Shen Yi Robin Zhang Peiyi

Justice Network Chongqing March 1 Sunday (Reporter Zhang) A contestant who participated in the model contest suddenly went into shock while attending a get-together during training, and then died. His parents sued the organizers and organizers for more than 290,000 yuan. On February 9, the Yuzhong District Court of Chongqing rejected the parents' claim according to law.

The court found that on July 7th, 2005, Lu Xiao (a pseudonym), then 17 years old, signed up for the 2005 New Silk Road Chongqing Model Contest and will enter the semi-finals. At this time, Chongqing Century Xinda Culture Communication Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Century Xinda), as the organizer, arranged for the contestants to go to Xiangshui Village Hotel in Wansheng District for a four-day closed training.

On the last night of the hotel, that is, on the evening of August 24th, Century Cinda and two other co-organizers held a get-together in the hotel. At the get-together, three units provided beer for the contestants. At about 1 1: 30 that night, Lu Xiao suddenly went into shock and fainted, and died in Wansheng District People's Hospital the next day 1: 46. The hospital diagnosed Lu Xiao's death as: "Sudden death? Bronchial asthma? " On August 26th of the same year, Lu Xiao's blood was identified by the Municipal Institute of Forensic Medicine, and the alcohol content was 62.74mg/ 100ml.

Lu Xiao's parents subsequently sued the organizers and contractors of the competition. They claimed that Century Cinda, as the organizer, organized party activities with training units and co-organizers and provided drinks. That night, my daughter went into shock after drinking and died because she didn't get the right treatment. In addition, the daughter is only 17 years old and is underage. These units failed to fulfill their guardianship obligations to minors in organizing competitions and provided alcoholic drinks to minors, which was at fault.

Century Cinda Company argued that the contestants attended the party voluntarily, and there was no training teacher to invite Lu Xiao to drink that night. Lu Xiao concealed her medical history at the time of registration, and did not explain that she had bronchial asthma. The certificate issued by the hospital said that the cause of death was unknown. Because Lu Xiao's parents refused the autopsy, there was no causal relationship between Lu Xiao's death and drinking beer. Several other defendant units also said they were not responsible.

The court held that Lu Xiao's parents knew her daughter had a history of bronchial asthma, but they didn't explain it to the contest organizers, which made it difficult for several defendants to take corresponding first aid measures after the incident. After the shock, the defendant also actively contacted the hospital for medical treatment, fulfilling the obligation of rescue, and subjectively there was no fault. At the same time, Xiao Lu's death diagnosis and appraisal report did not explain the cause of death. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to prove that there is a legal causal relationship between Lu Xiao's drinking and his death or sudden onset. Therefore, Lu Xiao's parents' lawsuit was dismissed.

This is civil!

The case of village committee v. Gansu provincial government was pronounced and the plaintiff's claim was rejected.

Because of the problems of two land use certificates, the village Committee complained to the Gansu provincial government. This "people's accusation" case with great social influence was pronounced in the first instance yesterday. After hearing one of the certificates, Lanzhou Intermediate People's Court held that the defendant provincial government issued the "4350" state-owned land use right certificate to a third party, the facts were clearly ascertained, the applicable laws and regulations were correct, and the procedures were legal. However, the plaintiff's village Committee's claim lacks factual basis and legal provisions, so its claim cannot be established. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim was rejected in the first instance, and the plaintiff assumed the acceptance fee of this case.

The court found that the facts of the land use right change process were clear and the procedures were legal.

1958, 504 factory (the third person in this case) was approved by the state and officially started construction. 1965, the state * * approved the requisition of 1 178.838 mu of land for the construction of the factory and welfare zone. The disputed land in this case is the allocated land after the study by the municipal and district governments at that time. Ren Zhenying, then director of Lanzhou Urban Construction Bureau, made a special statement on March 9, 1983: "This land was officially allocated by me in the spring of 1958 ... At that time, for some reasons, I didn't know where to handle the documents. It is a fact that this land has been allocated, which is hereby proved. " And confirmed by the municipal government seal. After the land dispute was investigated by the relevant departments, the current director of the plaintiff's village committee signed the cadastral survey form, and the plaintiff's village committee sealed it for confirmation, and made an announcement in the newspaper according to law. During the announcement, neither the plaintiff nor others raised any objection. After the expiration, Lanzhou municipal government issued a state-owned land use certificate for 504 factory.

In July, 2002, according to Article 6 of the newly effective Measures of Gansu Province for Implementing the Land Management Law of the People's Republic of China, the provincial administrative department of land and resources renewed the land use right certificate for Factory 504 in the name of the provincial government.

First-instance judgment: the provincial government's certification behavior belongs to the act of changing registration.

