Shen Yi, Luo Bin and Zhang Yipei
Justice Network, Chongqing, March 1 (Reporter Shen Yi correspondent Luo Bin and Zhang Yipei) A contestant who participated in a model contest went into shock while attending a party during training, and then died. His parents sued the organizer and organizer, claiming more than 29, yuan. On February 9, the Yuzhong District Court of Chongqing dismissed the parents' claim according to law.
The court found that on July 7, 25, Xiao Lu (a pseudonym), then 17 years old, signed up for the 25 Chongqing Model Contest on New Silk Road 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 the Black Valley Scenic Area of 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 players. At about 11: 3 that night, Xiaolu suddenly went into shock and fainted, and died at Wansheng District People's Hospital at 1: 46 the next day. The hospital diagnosed Xiaolu's death as: "Sudden death? Bronchial asthma? " On August 26th of the same year, the Municipal Institute of Forensic Medicine identified that ethanol was detected in Xiaolu's blood, with the content of 62.74mg/1ml.
Xiao Lu's parents subsequently sued the organizers and contractors of the contest. They claimed that Century Cinda, as the organizer, organized party activities with training units and co-organizers and provided drinks. My daughter went into shock after drinking that night and died because she was not treated correctly. In addition, the daughter is only 17 years old and is a minor. These units failed to fulfill their guardianship obligations to minors in organizing competitions and provided alcoholic beverages to minors, which was at fault.
Century Cinda Company argued that the contestants participated in the get-together voluntarily, and no training teacher asked Xiaolu to drink that night. Xiaolu concealed her medical history at the time of registration and did not explain that she had bronchial asthma. The certificate issued by the hospital stated that the cause of death was unknown. Because Xiaolu's parents refused the autopsy, there was no causal relationship between Xiaolu's death and drinking beer. Several other defendant units also said they were not responsible.
The court held that Xiaolu'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 his shock, the defendant also actively contacted the hospital for medical treatment and fulfilled the obligation of rescue, which was not subjectively wrong. At the same time, Xiao Lu's death diagnosis and appraisal report did not explain the cause of death. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to prove that Xiaolu's drinking has a legal causal relationship with his death or sudden onset. To this end, the prosecution of Xiaolu's parents was rejected.
this is civil!
The plaintiff's claim in the case of village committee v. Gansu provincial government was rejected
Because of the problem of two land use certificates, the village committee filed a complaint and put the Gansu provincial government in the dock. This "people's accusation" case, which has 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's provincial government issued the "435" state-owned land use right certificate to a third party, and the facts were clearly ascertained, the applicable laws and regulations were correct, and the procedure was legal. However, the plaintiff's village Committee's claim lacked factual basis and laws and regulations, so its claim could not be established. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim was rejected in the first instance, and the plaintiff assumed the acceptance fee of the case.
The court found out that the facts of the process of changing the land use right were clear and the procedure was legal
In 1958, the No.54 factory (the third person in this case) was approved by the state to choose a site and officially started construction. In 1965, the state approved the requisition of 1,178.838 mu of land for the construction of the factory area and welfare area. The land disputed in this case is the allocated land after the study of 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 my hand in the spring of 1958 ... At that time, for some reason, I didn't know where the file was disposed of. 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 to confirm it, and made an announcement in the newspaper according to law. During the announcement, neither the plaintiff nor others raised any objection. After the expiration, the Lanzhou Municipal Government issued the State-owned Land Use Certificate for the 54 Factory.
in July, 22, according to article 6 of the newly effective Measures of Gansu Province on the Law of the People's Republic of China on Land and Land Management, the provincial administrative department of land and resources renewed the land use right certificate for Factory 54 in the name of the provincial government.
