|
|
|
|
|
Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd. v. Tianjin Branch of China Citic Bank Corporation Limited and Hebei Baoshuo Co. Ltd. (A case about disputes over loan and guaranty contracts)
(A case about disputes over loan and guaranty contracts)
风神轮胎股份有限公司与中信银行股份有限公司天津分行、河北宝硕股份有限公司借款担保合同纠纷案
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd. v. Tianjin Branch of China Citic Bank Corporation Limited and Hebei Baoshuo Co. Ltd.
(A case about disputes over loan and guaranty contracts) | | 风神轮胎股份有限公司与中信银行股份有限公司天津分行、河北宝硕股份有限公司借款担保合同纠纷案 |
[Summary] | |
【裁判摘要】 |
| |
|
| 1. Article 14 of the Guaranty Law provides that “A guarantor and a creditormay enter into a guaranty contract for each main contract, or enter into aguaranty contract for all loan contracts or trade contracts for certaincommodity entered in a certain period of time within a maximum limit”. Theabove-mentioned maximum amount guaranty is in general for the debts incurred ina future period, so validity of one transaction shall not affect the validityof the guaranty contract with credit limit, In contrast, an ordinary guaranty wouldbe void if the main contract becomes void. Therefore, the most significantdifference between a maximum amount guaranty and an ordinary guaranty is that theformer is more independent from the principal debts. The maximum amount guarantor established itsliability at the time the contract was established by setting guaranty periodand the credit limit, that is, as long as the debts are incurred in the periodof such guaranty and the debts balance is within the credit limit, theguarantor should honor its guaranty obligations. Under a maximumamount guaranty, where a part of principal debt was void, the debt balance determinedby considering such part of invalid principal debt should be used forcalculation of the balance of debts of the guaranty.
| | 一、《中华人民共和国担保法》第十四条规定：“保证人与债权人可以就单个主合同分别订立保证合同，也可以协议在最高债权额限度内就一定期间连续发生的借款合同或者某项商品交易合同订立一个保证合同。”上述规定中的最高额保证，通常是为将来一定期间连续发生的债务提供保证，其中某一笔交易的效力并不影响最高额保证合同的效力，而普通保证则因主合同无效而无效。因此，最高额保证较之普通保证最大的区别，即在于最高额保证与主债务的关系具有更强的独立性。最高额保证人的责任是在订立合同时确立的，通过最高额保证期间和最高限额限定保证责任，即只要是发生在最高额保证期间内、不超过最高限额的债务余额，最高额保证人均应承担保证责任。在最高额保证的情形下，即使主债务无效，基于主债务无效而确定的债务额也要作为最高额保证计算债务余额的基数。 |
| |
|
| | 二、根据《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国担保法>若干问题的解释》第二十三条关于“最高额保证合同的不特定债权确定后，保证人应当对在最高债权额限度内就一定期间连续发生的债权余额承担保证责任”的规定，最高额保证范围为最高额保证期间已经发生的债权和偿还债务的差额，并非指最高额保证期间已经到期的债权余额。 |
| 2. Article 23 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court onApplication of the Guaranty Law of the People's Republic of China provides that“after the creditor's rights under a maximum amount guaranty contract areascertained, the guarantor shall assume the guaranty obligation for the balanceof creditor's rights incurred in the prescribed period of time and within the agreedcredit limit”. A maximum amount guaranty covers the balance of debts that incurredand repaid during the guaranty period, but not the balance of creditor's rightsthat are matured within the maximum amountguaranty period. | |
|
| | 三、根据票据无因性理论，票据基础关系(包括票据原因关系)独立于票据关系，票据基础关系(包括票据原因关系)的效力不影响票据关系的效力。 |
| 3. According to the abstract theory negotiable instrument, the underlyingrelationship of negotiable instrument (including the originating relationshipof the instrument) is independent of the relationship of the instrument, andthe validity of the underlying relationship (including the originating relationshipof the instrument) shall not affect the validity of the relationship of theinstrument. | |