After hearing the case, the court held that, after investigation by the court, the land requisitioned by farmers for setting up the 504 factory was approved by the relevant government departments. The disputed land in this case is only about 6 mu of arable land, and there is file evidence to prove that the administrative act of Lanzhou Municipal Government to issue land use certificates for the 504 factory involved is clear in fact and legal in procedure. According to the provisions of relevant laws and regulations, central enterprises using state-owned land in Gansu shall apply to the land administrative department of the provincial government for land registration, and after investigation and examination, they shall report to the provincial government for approval and registration, and issue state-owned land use certificates. The land administrative department of the provincial government applies for the change registration of the 504 factory. By reviewing the investigation materials of the former Planning Land Administration Bureau of Xigu District, Lanzhou City and the materials issued by Lanzhou Municipal Government, according to the relevant regulations, it is an act of change registration to issue the "two certificates" to the 504 factory in the name of the provincial government. Because this behavior does not belong to the initial land registration behavior, it is not applicable to the scope of the announcement procedure stipulated in Article 8 of the Land Registration Rules. To sum up, the court of first instance made the above judgment.

Another ruling: the plaintiff's claim to revoke the land use right involved was rejected.

Regarding the case that the village committee sued another state-owned land use certificate (No.4352) issued by the provincial government to Factory 504, the Municipal Intermediate People's Court held that the state-owned land use certificate involved in this case showed that all the neighbors of the land belonged to another village collective land, and the specific administrative act of the provincial government issuing the state-owned land use certificate to the parcel was an act that did not have a substantial impact on the rights and obligations of citizens, legal persons or other organizations as stipulated in the relevant judicial interpretation of the Supreme People's Court. Therefore, the administrative lawsuit filed by the plaintiff's village Committee on the defendant's provincial government granting the land use right to the third party, Factory 504, does not belong to the scope of administrative litigation of the people's court. Accordingly, the court of first instance rejected the plaintiff's claim to revoke the land use right involved, and the case acceptance fee was borne by the plaintiff.

Reporter's comments

In fact, before the land dispute happened, the plaintiff Donghewan Village Committee (referred to as the village Committee) in Dongchuan Township, Xigu District, who didn't know the ins and outs of the matter, ran to many departments, but became more and more confused, and finally had to discuss it through litigation. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, there is still a 15-day appeal period, and the case has not yet taken effect. However, after reading through the judgment of the court of first instance, the parties involved and those who are concerned about the case outside the bureau learned that the provincial government is not the person who directly issues the land use right certificate, and its behavior only belongs to the change of registration. Then, if the village Committee had made things clear in other relevant channels, I believe the village Committee would not want to go to court with the provincial government.

This is administration!

Serial fraud cases trapped major shareholders of listed companies.

□ The major shareholder of a listed company appointed a professional manager as the chairman and general manager, thus laying a lot of risks.

□ The largest shareholder encountered more than a dozen false cases, and the equity bought by 235 million yuan was "transferred" again and again.

□ The counterfeiters blatantly forged seals and related materials to court proceedings, but they were never discovered in advance.

□ Deceive the court's civil judgment to possess other people's property by forging evidence, but can only be convicted of forging seals for 100 million yuan, with a maximum sentence of 3 years.

Our reporter Yi

Shandong Tongren Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Shandong Tongren") registered in Jinan is the number one unlucky person in the world. A few years ago, he bought 56,366,438+7,000 shares of Huasu, a listed company, for 235 million yuan, becoming the largest shareholder. However, what is waiting for it is not the return in the capital market, but the endless stream of fraud cases. The core of these fake cases is to "transfer" hundreds of millions of assets of major shareholders to a little-known company in Beijing.

Our reporter has been tossing and turning for many days, trying to solve the mystery of the lawsuit of this listed company.

The resolution of the extraordinary shareholders' meeting in the false case was revoked by another court.

The first counterfeit case happened in Zibo.

On July 4th, 2006, Yang Zhiming, a Sichuanese, filed a lawsuit in the Boshan District Court of Zibo City, demanding to cancel the announcement of *ST Huasu's 2006 Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders. Two days later, a "mediation" agreement was reached in court.

This case is extremely simple. Two months before the prosecution, Yang Zhiming bought 1000 shares of his colleague Huasu in the secondary market, with a value of no more than 2,000 yuan. His lawsuit reason is that "Shandong Tongren" proposed to hold an extraordinary shareholders' meeting on July 1 1 2006, and its executive director Xing Yi wrote to his colleague Hua Su, requesting to withdraw the proposal. His colleague Hua Su agreed to withdraw the proposal, but did not announce the suspension of the meeting, which led to confusion in the management of the company.

But there is no Xing Yi in Tongren, Shandong.

