Recently, when the People's Court of Sucheng District, Suqian City, Jiangsu Province, People's Republic of China, reviewed a civil loan dispute case, the court judicially penalized the plaintiff Ding for providing false evidence as well as the defendant Zhu, for maliciously colluding with the plaintiff, in a fine of RMB50,000 respectively.

On December 25, 2015, Ding took Zhu's IOU of RMB100,000 to file a lawsuit at the People's Court of Sucheng District, Suqian City, claiming that because the defendant Zhu was operating a property company and its early investment needed a turnover, Zhu took a loan from Ding. The loan term was agreed to be two to three months. After the term expired and much urging, Zhu had no sign of repaying the loan. As a result, Ding filed a lawsuit at the court to ask Zhu to repay the loan.

In the morning of January 14, 2016, when the case was in the process of hearing, for a comprehensive understanding of the specific circumstances of the loan, the undertaking judge discovered during the routine mediation between the two sides before the court that the descriptions of the loan details of the plaintiff and the defendant contradicted each other. When the plaintiff Ding was giving her statement, she equivocated and showed abnormal nervousness. The judge felt that there must be something strange, and proceeded with separate interrogation on the plaintiff and the defendant. When individually asking the plaintiff Ding about the loan details, Ding still claimed that she and Zhu were friends. Zhu borrowed RMB100,000 from her for a turnover for the early investment of the property company Zhu operated. Ding paid the loan in cash at Ding's home. The defendant Zhu, on the other hand, claimed that she operated a property company and was friends with Ding. Their fathers were old neighbors of four to five years. When the judge interrogated further, it was discovered that although the two claimed that it was borrowing between friends, the defendant could not tell the plaintiff's exact profession, and the descriptions of the two sides about the presence of other people during the borrowing were also inconsistent.