最高人民法院 |
Supreme People's Court | |
民事判决书 |
Civil Judgment | |
(2007)民二终字第36号 |
No. 36 [2007] Civil Division II, Final | |
|
BASIC FACTS | |
上诉人(原审被告)：风神轮胎股份有限公司。住所地：河南省焦作市焦东南路 48号。 |
Appellant (defendant in original trial): Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd., residing at: 48 Jiaodong Nanlu, Jiaozuo, Henan Province. | |
法定代表人：曹朝阳，该公司董事长。 |
Legal representative: Cao Chaoyang, chairman of the Board of Directors of this company. | |
委托代理人：丁灿平，北京市众鑫律师事务所律师。 |
Attorney: Ding Canping, lawyer of Beijing Zhongxin Law Firm | |
委托代理人：李晓东，北京市众鑫律师事务所律师。 |
Attorney: Li Xiaodong, lawyer of Beijing Zhongxin Law Firm | |
被上诉人(原审原告)：中信银行股份有限公司天津分行。住所地：天津市河西区南京路14号。 |
Appellee (plaintiff in original trial): Tianjin Branch of China Citic Bank Corporation Limited, residing at: 14 Nanjing Road, Hexi District, Tianjin. | |
负责人：郭党怀，该行行长。 |
Person in charge: Guo Danghuai, president of this bank. | |
委托代理人：沈永熙，北京市大成律师事务所律师。 |
Attorney: Shen Yongxi, lawyer of Beijing Dacheng Law Firm. | |
委托代理人：冯惠广，该行职员。 |
Attorney: Feng Huiguang, employee of this bank. | |
原审被告：河北宝硕股份有限公司。住所地：河北省保定市朝阳北路175号。 |
Defendant in original trial: Hebei Baoshuo Co. Ltd., residing at: 175 Chaoyang Beilu, Baoding, Hebei Province. | |
法定代表人：魏垣生，该公司清算组组长。 |
Legal representative: Wei Yuansheng, head of the Liquidation Committee of this company. | |
委托代理人：谢元勋，该公司清算组成员。 |
Attorney: Xie Yuanxun, member of the Liquidation Committee of this company. | |
上诉人风神轮胎股份有限公司(以下简称风神公司)为与被上诉人中信银行股份有限公司天津分行(以下简称中信银行)、原审被告河北宝硕股份有限公司(以下简称宝硕公司)借款、担保合同纠纷一案，不服天津市高级人民法院(2006)津高民二初字第 0045号民事判决，向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成由审判员钱晓晨担任审判长，代理审判员刘敏、杨征宇参加的合议庭进行了审理。书记员袁红霞担任记录。本案现已审理终结。 |
For disputes over loan and guaranty contracts with the appellee, Tianjin Branch of China Citic Bank Corporation Limited (“Citic Bank”), and the defendant in original trial, Hebei Baoshuo Co. Ltd. (“Baoshuo Co.”), against the civil judgment, No. 0045 [2006] Civil Division II, First Instance, Tianjin, of the Higher People's Court of Tianjin, the appellant, Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd. (“Aeolus Co.”), appealed to this court. This court legally formed a collegiate bench comprising Judge Qian Xiaochen as presiding judge, Deputy Judge Liu Min and Deputy Judge Yang Zhengyu to hear the case. Clerk Yuan Hongxia keeps the court record. So far, the trial of this case has concluded. | |
天津市高级人民法院经审理查明：一、 2005年5月至2005年10月间，中信银行与宝硕公司之间发生4笔融资业务。每笔业务具体的情况如下：1．2005年5月16日，中信银行与宝硕公司签署了(2005)银贷字第HD0062号《人民币借款合同》，借款金额为人民币2000万元，期限自2005年5月16日至2006年5月15日。合同签订后，中信银行依照合同的约定，足额发放了贷款，但合同到期后，中信银行多次催要，宝硕公司未履行还款义务。2．2005年6月7日， 中信银行与宝硕公司签署了 (2005)银贷字第HD0063号《人民币借款合同》，贷款金额为人民币730万元，期限自2005年6月7日至2006年6月6日。合同签订后，中信银行依照合同的约定，足额发放了贷款，但合同到期后，中信银行多次催要，宝硕公司未履行还款义务。3．2005年10月21日，中信银行与宝硕公司签署了(2005)银贷字第HD0071号《人民币借款合同》，借款金额为人民币2170万元，期限自2005年10月21日至2006年10月 20日。合同签订后，中信银行依照合同的约定，足额发放了借款。宝硕公司未能履行偿付利息之义务。4．2005年10月25日，中信银行与宝硕公司签署了(2005)银承字第HC0413号《银行承兑汇票承兑协议》，根据协议的约定，中信银行在收取宝硕公司30％计人民币900万元的保证金后，中信银行即对票号为01053169、01053170、 01053171共计金额为3000万元的银行承兑汇款予以承兑，票据期限均为2005年 10月25日至2006年4月25日。但在票据到期后，宝硕公司未按照协议的约定向中信银行支付剩余70％的票款计人民币 2100万元。根据《银行承兑汇票承兑协议》的约定，已形成本金为人民币2100万元的逾期贷款。二、2004年6月18日，风神公司与宝硕公司签订《互保合同》，约定互相为对方的银行贷款提供信用担保，担保数额为单笔本金不超过人民币7000万元整，利息不得超过国家规定的利息标准，滞纳金、罚金不得高于本金的千分之五。担保总额不得高于人民币2亿元整。基于上述的互保合同，中信银行与风神公司于2005年 5月签署了银保字第HD0062号《最高额保证合同》。风神公司向中信银行承诺，为宝硕公司自2005年5月16日至2006年 5月16日期间发生的最高额度为人民币 7000万元的授信提供担保。保证方式为连带责任担保。由于宝硕公司和风神公司未能履行还款及担保责任，中信银行于2006年7月11日向风神公司邮寄承担连带责任保证通知函，要求风神公司对上述债务承担连带保证责任。宝硕公司仍拒不偿还欠款，风神公司亦未履行保证责任，中信银行遂诉至天津市高级人民法院，请求判令宝硕公司和风神公司偿付所欠贷款本金 7000万元及相应利息。 |
