How to get to the intersection of Tiyu Road and Jianshe Road from Wu 'an Court?

Li Yusheng, the "Three No Judges" of Wu 'an People's Court, filmed a documentary about perverting the law.

Li Yusheng, the "Three No Judges" in the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province = "Ignorance"+"Fearlessness"+"Shamelessness" = perverting the law.

-Documentary series of rulings on bill disputes by the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province.

According to the poster, compared with the developed coastal areas, the courts in Wu 'an City, Hebei Province have heard fewer bill disputes. The cases undertaken are not terrible, and you can learn if you don't understand! No, you can ask! As the saying goes: "I haven't eaten pork, I should have seen pigs run!" " "An He, vice president and judge of the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province, and Han, a juror, in the spirit of" ignorance "and" fearlessness ",endorsed the parties by perverting the law, making the local party Renxin Company make an illegal profit of 30 million yuan! We don't know how many black deals there are behind Li Yusheng and An Hehui, judges of the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province, who openly bend the law, but we will disclose many judicial jokes made by their ignorance and ignorance.

On-the-spot report of Li Yusheng's perverting the law in Wu 'an People's Court.

Li Yusheng, the "three no judges" of the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province, perverted the law and supported the deceived person to sue the third party to recover the loss.

Li Yusheng, the "three noes" judge of the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province, perverted the law = "ignorance+shameless+fearless"

-Documentary series of rulings on bill disputes by the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province.

2015 65438+1October 28th, Handan Renxin Trading Co., Ltd. bought a draft of 30 million yuan, which was cheated by Zhang Zhiguo and others in Taiyuan, Shanxi. Zhang Zhiguo and others transferred the bill to others by endorsement, after which the bill was endorsed many times and finally transferred to our company after the company paid a consideration of 30 million yuan in advance.

Renxin Company reported the criminal case of fraud to the public security organ of Taiyuan City, and lied about the loss of the bill, so it applied to the yingze district Court of Taiyuan City for public notice. After the publicity, Renxin Company forced jurisdiction and sued Wu 'an City Court.

The People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province accepted the case and committed the following illegal acts:

1, and has no right to accept compulsory jurisdiction.

Article 6 of the Supreme Court's Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Bills Disputes clearly stipulates: "A lawsuit arising from a bill right dispute shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the bill is paid or where the defendant has his domicile". The People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province is neither the place where bills are paid nor the defendant's domicile, so it has no jurisdiction over this case according to law.

2. Renxin Company's bill fraud is a criminal offence, and its losses should have been recovered through judicial organs. However, the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province supported the deceived person to sue an innocent third party to recover the losses.

The bills held by Renxin Company were defrauded by Xingmaoyuan Company (Li), which is a criminal offence. After the criminals were arrested by Yingze Branch of Taiyuan Public Security Bureau, the case has been submitted to yingze district court, and a judgment will be made soon.

China's "Criminal Law" Article 64 "All property illegally acquired by criminals shall be recovered or ordered to make restitution; The legal property of the victim shall be returned in time. " Therefore, the memorial system of property infringement cases in criminal cases is mandatory, which is the inevitable result of the criminalization of civil liability. It is a criminal offence for a criminal suspect to defraud the plaintiff of 30 million yuan, and the losses should be recovered by the judicial organs according to law. This is the basic legal common sense. It is the duty of the judiciary to recover losses for the deceived by pursuing. The process of judicial organs' memorial service is the same as that of criminal proceedings. The deceived person has no right to file a civil lawsuit and recover losses from the fraudster according to law. Plaintiff Xin Company brought a lawsuit to the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province, which had no jurisdiction at all, in order to recover the fraud losses. Ironically, the people's court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province actually accepted the plaintiff's lawsuit. What is even more ridiculous is that the defendant turned out to be an innocent third party unrelated to the fraud case. What is even more ridiculous is that the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province even ruled that an innocent third party should pay the bill for the deceived person to ensure that the deceived person will not suffer losses. Li Yusheng, the presiding judge of the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province, concurrently serves as the vice president of the First People's Court. It stands to reason that his professional quality should be above that of ordinary judges. However, he accepted and sentenced the plaintiff Renxin Company's unreasonable prosecution. If he didn't intentionally bend the law, he should be ignorant and fearless!

On-the-spot Report of Li Yusheng, the "Three No Judges" in the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province. The People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province, instead of imposing sanctions, allowed the plaintiff to make an illegal profit of 30 million yuan.

Li Yusheng, the "three noes" judge of the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province, perverted the law = "ignorance+shameless+fearless"

-Documentary series of rulings on bill disputes by the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province.

The bills held by Renxin Company were defrauded by fraudsters and did not meet the acceptance conditions of public notice according to law. However, in order to be accepted by the court, Renxin Company lied about the loss of the bill, thus applying for public notice, and then suing the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province. The behavior of Renxin Company should have been punished according to law, but the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province not only accepted the lawsuit of Renxin Company, but also ruled that it enjoyed the bill right and benefited 30 million yuan, which is a great record in the world:

1. Renxin Company has no right to apply for publicity.

According to Article 218 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and relevant judicial interpretations, the premise of applying for public notice is that the bill is "stolen, lost or destroyed", the whereabouts of the bill are unknown, and the interested parties are in an unknown state.

