[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over a sales contract and suspected economic crimes. A Publishing House claims that B Book Company owes a debt of 10,982,955.12 yuan according to the Book Sales Contract, which is guaranteed by Zhao ** and Zhang ** with real estate as collateral. Zhao ** entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Wang FangliAttorney,Xue SuhuaThe lawyer, acting as an agent, discovered that the client was a victim of the fraud committed by Company C in the "real estate mortgage cooperation" case. The first-instance court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit and referred the case to the public security organ. A Publishing House appealed, and the lawyer revealed that Zhao ** did not have the true intention of providing guarantees and that the case involved a series of frauds. The second-instance court upheld the ruling. Legal provisions applied: Article 157 of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 11 of the "Regulations on Several Issues Concerning Suspected Economic Crimes Involved in the Trials of Economic Disputes Cases".

I. Review of the Case Facts

The person was dragged into a real estate mortgage guarantee case only to find it was a fraud. The victim often searches for terms like "what to do if you're cheated in a mortgage guarantee" and "criminal charges dismissed in sales disputes". A Publishing House signed a "Book Sales Contract" with B Book Company, and B Company owed a debt of 10,982,975 yuan. To guarantee the repayment, A Publishing House signed a "Main Creditor's Rights and Real Estate Maximum Mortgage Contract" with Zhao ** and Zhang **, pledging multiple properties as collateral. B Company failed to repay the debt, so A Publishing House sued B Company, Zhao **, Zhang **, and the original shareholder Fu ** in court, demanding repayment, breach of contract penalties, legal fees, and priority repayment. Zhao ** appointed a lawyer to defend himself/herself in the lawsuit.Wang FangliAttorney,Xue SuhuaThe lawyer found that this case was not a simple breach of contract, but involved C Company committing a series of frauds under the guise of "real estate mortgage cooperation", and Zhao ** was the victim.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Is this case a pure economic dispute or does it involve suspected economic crimes?It is decided to reject the application to transfer the prosecution to the public security organ.
  • Focus 2: Whether Zhao **'s mortgage is a true expression of his intention.The effectiveness of the mortgage is fundamentally in doubt due to the fact that the signature was obtained through fraudulent means.
  • Focus Three: Whether the first-instance procedure was illegal.A publishing house accused the court of denying the right to a fair trial without holding a hearing.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiff (A Publishing House) alleges that:The publishing house argued that Zhao * * * and others voluntarily carried out mortgage registration and the procedures were complete, so it should be valid. It also held that the first-instance court wrongly applied Article 11 of the Regulations and the procedure of not holding a trial was illegal, and appealed to continue the trial.

The defendant (Zhao **) argued in his defense that:Zhao * claimed that the mortgage was caused by the fraud of Company C and B Book Company, and that he was unaware of the debt between A Publishing House and B Company and had no intention to provide a guarantee. He was a victim of the criminal case.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Wang FangliAttorney,Xue SuhuaAfter conducting in-depth research, the lawyer revealed that Zhao * * * * * signed the "Real Estate Mortgage Cooperation Agreement" with Company C to obtain a loan through mortgage, but was completely unaware of the debts between A Publishing House and Company B, and had no intention of using the house as a mortgage guarantee. The mortgage was fraudulently obtained. The lawyer provided key evidence and background information, pointing out that Zhao * * * * * was a victim of a series of frauds by Company C and Company B Book Company. There are already many victims, and some related cases have been criminally investigated and handled by the public security organ in a joint manner, strongly indicating that the underlying facts involve contract fraud. The lawyer refuted the allegation of procedural violations, noting that the first-instance court had allowed all parties to express their opinions and did not deprive them of the right to debate. A Publishing House, as a state-owned enterprise, continued to supply goods to Company B despite the latter's millions-yuan overdue payments, and forced Zhao * * * * * to sign the agreement without consulting him, then shifting the blame for the mistake to Zhao * * * * *. The lawyer requested that the first-instance ruling be upheld.

IV. Outcome of the case

The first-instance court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit of A Publishing House and transfer the materials to the public security organ in accordance with Article 157, Paragraph 1, Item (3) of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 11 of the "Regulations on Several Issues Concerning Economic Crimes Suspected in the Trial of Economic Disputes Cases". A Publishing House appealed. In the second-instance trial, Hengluo Law Firm argued that Zhao * * * did not have true intent, that the case involved a series of frauds, that it complied with Article 11 of the regulations, and that there were no procedural issues in the first-instance trial. The second-instance court ruled to maintain the first-instance ruling and dismiss the appeal of A Publishing House. Our client successfully avoided paying for others' mistakes with their own assets.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Wang FangliAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101201911086939, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ)Xue SuhuaThe lawyer (practice license number: 11101201211769926, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as an agent. When providing real estate mortgages for others' debts, it is necessary to carefully verify the authenticity of the creditor-debtor relationship. If the signature is obtained by fraud, it can be claimed that it is not a true intention, and the effectiveness of the mortgage is questionable. If the sale dispute involves criminal suspicion, the court may rule to dismiss the lawsuit and transfer it to the public security organ; if sued jointly, the defendant should promptly entrust a lawyer to prove his innocence.

VI. Common FAQs about criminal issues related to mortgage guarantees

  1. Q: What should I do if I'm cheated in a mortgage guarantee scam?
    A:It can be claimed that the victim was defrauded, there was no true intention of providing a guarantee, and the effectiveness of the mortgage is questionable. The victim can provide the agreement and clues to prove their case.
  2. Q: If a sales dispute involves criminal charges, will the lawsuit be dismissed?
    A:Yes. If, after the trial, the court finds that the case does not involve an economic dispute but involves criminal suspicion, it will rule to dismiss the lawsuit and transfer the case to the public security organ for further investigation.
  3. Q: How can I prove my innocence if I'm sued jointly with others?
    A:The lack of communication with creditors, the evidence of fraud, and the materials related to the criminal case filing prove that there was no agreement between the parties.
  4. Q: Is it illegal for the first-instance trial not to hold a court hearing?
    A:If the right to express opinions has been guaranteed through conversations or other means, it is generally not considered a deprivation of the right to debate and does not constitute a procedural violation.
  5. Q: If a state-owned enterprise fails to collect payments on time, can it transfer the losses to others?
    A:No. The creditor's own negligence in failing to collect the debt should not be borne by the unaware mortgagor with his/her property.