>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
People's Procuratorate of Jinhua Municipality v. Hu Xiangzhen (Case on Fraud)
金华市人民检察院诉胡祥祯诈骗案
【法宝引证码】

People’s Procuratorate of Jinhua Municipality v. Hu Xiangzhen (Case on Fraud)
(Case on Fraud)
金华市人民检察院诉胡祥祯诈骗案

People's Procuratorate of Jinhua Municipality v. Hu Xiangzhen
(Case on Fraud)

 

金华市人民检察院诉胡祥祯诈骗案

 【裁判摘要】
 被告人借款后,私自改变借款用途,将借款用于其他商业活动,且为应付借款人的催讨,指使他人伪造与其合作开发工程项目的企业印章和收款收据的,因对借款不具有非法占有的目的,不构成诈骗罪。但其指使他人伪造企业印章的行为,根据刑法二百八十条第二款的规定构成伪造公司印章罪。
Criminal Judgment of the Supreme People's Court 中华人民共和国最高人民法院
 刑事判决书
No. 4 (2003) (2003)刑提字第4号
BASIC FACTS 
Defendant of the First Instance: Hu Xiangzhen, also named Hu Fangzhu, male, borne in Yueqing City, Zhejiang Province on November 25, 1950, of the Han Nationality, farmer and businessman with two years of elementary school education, former general manager and legal representative of Shanghai Hengfeng Real Estate Development Company, board chairman and general manager of Yueqing High-speed Passenger Ship Limited Company, dwelling at Pengqiao Village, Xiangyang Town, Yueqing City. He was criminally detained on March 11, 1998, and was arrested on April 18. He is now serving his sentence in the No. 6 Prison of Zhejiang Province. 原审被告人 胡祥祯,又名胡方铸,男,1950年11月25日出生,汉族,浙江省乐清市人,小学二年文化,农民兼经商,原系上海恒丰置业发展公司总经理、法定代表人,乐清高速客轮有限公司董事长、总经理,住乐清市象阳镇彭桥村。1998年3月11日被刑事拘留,同年4月18日被逮捕。现在浙江省第六监狱服刑。
Defender: Luo Yun, lawyer of Beijing Zhongbei Law Firm. 辩护人 罗云,北京市中北律师事务所律师。
Defender: Pei Guangchuan, lawyer of Beijing Huiyuan Law Firm. 辩护人 裴广川,北京市汇源律师事务所律师。
The Intermediate Court of Jinhua Municipality, Zhejiang Province (hereinafter referred to as Jinhua Intermediate Court) heard the case in which the People's Procuratorate of Jinhua Municipality accused Hu Xiangzhen for the crime of contractual fraud, and in which Zhejiang Chaosanchao Group Limited Liability Company (hereinafter referred to as Chaosanchao Company) brought a collateral civil lawsuit. Jinhua Intermediate Court rendered the No. 9 (1999) Collateral Civil Judgment in Criminal Litigation on March 26, 1999, ascertaining that Hu Xiangzhen committed the crime of fraud and was sentenced to life imprisonment, deprived of his political rights for life. The judgment also adjudicated that the RMB 65,743,200 Yuan of income defrauded by Hu Xiangzhen should be confiscated, and Hu Xiangzhen should refund RMB 27,316,882.80 Yuan of interest of the illicit money he usurped. Moreover, the said judgment rejected Chaosanchao Company's