First-instance judgment: the certification by the provincial government is an act of change of registration
After hearing the case, the court held that through court investigation, the expropriation of farmers' land required for the establishment of the 54 Factory was approved by the relevant government departments. The land disputed in this case is only about 6 mu of cultivated land, and the evidence on file can prove that the administrative act of Lanzhou Municipal Government issuing the land use certificate for the 54 factory involved is clear in fact and legal in procedure. According to the provisions of relevant laws and regulations, for the central enterprises to use state-owned land in Gansu, they should apply to the land administrative department of the provincial government for land registration, and after investigation and review, they should report to the provincial government for approval and registration and issue the State-owned Land Use Certificate. The land administrative department of the provincial government applied for the change registration of the No.54 factory. Through the examination of the investigation materials of the former Xigu District Planning and Land Administration Bureau of Lanzhou City and the materials when the Lanzhou Municipal Government issued the certificate, according to the relevant regulations, in the name of the provincial government, the No.54 factory was awarded the "two certificates" involved in the case, which belongs to the change registration behavior. As this behavior does not belong to the initial land registration behavior, it does not apply 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.
ruling in another case: the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the land use right involved was dismissed
In the case that the village committee sued another state-owned land use right certificate (namely 4352) issued by the provincial government to Factory 54, the Municipal Intermediate People's Court held that the four neighbors of the land involved in this case were collectively owned by another village, and the State-owned Land Use Certificate issued by the provincial government on this parcel was a specific administrative act. Therefore, the administrative lawsuit brought by the plaintiff's village Committee against the defendant's provincial government for issuing the land use right to the third party, Factory 54, does not belong to the scope of administrative litigation of the people's court. Accordingly, the court ruled in the first instance that the plaintiff's lawsuit for revocation of the land use right involved was rejected, and the plaintiff was responsible for the acceptance fee of the case.
The reporter commented that
In fact, the plaintiff, Donghewan Village Committee, Dongchuan Township, Xigu District, who didn't know the ins and outs of the case before suing the land involved, became more and more confused, and finally had to seek explanation 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 people concerned about the case outside the bureau learned that the provincial government was not the person who directly issued the land use right certificate, and its behavior only belonged to the act of changing registration. Then, if the village committee could have made things clear in other relevant channels, I believe the village committee would not be willing to go to court with the provincial government. < P > This is administrative!
serial fake cases have locked up the major shareholder of listed companies
□ The major shareholder of listed companies appointed professional managers as the chairman and general manager, and since then laid many risks
□ The largest shareholder suffered more than a dozen fake 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. However, it has never been discovered in advance
□ defrauding the court's civil judge to take possession of other people's property by forging evidence, and hundreds of millions of yuan involved can only be convicted of forging seals, with a maximum sentence of three years
Our reporter Yuan Fei Wu Yi
Shandong Tongren Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Shandong Tongren") registered in Jinan is the top unlucky guy in the world. A few years ago, it bought 56,361,7 shares of Huasu, a listed company, at a price of 235 million yuan, becoming the largest shareholder. However, what is waiting for it is not the return in the capital market, but the endless fake case. The core of these fake cases is to "transfer" hundreds of millions of assets of major shareholders to a little-known company in Beijing.
this reporter has been tossing and turning for many days, trying to solve the lawsuit mystery of this listed company.
The resolution of the extraordinary shareholders' meeting was revoked by a court in a different place
The first fake case happened in Zibo, Shandong.
On July 4th, 26, Yang Zhiming, a Sichuanese, filed a lawsuit in the Boshan District Court of Zibo City, demanding that the announcement of *ST Huasu's 26 Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders be revoked. Two days later, a "mediation" agreement was reached in court.
this case is extremely simple. Two months before the lawsuit, Yang Zhiming bought 1, shares of Fanren Huasu in the secondary market, with a value of no more than 2, yuan. The reason for his prosecution is that "Shandong Tongren" proposed to convene an extraordinary shareholders' meeting on July 11th, 26, and its executive director Xing Yi wrote to his colleague Huasu, requesting to withdraw the proposal, and his colleague Huasu approved the withdrawal, but did not announce the suspension of the meeting, which caused the company's management disorder.
However, there is no Xing Yi in "Shandong Tongren".
