recorded in the accounts handed over by the Silk Carpet Factory in 199 1, and signed by the company accountant Yang Dedi when handing over the accounts. The appraisal conclusion of Southwest University of Political Science and Law holds that Yang Dedi's signature was not written by himself, because the sample on which the appraisal is based is not true. Ma's behavior does not constitute the crime of fraud, but the defendant Ma Jinchao and his defenders raised objections on the above grounds during the trial, but they did not apply for re-appraisal and provided corresponding evidence, and there was a list of "accounts receivable and payable" written by the defendant Ma Jinchao and 19 1 year1month1month. Therefore, his defense can't be established, and his innocent opinion can't be established because it doesn't conform to the facts found in the trial, so this court will not adopt it. The defendant Ma Jinchao failed to obtain property for reasons other than his will, and should be convicted and punished for attempted fraud according to law. The public prosecutor suggested that the defendant Ma Jinchao be punished for attempted fraud, which was adopted by our court and can be given a lighter punishment according to law. According to the provisions of Articles 266, 23 and 25 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the verdict is as follows: the defendant Ma Jinchao committed the crime of fraud (attempted), sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment and fined RMB 1000000, which shall be paid within 10 days after this judgment takes effect.