Through trial, the Higher People's Court of Tianjin found that: 1. From May 2005 to October 2005, four financing transactions occurred between Citic Bank and Baoshuo Co., specifically, as follows: (1) On May 16, 2005, Citic Bank and Baoshuo Co. signed a Contract on RMB Loan (No. HD0062 [2005], Bank Loan) with a loan principal of 20 million yuan and a term from May 16, 2005 to May 15, 2006. After signing this contract, Citic Bank released the loan in full as agreed on under the contract, but after the term of this contract expired, despite Citic Bank's repetitive demands for repayment, Baoshuo Co. failed to perform its obligation of repayment. (2) On June 7, 2005, Citic Bank and Baoshuo Co. signed a Contract on RMB Loan (No. HD0063 [2005], Bank Loan) with a loan principal of 7.3 million yuan and a term from June 7, 2005 to June 6, 2006. After signing this contract, Citic Bank released the loan in full as agreed on under the contract, but after the term of this contract expired, despite Citic Bank's repetitive demands for repayment, Baoshuo Co. failed to perform its obligation of repayment. (3) On October 21, 2005, Citic Bank and Baoshuo Co. signed a Contract on RMB Loan (No. HD0071 [2005], Bank Loan) with a loan principal of 21.7 million yuan and a term from October 21, 2005 to October 20, 2006. After signing this contract, Citic Bank released the loan in full as agreed on under the contract. Baoshuo Co. failed to perform its obligation of repayment. (4) On October 25, 2005, Citic Bank and Baoshuo Co. signed an Agreement on Acceptance of Banker's Acceptance Bill (No. HC0413 [2005], Bank Acceptance), under which, they agreed that: after charging a deposit of 9 million yuan at a rate of 30% to Baoshuo Co., Citic Bank should accept three banker's acceptance bills, numbered 01053169, 01053170 and 01053171, with a total amount of 30 million yuan and a same term from October 25, 2005 to April 25, 2006 each. However, after the terms of these bills expired, Baoshuo Co. failed to pay the remaining 70% of the bill amounts, i.e. 21 million yuan, to Citic Bank as agreed on. According to the provisions of the Agreement on Acceptance of Banker's Acceptance Bill, an overdue loan with a principal of 21 million yuan had formed. 2. On June 18, 2004, Aeolus Co. and Baoshuo Co. signed a Contract on Mutual Guaranty, agreeing that they should provide credit guaranty for each other's bank loans, the guaranteed amount of a single principal should not exceed 70 million yuan, the interest should not exceed the interest standards as provided for by the state, the late interest or default interest should not exceed 0.5% of the principal, and the total guaranteed amount should not exceed 200 million yuan. Based on the above contract on mutual guaranty, in May 2005, Citic Bank and Aeolus Co. signed a Contract on Maximum Guaranty (No. HD0062, Bank Guaranty), under which Aeolus Co. undertook to Citic Bank that it should provide a guaranty for loans with a maximum limit of 70 million