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. After the interrogations, the undertaking judge made a preliminary judgment that the fact was the two had brought forth a false lawsuit, and interrogated the plaintiff Ding again. Due to pressure, Ding finally told the truth. The two sides were actually in a house purchasing-and-selling relationship. The defendant Zhu, in order to get the funds back as quickly as possible, and the plaintiff Ding to evade taxes and fees of transferring ownership of a second-hand house, the two sides agreed to forge the IOU and filed the lawsuit at the court in a loan relationship. Eventually the defendant Zhu also admitted the fact.
The court of Sucheng found that Ding and Zhu jointly intended to file a false lawsuit at the court through forging an IOU of RMB100,000, in order to achieve the purpose of evading taxes and fees of transferring ownership of a second-hand house. Both sides were obviously malicious. Accordingly, the court of Sucheng issued a "Written Decision of the Fine" to penalize the two women.
China is currently carrying out strict blows against false lawsuits. The parties in this case probably felt that they knew something about the law, tried to be "clever" and played with the law. They had no idea they were misled by their own "cleverness", or "moving a stone to hit their own feet." If you have any legal questions, please consult with professional lawyers. Choosing the right way is the best way.