In this case, in order to achieve its illegal purpose, Renxin Company fabricated "accidentally lost" bills to meet the requirements of applying for publicity while knowing that the bills it held were cheated. In doing so, Renxin Company further shows that it has no right to apply for publicity.

Renxin Company has no right to bring a lawsuit to the court.

According to Article 22 1 of China's Civil Procedure Law, "the applicant or the respondent may bring a lawsuit to the people's court" after the public notice procedure ends. After the court decides to terminate the public notice procedure, only the applicant or the respondent can bring a lawsuit to the people's court. That is, Renxin Company has the right to bring a lawsuit to the court-Renxin Company is a legal publicity applicant. In this case, Renxin Company has no right to apply for publicity, so it has no right to bring a lawsuit to the court after publicity!

3. Renxin Company's "false report of bill loss" hinders civil litigation. The People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province not only failed to punish it according to law, but made it make an illegal profit of 30 million yuan.

Article 39 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Bill Cases (hereinafter referred to as the "Bill Provisions") stipulates that "if the people's court decides to terminate the public notice or litigation procedure after ascertaining the facts, it may investigate the legal responsibility of the false newspaper reporter with reference to the provisions of Article 102 of the Civil Procedure Law".

Renxin Company falsely reported the loss of bills, maliciously applied for public notice, and then illegally filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province. Renxin Company's bad behavior should not only reject its claim according to law, but also impose fines and detention on its responsible person and the person directly responsible according to law. If the case constitutes a crime, criminal responsibility shall also be investigated according to law. However, the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province not only failed to punish Renxin Company, but sentenced it to 30 million yuan of illegal income, which was obviously inconsistent with the law.

On-the-spot report of Li Yusheng's perverting the law in the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province (3)

The absurd judgment of the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province will inevitably lead to an absurd situation.

Li Yusheng, the "three noes" judge of the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province, perverted the law = "ignorance+shameless+fearless"

-Documentary series of rulings on bill disputes by the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province.

A simple criminal fraud case should have recovered the victim's economic losses according to law, but the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province illegally tried the bill dispute and ruled that the victim of the fraud case could get 30 million yuan through bank acceptance of the bill. In this case, the economic losses suffered by the victim Renxin Company due to fraud can be recovered, but this will inevitably lead to the following absurd situations:

Myth 1: After the judgment of the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province, there will be no victims in criminal cases of fraud.

Wu' an City Court ruled that Renxin Company enjoys the right to bills, which means that it made an illegal profit of 30 million yuan. In other words, the plaintiff Renxin Company, who was defrauded of 30 million yuan, will not have any economic losses after the judgment of the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province. Can such a cheated person who has no loss be regarded as a cheated person? The People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province ruled that there was no victim in Taiyuan's 30 million bill fraud case! ?

Myth 2: After the judgment of the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province, 30 million yuan defrauded by criminals need not be returned.

Wu' an City Court ruled in the first instance that Renxin Company enjoys the right to bill, so it can pay 30 million yuan to the bank, that is to say, the economic losses suffered by Renxin Company due to fraud can be made up. This will inevitably lead to 30 million yuan being defrauded by criminals, because the deceived person has no loss and does not need to return the stolen goods. Isn't it ridiculous that fraudsters don't need to return stolen goods after defrauding 30 million?

Absurdity 3: The People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province supports and condones Renxin Company's illegal lawsuit.

Renxin Company has no right to apply for publicity, file a bill lawsuit, or even file a lawsuit with the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province. If the judgment of the first instance is upheld, it is bound to be connivance and support for the illegal acts of Renxin Company, such as "reporting the loss of bills", obstructing litigation and maliciously bringing jurisdiction to Wu 'an for prosecution.

Absurdity 4: Renxin Company will get double income of 60 million yuan due to fraud.

Li has been investigated for criminal responsibility by public security organs according to law because of suspected fraud and other crimes. The public security organs will recover the stolen money and goods according to law, and fraudsters may also actively return the stolen goods in order to get a lighter punishment. Therefore, Renxin Company may recover economic losses of 30 million yuan in criminal cases; If the judgment of the first instance comes into effect, Renxin Company can get 30 million yuan from the bank to accept the bill because of its right to the bill. The absurd situation that Renxin Company may get 60 million yuan of double benefits due to fraud fully illustrates the absurdity of the first-instance judgment.

On-the-spot report of Li Yusheng's perverting the law in the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province (IV)

Li Yusheng, the "three no judges" of the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province, perverted the law and made Renxin Company illegally profit 30 million yuan by "endorsing" the parties.