yuan made by Citic Bank to Baoshuo Co. in a period of time from May 16, 2005 to May 16, 2006, and the mode of guaranty should be joint and several liability. Because Baoshuo Co. and Aeolus Co. failed to perform the obligations of repayment and guaranty, on July 11, 2006, Citic Bank sent a notice of fulfilling the joint and several liability to Aeolus Co., requiring Aeolus to fulfill its joint and several liability for the above debts. Because Baoshuo Co. still refused to repay the owed amount and Aeolus still failed to perform its obligation of guaranty, Citic Bank instituted an action in the Higher People's Court of Tianjin, requesting the court to rule that Baoshuo Co. and Aeolus Co should repay the owed loan principal of 70 million yuan and interest thereon. | |
|
PROCEDURAL POSTURE | |
天津市高级人民法院经审理认为：本案双方争议的焦点是风神公司的保证责任问题，风神公司主张中信银行明知宝硕公司财务状况恶化仍向其发放巨额贷款，并从中骗取风神公司担保，风神公司不应承担担保责任。从本案的实际情形分析，现有证据确实能够证明，宝硕公司的财务状况已经严重恶化，但风神公司并无证据证明中信银行明知的事实，现有证据亦不能证明，中信银行与宝硕公司恶意串通骗取风神公司担保的事实成立。本案风神公司的担保行为是基于其与宝硕公司之间的互保协议而为，其意思表示是真实有效的。在保证人不能够证明债权人与债务人恶意串通骗取保证人担保的前提下，保证人理应按照保证合同的约定履行保证责任。综上，风神公司此项主张缺乏证据予以证明，其主张的事实依据不足，不能成立，该院不予采信。风神公司另外主张的本案部分债务超过最高额担保合同的决算期的问题，从事实上看，本案所有债务形成于最高额担保合同约定的期间之内，并未超出担保合同约定的期间，风神公司的主张属于对最高额保证合同决算期的误解，其主张不能成立。就风神公司主张的本案部分债务是宝硕公司为其下属公司贷款，实际借款人及使用人不是宝硕公司，风神公司不应承担保证责任的问题，经核实，本案的贷款均已转入宝硕公司账户，在转入宝硕公司账户后，宝硕公司有权就相关款项进行支配使用，就风神公司主张的二笔款项转入了宝硕公司下属的两个企业的事实，虽然宝硕公司对此予以证明，但宝硕公司和风神公司并不能举证证明，中信银行明知宝硕公司为他人贷款。本案的事实是中信银行与宝硕公司签订了借款合同，且款项直接转入了宝硕公司的账户，故此，风神公司认为宝硕公司不是此两笔贷款的借款人的主张不是事实，该院不予采信。综上，从本案基础事实上分析，本案所涉借款合同、银行承兑汇票协议及最高额担保合同均系当事人之间真实意思之表示且并不违反法律的相关规定，合法有效。合同签订后，中信银行依约履行了合同义务，宝硕公司和风神公司理应履行还款及担保责任，其迟迟不履行的行为已经构成违约，理应向中信银行承担违约责任。该院依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百零八条，《中华人民共和国合同法》第二百零五条、第二百零六条、第二百零七条，《中华人民共和国担保法》第十八条，《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百三十条之规定，判决：一、宝硕公司在该判决生效后十日给付中信银行天津分行本案四份合同项下的本金人民币7000万元及到判决给付之日止的相应利息及罚息(利率按合同及中国人民银行的相关规定执行)，逾期按照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百三十二条的规定执行；二、风神公司对上述给付事项在7000万元的范围内承担连带给付责任。逾期按照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百三十二条的规定执行。案件受理费人民币360 010元，财产保全费人民币350 520元由宝硕公司和风神公司负担。 |
Through trial, in the opinion of the Higher People's Court of Tianjin, the focal dispute between the two parties in this case was about the guaranty liability of Aeolus Co., which Contended that Citic Bank, knowing that the financial status of Baoshuo Co. was deteriorating, still made loans in a great amount to the latter and cheated Aeolus Co. of a guaranty, so Aeolus should not be liable for the guaranty. By an analysis of the actual conditions in this case, the present evidence could, indeed, prove that the financial status of Baoshuo Co. had seriously deteriorated, but Aeolus Co. adduced no evidence that Citic Bank had knew such a fact, and the existing evidence could not prove the fact that Citic Bank and Baoshuo Co. maliciously conspired to cheat Aeolus Co. of the guaranty. The guaranty in this case was provided by Aeolus Co. on the basis of an agreement on mutual guaranty between it and Baoshuo Co., and the expression of intentions of them were true and valid. Conditioned that a guarantor could not prove that a creditor and debtor maliciously conspired to cheat the guarantor of a guaranty, the guarantor should fulfill its guaranty liability as agreed on under the guaranty contract. To sum up, this claim of Aeolus Co. lacked evidence, and, for lack of basis, the alleged fact should not be supported by the court. Aeolus Co. also claimed that some debts in this case exceeded the period of final accounting under the contract on maximum guaranty. In view of facts, all debts in this case were formed during the period as agreed on under the contract on maximum guaranty, and did not exceed the period as agreed on under the guaranty contract. The claim of Aeolus Co. was a misunderstanding of the final accounting period under the guaranty contract, and should not be supported. As to the claims of Aeolus Co. that some debts in this case were loans to Baoshuo Co. for its subsidiaries, that the actual borrowers and users were not Baoshuo Co. and that Aeolus Co. should not be liable for the guaranty, after verification, all loans in this case had been transferred into the account of Baoshuo Co., and after such transfer, Baoshuo Co. had the right to administer and use the relevant amounts. As to the fact claimed by Aeolus Co. that two amounts had been transferred into two enterprises under Baoshuo Co., Baoshuo Co. proved it, but neither Baoshuo Co. nor Aeolus Co. could adduce evidence that Citic Bank had known that Baoshuo Co. borrowed the amounts for others. The truth in this case was that Citic Bank and Baoshuo Co. signed the loan contracts, and the amounts were directly transferred into the account of Baoshuo Co. Therefore, the claim of Aeolus Co. that Baoshuo Co. was not the borrower of the two loans was a false, and should not be supported by the court. To sum up, by an analysis of the basic facts in this case, all the involved loan contracts, agreement on banker's acceptance bills and contract on maximum guaranty represented the true intentions of the parties, did not violate the relevant legal provisions, and should be legal and valid. After signing the contracts, Citic Bank performed its contractual obligations, and Baoshuo Co. and Aeolus Co. should perform their obligations of repayment and guaranty. However, they had failed to do so, which constituted defaults, and should assume the default liability to Citic Bank. In accordance with the provisions of Article 108 of the General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, Articles 205, 206 and 207 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 18 of the Guaranty Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 130 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the court ruled: (1) Within ten days after the effective date of this judgment, Baoshuo Co. should repay Tianjin Branch of Citic Bank the principals of 70 million yuan under the four contracts in this case and corresponding interest and default interest thereon calculated until the judgment date of repayment (interest rates subject to the relevant provisions of the contracts and the People's Bank of China), and if overdue, the provision of Article 232 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China should apply; (2) Aeolus Co. should be jointly and severally liable for repayment of the above amounts within the extent of 70 million yuan. If overdue, the provision of Article 232 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China should apply. The court costs of 360,010 yuan and property preservation fee of 350,520 yuan should be paid by Baoshuo Co. and Aeolus Co.
．．．．．． | |
风神公司不服上述民事判决，向本院提起上诉称：根据风神公司已提交一审法院的证据和该公司一审判决后新取得的证据，能够证实宝硕公司恶意掩盖其早已严重恶化的财务状况，骗取上诉人为其提供最高额保证担保，中信银行明知风神公司与宝硕公司所签《互保合同》之相关约定及宝硕公司财务状况严重恶化的事实，与宝硕公司恶意串通，在宝硕公司骗取风神公司提供保证担保的情况下，基于风神公司的良好财务、经营状况和偿债能力，严重违规向宝硕公司发放贷款，导致贷款无法收回，对此，中信银行和宝硕公司负有完全过错，风神公司依法不应承担连带保证责任。一审判决认定的事实错误，导致适用法律错误，判决结果显失公平，依法应予改判。一、宝硕公司恶意掩盖已严重恶化的真实财务状况，骗取风神公司为其提供最高额保证担保。1．在风神公司与中信银行签订《最高额保证合同》之前，宝硕公司的财务状况已严重恶化。根据宝硕公司于2006年 10月和12月发布的 “河北宝硕股份有限公司重大事项公告”和“河北宝硕股份有限公司对外担保及重大诉讼的公告”证实，宝硕公司大股东河北宝硕集团有限公司及其附属企业非法占用宝硕公司资金初步核查为5．35亿元，宝硕公司隐瞒对外担保 16．787亿元，因逾期借款、企业借款及连带责任担保目前被起诉的涉诉标的近9．55亿元。这还不包括宝硕公司在历年年报中公开披露的贷款和担保数额。因此，仅从上述材料即可以充分证实，在《最高额保证合同》签订之前，宝硕公司财务状况已经严重恶化，无力偿还到期债务，资产负债率远远超过80％。2．宝硕公司鉴于已出现资金链断裂的危机，恶意隐瞒真实财务状况，骗取风神公司为其提供保证担保。根据宝硕公司于2004年6月与风神公司签订的《互保合同》第七条的规定：在合同一方最近一期资产负债率高于70％时，或其到期债务高于其净资产70％，或其面临的诉讼标的高于其净资产70％时，或其资产、财务严重恶化还不能履行到期债务时，合同一方应及时告知合同另一方，合同另一方有权单方解除互保合同，不再提供担保。因此，根据《互保合同》中的前述真实意思表示，风神公司在知悉宝硕公司财务状况严重恶化的事实后，断然不会再与中信银行签订《最高额保证合同》，为宝硕公司提供保证担保。 2005年，宝硕公司的财务状况严重恶化，资金链出现断裂的危机，已无力偿还到期债务，在此种情况下，宝硕公司以各种手段向风神公司掩盖其真实财务状况，骗取风神公司为其提供保证担保，以致风神公司与中信银行于2005年5月签订了《最高额保证合同》。2005年年底，宝硕公司资金链彻底断裂，债权人纷纷起诉，证监会等相关政府部门随后也相继介入调查。此时据风神公司与中信银行签订《最高额保证合同》仅间隔半年时间。风神公司在宝硕公司恶意欺骗的情况下，出具《最高额保证合同》，并不是其真实意思表示。一审判决认定风神公司的担保行为是其真实意思表示，是真实有效的，该认定明显与事实不符。二、中信银行明知风神公司与宝硕公司所签《互保合同》之相关约定及宝硕公司财务状况严重恶化的事实，与宝硕公司恶意串通，在宝硕公司骗保情况下，违规发放贷款。1．中信银行对宝硕公司骗取风神公司提供保证担保的事实是完全知悉的。首先，中信银行对于宝硕公司财务严重恶化的情形是完全知悉的。现有证据可以充分证明，宝硕公司的资产状况早已恶化，根本不具备放贷条件。在本案所涉贷款之前，宝硕公司已经是拆东墙补西墙，资金链已出现严重断裂危机，其他银行也陆续拒绝为宝硕公司继续提供贷款。而中信银行于2004年开始，即一直对宝硕公司从事着上下游保兑仓业务，有专人负责对宝硕公司进行财务监管，对宝硕公司的财务状况非常了解，且中信银行对宝硕公司从事上下游保兑仓业务过程中，宝硕公司已出现因资金严重短缺无力支付巨额承兑款项的情况。