On the inquiry record of the criminal police detachment of Jinan Public Security Bureau, Xing Yi replied like this: "I didn't know there was a company called Shandong Tongren before." "I am not the legal representative of my colleague in Shandong, not now, not originally." In the face of a lot of legal documents signed by Xing Yi, Xing denied it.

*ST Huasu and Yang Zhiming used this fake "executive director" to submit forged evidence to the court and quickly "reached" a mediation agreement.

On the same day that the Boshan case was mediated, the same farce was staged in the People's Court of Tumd Zuoqi, Inner Mongolia. However, the plaintiff in this case became Han.

In this way, the resolution to convene the first extraordinary shareholders' meeting on July 1 1 2006 was revoked five days in advance by two different courts separated by thousands of kilometers.

The target of the fraud case is a 100 million equity.

On August 15, 2006, a paper "Announcement on the Major Litigation of Tongren Huasu Co., Ltd. and the Proposal of Beijing Zhongrongda Investment Management Co., Ltd. to Increase the 2005 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders" shocked Tongren, Shandong. According to the announcement, 56.36./kloc-0.7 million *ST Huasu legal person shares held by "Shandong Tongren" were all reconciled to "Zhongrongda" on the same day. The registered capital of "Zhongrongda" is only100000 yuan.

While appealing to the Xuanwu District Court in Beijing, Shandong colleagues immediately reported the case to Jinan Public Security Bureau.

10 days later, the Xuanwu District Court of Beijing issued a civil ruling, ruling to form a collegiate bench for retrial. During the retrial, the original conciliation statement shall be suspended.

In fact, before the Xuanwu case, on March 6, 2006, another court in Zibo, Zhangdian District Court, also presided over mediation, just like the Xuanwu case, and transferred 563 15700 legal person shares owned by Shandong colleagues to Zhongrongda.

After that, "Shandong Tongren" discovered more than ten fake cases one after another. These fraud cases are scattered in five provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions across the country. All of them were accepted by the grass-roots courts in different places under the jurisdiction of the agreement, and most of them were settled through mediation in a very short time.

After many twists and turns, the reporter saw the mediation book of Zhangdian District Court. This "mediation" has created a miracle-"Shandong Tongren" not only has to hand over more than 200 million shares, but also has to pay 20,000 yuan as "liquidated damages"!

The plaintiff in this case is Zhongrongda, and the legal representative is Wei Tongwei; The legal representative of the defendant "Shandong Tongren" is still Xing Yi; Entrusted agent Shen Hongliang, whose occupation is "unemployed". The litigation reason is that the original defendant and the defendant signed the Equity Transfer Agreement in June 2005, stipulating that the defendant would transfer 563,654,380+0.57 million shares of Huasu to the plaintiff.

On June 2, 2006, KLOC-0, the same case as the Zhangdian District Court was "copied" in the Xianghuang Banner Court of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. The difference is that the client of "Shandong colleague" became Ding Cong-he was entrusted by Xing Yi, a "Shandong colleague" and "executive director". The police later discovered that Ding Cong was a paralegal in a Beijing law firm. As a result of court mediation, "Shandong Tongren" immediately stopped exercising its equity, and "Zhongrongda" enjoyed all the equity.

It took a long time for "Shandong colleagues" to know about these "mediations" that are related to their own destiny. They quickly appealed to the courts at Zhangdian District and Xianghuangqi.

The court in Xianghuang Banner quickly corrected the wrong case and decided to cancel its mediation on June 28, 2006. On February 5, 65438, the Zhangdian District Court also made a ruling to suspend mediation.

Li Xianhui, the legal representative of Shandong Tongren, told reporters helplessly, "No one knows how many similar fraud cases there are."

Professional managers transfer company property without knowing it.

Involving such a huge equity transfer, "Shandong Tongren" and "Zhongrongda" did not know-both parties to the lawsuit were false.

In these fraud cases, there are two other people who cannot be ignored. One is Ding Cong, the entrusted agent of Zhongrongda, and the other is Han Qianjin, the legal adviser of Fanhuasu. At present, the two have been criminally compulsory by the police. During the investigation, the police found that the official seals, documents and other related materials involving "Shandong colleagues" were forged; Ding Cong and Han Qianjin are only participants and executors of a series of fake cases.

According to "Shandong Tongren", on August 28th, 2002, after the company acquired the legal person shares of Huasu 56310.7 million, it hired a professional manager named Liu to go to Sichuan to take charge of the listed company on behalf of "Shandong Tongren". On April 13, 2004, the company was renamed as "Tongren Huasu Co., Ltd.".

There is a decision that "Shandong colleagues" regret-on September 28, 2004, they appointed a professional manager as the legal representative, chairman and general manager. After Liu took over Huasu, the company lost money again and again. In March 2006, the stock was given special treatment of delisting risk warning, and the stock abbreviation was changed to "*ST Huasu".