Li Yusheng, the "three noes" judge of the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province, perverted the law = "ignorance+shameless+fearless"

-Documentary series of rulings on bill disputes by the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province.

Bill transfer must be endorsed. Renxin Company can't enjoy the bill right without endorsement, but the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province "endorsed" it-it benefited from the unjust verdict of 30 million yuan.

The bill belongs to Wen Yi Securities, and only the person recorded on the bill can become the holder of the bill according to law. Article 27 of China's negotiable instrument law clearly stipulates:

(Paragraph 1) The holder may transfer the rights of the bill of exchange to others or authorize others to exercise certain rights of the bill of exchange.

(3) "When exercising the rights stipulated in the first paragraph, the holder shall endorse and deliver the bill". That is, according to China's Bill Law, the right to transfer bills must be "endorsed and delivered". Endorsement and delivery are both indispensable, and the right to a bill cannot be obtained simply by delivery. "If the payee or endorsee recorded on the bill simply delivers the bill to the transferee without endorsement, it will violate the literal meaning of the bill and not meet the requirements of the continuity of endorsement, and it will not produce the legal effect of the transfer of bill rights according to law, and the transferee who obtains the bill will not be able to enjoy and exercise the bill rights."

"Notes are written securities and mortgage securities, and the rights of the holders of the notes can only be subject to the records on the notes. If there is only bill delivery behavior, but the bill rights are not recorded through bill issuance, endorsement and other bill behaviors, the bill rights cannot be established, changed or eliminated. " Therefore, the bills held by Renxin Company have not been "endorsed" and cannot enjoy the rights of bills according to law. However, a wrong ruling by the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province, was that he "endorsed" the plaintiff's letter company, which made a plaintiff who lost the case due to false bills and was defrauded by criminals, and benefited 30 million yuan because of the "endorsement" of the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province. At the same time, the "endorsement" of the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province-the act of bending the law, has caused an innocent third party to suffer a loss of 30 million yuan!

Li Yusheng, the "Three No Judges" in the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province, perverted the law.

Li Yusheng, a "three no judges", distorts the law and blatantly ignores the explicit provisions of the law to distort the facts.

Li Yusheng, the "three noes" judge of the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province, perverted the law = "ignorance+shameless+fearless"

-Documentary series of rulings on bill disputes by the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province.

2065438+On February 5th, 2005, the plaintiff, Renxin Company, applied to the yingze district Court of Taiyuan for publicity, and the time for publicity was 265438+February, 2005 18. China's bill law stipulates that bills are invalid during the period of public notice, but "the period of public notice is 60 days from the date of announcement". As ticket holders, we received the bill on February 4-6, 2065438+2005, nearly half a month earlier than the published date. Such a clear fact, the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province actually found that we received the bill during the publicity period, thus finding that the bill we received was invalid. This blatant distortion of the facts was actually written into the judgment by Li Yusheng, the vice president of Good Night Court. This kind of behavior is no longer a question of "never seeing a pig run", they are blatantly blaspheming the law! Of course, it is also a vivid annotation of ignorance and fearlessness.

On-the-spot report of Li Yusheng's perverting the law in Wu 'an People's Court of Hebei Province (6)

Ask the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province, where have all our 30 million dollars gone?

Li Yusheng, the "three noes" judge of the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province, perverted the law = "ignorance+shameless+fearless"

-Documentary series of rulings on bill disputes by the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province.

We are the last holder of the bill involved and the legal holder, and should enjoy the rights of the bill according to law:

1. We paid a consideration of 30 million yuan.

We used to get bills from one hand, or borrow money from the other hand, or repay loans from the other hand. And submitted the original documentary evidence such as bank vouchers, IOUs and IOUs to the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province. In other words, we paid a consideration of 30 million yuan to obtain the order. Why did the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province award our 30 million yuan to the company where the court is located-the plaintiff Renxin Company! ! !

2. The bills we hold are true and legal, and the endorsements are continuous.

Article 31 of China's "Negotiable Instruments Law" clearly stipulates that "a negotiable instrument shall be endorsed continuously. The holder proves his bill right through the continuity of endorsement; ……"。 In other words, as "the actual holder, as long as he proves that the bill he holds is valid and the endorsement is continuous, he has completed the burden of proof for his right to enjoy the bill." In this case, the bills we hold are legal, the signatures are successively connected in form, and the endorsements are continuous, so we certainly enjoy the rights of bills according to law.

We obtained the draft dispute in good faith, without any fault.

"Liquidity" is the most basic feature of bills. The draft we got has been endorsed many times. Even if some prior parties do not have the right to dispose of bills, we cannot know. As long as the signature of our prior party is true and the transfer is legal, what we obtained after paying a consideration of 30 million yuan without any fault is legally "bona fide acquisition".

The people's court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province ruled that we did not enjoy the right to negotiable instruments. Where's our 30 million? As an innocent third party, why does the People's Court of Wu 'an City, Hebei Province want us to compensate their local companies for the losses they suffered because of fraud! ! !