In the interrogation record of the criminal police detachment of Jinan Public Security Bureau, Xing Yi replied like this: "I didn't know there was a Shandong Tongren company before." "I am not the legal representative of Shandong colleagues, not now, nor was it." In the face of a lot of legal documents signed with the name "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 Tumote Zuoqi, Inner Mongolia. However, the plaintiff in the case became Han Qianyong.
in this way, the resolution of the first extraordinary shareholders' meeting scheduled for July 11th, 26 was revoked five days in advance by two courts in different places thousands of kilometers apart.
the target of the pile fraud case is an equity of 1 million yuan
On August 15th, 26, a paper "Announcement on Major Litigation of Tongren Huasu Co., Ltd. and Proposal of Beijing Zhongrongda Investment Management Co., Ltd. to Increase the 25 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders" shocked Shandong Tongren. According to the announcement, 56,361,7 *ST Huasu legal person shares held by "Shandong Tongren" were all mediated to "Zhongrongda" on the same day. The registered capital of "Zhongrongda" is only 1 million yuan.
While appealing to the Xuanwu District Court in Beijing, "Shandong Tongren" immediately reported the case to Jinan Public Security Bureau.
Ten days later, the Xuanwu District Court of Beijing issued a civil ruling, and ruled to form a collegiate bench for retrial. During the retrial, the execution of the original conciliation statement shall be suspended.
In fact, before the Xuanwu case, on March 16th, 26, another court in Zibo, Zhangdian District Court, also presided over the mediation, which was exactly the same as the Xuanwu case, and transferred 56,315,7 legal person shares owned by Shandong Tongren to Zhongrongda.
after that, "Shandong colleagues" discovered more than ten fake cases one after another. These fake cases are scattered in five provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions across the country. They are all accepted by grass-roots courts in different places under the jurisdiction of agreements, and most of them are settled through mediation in a very short time.
After many twists and turns, the reporter saw the mediation document of Zhangdian District Court. This "mediation" has created a miracle-"Shandong Tongren" not only has to hand over more than 2 million shares, but also has to pay 2, yuan "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 November 25, stipulating that the defendant would transfer its 56,315,7 shares of Huasu to the plaintiff.
On June 21st, 26, the same case as that of Zhangdian District Court was "duplicated" in the court of Xianghuang Banner in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. The difference is that the client of "Shandong colleague" became Ding Cong-he was entrusted by Xing Yi, the "Shandong colleague" and "executive director". The police later found out that Ding Cong was a paralegal in a Beijing law firm. As a result of the court's mediation, "Shandong Tongren" immediately stopped exercising its equity interests, and "Zhongrongda" enjoyed all the equity interests.
It was a long time before the "Shandong colleagues" learned about these "mediations" that had a bearing on their own destiny, and they quickly appealed to the courts in Zhangdian District and Xianghuang Banner.
The court in Xianghuang Banner quickly corrected the misjudged case and decided to cancel its mediation on November 28th, 26. On December 5, the Zhangdian District Court also made a ruling to suspend mediation.
Li Xianhui, the legal representative of "Shandong Tongren", told the reporter helplessly, "No one knows how many similar fake cases there are."
The professional manager transferred the company's property, but the company didn't know
It involved such a huge amount of equity transfer, and neither "Shandong Tongren" nor "Zhongrongda" knew-both parties to the lawsuit were fake.
In these fake cases, there are still two people who can't be ignored. One is Ding Cong, the entrusted agent of Zhongrongda, and the other is Han Qianjin, the legal adviser of Fanren Huasu. At present, the two men have been criminally compulsory by the police. During the investigation, the police found that the official seals, documents and other relevant materials involving "Shandong colleagues" were forged; Ding Cong and Han Qianjin are just participants and executors of a series of fake cases.
according to Shandong Tongren, on August 28th, 22, after the company acquired 56,361,7 legal person shares of Huasu, it hired a professional manager named Liu Zhuangcheng, who went to Sichuan to take charge of the work of listed companies on behalf of Shandong Tongren. On April 13th, 24, the company was renamed as "Tongren Huasu Co., Ltd.".
One decision made Shandong colleagues regret it-on September 28th, 24, they appointed professional managers as legal representatives, chairman and general manager. After Liu Zhuangcheng took over Huasu, the company suffered losses again and again. In March 26, the stock was given special treatment of delisting risk warning, and the stock abbreviation was changed to "*ST Huasu".
"Shandong colleagues" are impatient. At the shareholders' meeting, they proposed to remove Liu Zhuangcheng, the chairman and general manager. It is some "transfers" that make "Shandong colleagues" stunned that they are determined to change coaches.