litigation claims. After the judgment was announced, Hu Xiangzhen was dissatisfied, and appealed. The Higher People's Court of Zhejiang Province (hereinafter referred to as Zhejiang Higher Court) rendered the No. 222 (1999) Criminal Judgment in October 10, which rejected Hu Xiangzhen's appeal, and overruled the claim in the judgment of the first instance concerning the RMB 27,316,882.80 Yuan of interest of the illicit money usurped by Hu Xiangzhen, but affirmed the remaining claims. After the judgment of the second instance became legally effective, Hu Xiangzhen was still dissatisfied, and filed a petition to the present court. The present court made the No. 18 (2002) Retrial Decision on May 26, 2003 to bring the case for review, and then formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law and heard the case which has now been finalized. 浙江省金华市中级人民法院审理金华市人民检察院指控被告人胡祥祯犯合同诈骗罪,附带民事诉讼原告浙江超三超集团有限责任公司(以下简称超三超公司)提起附带民事诉讼一案,于1999年3月26日作出(1999)金中刑初字第9号刑事附带民事判决,认定被告人胡祥祯犯诈骗罪,判处无期徒刑,剥夺政治权利终身;追缴胡祥祯诈骗所得人民币6574.32万元,胡祥祯退赔占用赃款的利息人民币27316882.80元;驳回附带民事诉讼原告超三超公司的诉讼请求。宣判后,胡祥祯不服,提出上诉。浙江省高级人民法院于同年10月10日作出(1999)浙法刑终字第222号刑事判决,驳回胡祥祯上诉;撤销一审判决中胡祥祯退赔占用赃款的利息人民币27316882.80元的部分,维持其余部分。二审判决发生法律效力后,胡祥祯仍不服,向本院提出申诉。本院于2003年5月26日作出(2002)刑监字第18号再审决定,对本案进行提审。本院依法组成合议庭对本案进行了审理,现已审理终结。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
It was ascertained in the judgment of Jinhua Intermediate Court that: on January 8, 1995, Hu Xiangzhen concluded an agreement with Shanghai Asia Foods Group Company (hereinafter referred to as Asia Group) on behalf of Shanghai Hengfeng Real Estate Development Company (hereinafter referred to as Hengfeng Company) on the united development of Wubei Indoor Food Market Project (hereinafter referred to as Wubei Project), setting forth that Hengfeng Company should be obligated to provide all the funds needed in the construction project, totaling RMB 180 million Yuan. Shanghai Asia House Property Development Company (hereinafter referred to as Asia House Property Company), which was subordinate to Asia Group, should take charge of developing the Wubei Project. On February 17 of the same year, Hengfeng Company paid RMB 1 million Yuan to Asia Group, and did no longer pay any further construction cost, nor did Asia Group actually operate the Wubei Project. On June 3, 1997, the Government of Jing'an District, Shanghai Municipality issued a document to recover the right to use the land for the project. 金华市中级人民法院原一审判决认定:1995年1月8日,被告人胡祥祯代表上海恒丰置业发展公司(以下简称恒丰公司)与上海亚细亚食品集团公司(以下简称亚细亚集团公司)签订乌北室内菜场工程(以下简称乌北工程)联合开发协议书,约定由恒丰公司负责该工程建设的所有资金计人民币1.8亿元。乌北工程由亚细亚集团公司下属企业上海亚细亚房产开发公司(以下简称亚细亚房产公司)负责具体开发。同年2月17日,恒丰公司付给亚细亚集团公司人民币100万元,此后未再付工程款,亚细亚集团公司也没有实际运作乌北工程。1997年6月3日,上海市静安区政府下文收回该工程的土地使用权。