中信银行也曾于2005年压缩了宝硕公司一个亿的保兑仓业务授信额度。但中信银行在已知宝硕公司财务状况恶化的情况下，从2005年 5月到10月短短五个月时间内连续对宝硕公司发放贷款9000多万元，而距2005年年底宝硕公司资金链发生断裂，最长一笔不过半年，最短的也仅仅是两、三个月。由此可见，在本案所涉贷款发放之前及发放过程中，中信银行非常明晰宝硕公司财务状况已经严重恶化的情形，正是基于宝硕公司恶意骗取风神公司提供保证担保，与宝硕公司恶意串通，在明知宝硕公司无力还款的情况下，为了追求贷款利润，进行了一系列违规操作，最终导致贷款无法收回。其次，中信银行在与风神公司签订《最高额保证合同》之前，已完全明晰风神公司与宝硕公司所签《互保合同》的全部内容，并在起诉时向一审法院提交了《互保合同》作为己方证据，用以证明《最高额保证合同》系基于《互保合同》而签订，而《互保合同》中明确约定了风神公司有权解除互保合同的情形，中信银行在明知宝硕公司财务恶化已不符合互保条件的情况下，风神公司有权不再提供担保的情况，违规发放贷款。而且，中信银行与宝硕公司在本案所涉贷款发放过程中的一系列违规操作，也充分证实了双方之间的恶意串通行为。一审判决作出的“无证据证明被上诉人明知宝硕公司恶意骗保事实”的认定，明显有悖事实。2．中信银行与宝硕公司恶意串通，严重违规发放本案所涉贷款，致使巨额贷款无法收回。根据风神公司一审提交的证据及一审判决后新取得的证据显示，中信银行与宝硕公司恶意串通，严重违规发放本案贷款，具体情形如下：(1)本案所涉3100万元银行承兑汇票无真实交易背景、3000万元银行承兑汇票及2170万元贷款严重违规。2005年5月19日，中信银行为宝硕公司开立了3100万元的银行承兑汇票，收款人为华孚科技有限公司。但据工商调查材料显示，华孚科技有限公司系河北宝硕集团有限公司出资5100万元，持股51％的子公司，公司的法定代表人即宝硕公司当时的法定代表人周山，系宝硕公司的关联企业，2004年10月14日，公司因未在规定期限内申报2003年度企业年检，被北京市工商局吊销公司营业执照。因此，在 2004年被吊销后，华孚科技有限公司已不具有生产经营资格，但是，宝硕公司在明知华孚科技有限公司无经营资质的情况下恶意申请开立银行承兑汇票，而中信银行在宝硕公司没有任何真实交易背景的情况下，为其开立了总额为3100万元的银行承兑汇票，现该笔资金去向不明。
．．．．．． |
|
Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.
1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.
2. Binding to the account with access to this database.
3. Apply for a trial account.
4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【￥1600.00】 for your single purchase. | |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户；您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买，支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
|
|
|
|
|
|