"Shandong colleagues" are in a hurry. At the shareholders' meeting, they proposed to remove Liu from the post of chairman and general manager. What makes "Shandong colleagues" stunned is some "transfers", and they are determined to change coaches.

A series of land use rights and real estate of Tongren Huasu were transferred to Beijing Huasu Building Materials Co., Ltd. The legal representatives of Beijing Huasu, Tongren Huasu and Shandong Huasu are all Liu.

And these transfers are through the mediation of the court. Fortunately, the court found the problem in time. On July 2, 2005, KLOC-0, the Judicial Committee of Chengdu Xindu District Court held a special meeting to study, and the civil mediation was revoked the next day. After Beijing Huasu appealed, Chengdu Intermediate People's Court upheld the ruling of Xindu District Court. Dramatically, when the two courts in Chengdu corrected their mistakes, "Shandong Tongren" was still in the dark.

The cost of the crime is extremely light, and the maximum sentence for defrauding money through litigation is 3 years.

The well-designed domino-style fake case not only makes use of legal omissions, but also destroys the serious legal order.

Like "Shandong Tongren", Nanchong Tianyi Asset Investment Management Company, the second largest shareholder of Tongren Huasu, is also in a quagmire.

On July 14, 2006, Nanchong City Public Security Bureau of Sichuan Province filed an investigation on the suspected fraud case of senior executives of fellow villager Huasu. At the end of August 2006, Jinan Public Security Bureau detained Ding Cong, and on February 27th, 65438, Han Qianjin was arrested in Beijing.

In the interview, the reporter found that the criminal cost of these suspects suspected of fraud is extremely low.

On June 24th, 2002 10, the Supreme People's Procuratorate replied to the Research Office of Shandong Provincial People's Procuratorate, saying that it is not appropriate to investigate the criminal responsibility of the perpetrator for the crime of fraud for the act of defrauding the court of civil judgment to possess other people's property. If the perpetrator forges the seal of a company, enterprise, institution or people's organization when forging evidence, which constitutes a crime, criminal responsibility shall be investigated for the crime of forging the seal of a company, enterprise, institution or people's organization. According to the provisions of the Criminal Law, the act of forging the seals of companies, enterprises, institutions and people's organizations, which constitutes a crime, is generally sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years.

The crux of the problem is that behind fraud, there are often bigger and more vicious crimes hidden!

In this fake case, the evidence "omission" of some judicial organs in the mediation procedure is also an important reason for the fake case. The anti-counterfeiting cases in Zhangdian District and Huangqi involve tens of millions of shares of listed companies, worth hundreds of millions of yuan. However, no court has ever obtained relevant evidence from China Securities Depository and Clearing Co., Ltd. and other units, and no one has carefully examined the business license of Shandong Tongren and the identity certificate of its legal representative. These courts in different places who don't know the situation of both sides easily "mediate" the case of hundreds of millions of yuan!

After discovering false and wrong cases, most courts take a serious and responsible attitude and correct them in various ways in a short time. However, the attitude of some courts is suspicious-this case has nothing to do with your "Shandong colleague"! This cannot but arouse people's association.

This is a financial case.

Adidas won 300,000 yuan for infringing well-known trademarks.

BEIJING, Feb. 27 (Xinhua) The reporter Cai Yanhong Nanjing Customs revealed today that the case of infringing 20 internationally renowned trademarks seized by Zhangjiagang Customs was recently concluded, and the Intermediate People's Court of Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province sentenced the Korean-funded enterprise Danyang Guangqing Light Bulb Co., Ltd. to compensate Adidas for economic losses of 300,000 yuan.

On June 65438+1October 65438+1October 9, 2005, Guangqing Company declared the export of 65438+10,000 fluorescent tubes to Zhangjiagang Customs. Customs officers found the goods suspicious, so they opened the box for inspection and confirmed that the company was suspected of infringing the well-known trademark 15 registered by the General Administration of Customs, including Adidas, involving more than 20 kinds of international well-known trademarks and more than 0 kinds of goods 10.

After the customs made a penalty decision to confiscate the infringing goods according to law, Adidas filed a lawsuit with Zhenjiang Intermediate People's Court, requesting the court to order Guangqing Company to immediately stop the infringement, publicly publish an apology to eliminate the impact, and compensate the economic loss of 300,000 yuan.

Zhenjiang Intermediate People's Court held that the trademark "Adidas" has been listed in the List of Key Trademarks Protection in China, and its value is incomparable to that of general registered trademarks. The malicious infringement of defendant Guangqing Company has caused bad influence and damage to the trademark reputation of Adidas. Due to the particularity of foreign trade sales, this damage may have spread abroad. Therefore, the judgment supports all the plaintiff's claims.

This is an intellectual property case.

Your request is too broad. I suggest you go to China Law Popularization Network.

/