...... 1995年2至9月,被告人胡祥祯向浙江金城拍卖行金华拍卖中心(以下简称金华拍卖中心)借款人民币3000万元,用于恒丰公司归还借款和日常开支等。同年11月,胡祥祯为应付金华拍卖中心经理程伟民等人催讨到期借款,派人私刻一枚“亚细亚房地产开发公司财务专用章”,又指使公司会计伪造五份亚细亚房产公司收到恒丰公司投资乌北工程款人民币3100万元的收据,借以欺骗程伟民。
 1996年初,经程伟民等人介绍并经实地考察,超三超公司准备接手乌北工程。同年2月5日,亚细亚集团公司、恒丰公司、超三超公司签订乌北工程联合开发(投资)协议。同日,被告人胡祥祯代表恒丰公司又与超三超公司签订了乌北工程部分投资受益权转让协议。至此,胡祥祯将并不存在的恒丰公司投资乌北工程人民币3100万元,以协议形式转让给了超三超公司。同年2至3月间,超三超公司按照协议付给恒丰公司乌北工程转让款计人民币3574.32万元,其中3337.72万元应胡祥祯等人委托付给中国工商银行婺城支行(以下简称婺城工行)和金华拍卖中心,以偿还借款。
 1994年5月30日,天主教上海教区与上海大中华电器商店(以下简称大中华商店)签订协议书,拟建大中华电器商厦(以下简称大中华商厦)。同年7月8日,大中华商店与上海开城房地产经营公司(以下简称开城公司)签订联建协议,联合开发大中华商厦。同年6月28日,开城公司与恒丰公司签订联合开发建设大中华商厦协议,约定由开城公司负责该工程项目的计划、立项、建设和所有配套,恒丰公司负责筹措建设资金人民币3500万元,建成后开城公司分得建筑面积800平方米,恒丰公司分得建筑面积3000平方米。同年7月20日,恒丰公司与金华银信实业总公司物资公司(以下简称银信公司)签订协议书,约定由银信公司为大中华项目筹集资金人民币2000万元。同年7月23日,银信公司依约支付人民币2000万元。同年12月28日,大中华商厦建成。1996年春节后,开城公司因与大中华商店对房屋产权划分等问题协商不成,于4月16日向上海市第二中级人民法院起诉大中华商店。
 1996年2月,被告人胡祥祯为筹钱购买高速客轮,欲将其并无所有权的大中华商厦转让给超三超公司,并向超三超公司总经理杨佰群隐瞒了恒丰公司与银信公司所签协议一事。同年5月1日,恒丰公司副总经理罗启明受胡祥祯委托与超三超公司签订大中华商厦房地产权转让协议。协议签订后,超三超公司依约于同年5月3日和14日付给恒丰公司人民币2000万元,后又按照胡祥祯要求于5月24日再支付给恒丰公司人民币1000万元。至此,胡祥祯共收到超三超公司大中华商厦产权转让款人民币3000万元,其中2700万元被胡祥祯用于购买高速客轮。超三超公司至今无法取得大中华商厦产权。1998年3月15日,金华市公安局将乐清高速客轮有限公司(以下简称客轮公司)的方铸号高速客轮予以扣押、查封。
 综上,被告人胡祥祯隐瞒真相或虚构事实,利用与超三超公司签订乌北工程和大中华商厦转让协议的方法,共骗取超三超公司人民币6574.32万元,至1999年1月10日止,超三超公司损失利息人民币27316882.80元。
 原一审判决认为,被告人胡祥祯以非法占有为目的,在与他人签订合同中,虚构事实、隐瞒真相,骗取他人财物,其行为已构成诈骗罪,骗取财物数额特别巨大,情节特别严重,应依法惩处。本案的赃款应由公安机关依法追缴,胡祥祯占用赃款的利息依法应退赔。超三超公司的附带民事诉讼请求不属于《中华人民共和国刑法》第三十六条规定的范畴,不予支持。
 浙江省高级人民法院原二审判决认为,本案事实清楚,证据确实、充分。被告人胡祥祯及其辩护人关于本案属经济合同纠纷、民事欺诈的辩解和辩护意见,经查与事实不符,不予采信。胡祥祯以非法占有为目的,采用虚构事实和隐瞒真相的方法,骗取他人钱财,其行为已构成诈骗罪。数额特别巨大,情节特别严重,应依法严惩。原一审判决定罪正确,量刑适当,审判程序合法,唯判决胡祥祯退赔占用赃款的利息不当,应予纠正。
 再审中原审被告人胡祥祯及其辩护人提出如下辩解和辩护意见:1.胡祥祯向乌北工程投入了5100万元(其中5000万元为银行存单),其在向超三超公司转让乌北工程受益权时出示投资3100万元收据复印件的目的,不是为了非法占有该公司资金,而是为了诱使该公司早日投资乌北工程,争取合作早日成功;胡祥祯对大中华商厦全额投入了资金,其在转让时虽然隐瞒了产权争议并为此诉诸法律的事实,但根据上海市高级人民法院作出的民事判决,胡祥祯可以获得退还的3000余万元投资款,足以抵顶超三超公司支付的3000万元转让款。故胡祥祯的行为不构成诈骗罪。2.1979年《中华人民共和国刑法》第一百五十二条只规定个人犯罪,而胡祥祯在本案的整个过程中都是以其恒丰公司的名义,对外实施合作开发行为,经济往来都出入公司帐户。故胡祥祯的行为亦不构成诈骗罪。
 ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
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;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  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.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese