>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
People's Procuratorate of Hengshui Region Branch in Hebei Province, v. Francisco Hung Moy, Raymond C Lee, Chang Jingshan and Yu Zhilai (Case on Swindling and Forging Official Documents and Seals)
梅直方、李卓明、常景山、于芝来诈骗、伪造公文、印章案
【法宝引证码】

People’s Procuratorate of Hengshui Region Branch in Hebei Province, v. Francisco Hung Moy, Raymond C Lee, Chang Jingshan and Yu Zhilai (Case on Swindling and Forging Official Documents and Seals)
(Case on Swindling and Forging Official Documents and Seals)
梅直方、李卓明、常景山、于芝来诈骗、伪造公文、印章案

People's Procuratorate of Hengshui Region Branch in Hebei Province, v. Francisco Hung Moy, Raymond C Lee, Chang Jingshan and Yu Zhilai
(Case on Swindling and Forging Official Documents and Seals)

 

梅直方、李卓明、常景山、于芝来诈骗、伪造公文、印章案

BASIC FACTS 
Defendant: Francisco Hung Moy, male, born on November 15, 1949, of the American nationality, former board chairman of Asia Link (Group) Corporation Limited in New York, USA, dwelling at No. 38-29, the 214th street, New York City, USA. He was arrested on June 16, 1993. 被告人梅直方(FRANCISCO HUNG MOY),男,1949年11月15日出生,美国籍,原系美国纽约市亚联(集团)有限公司董事长,住美国纽约市214街38-29号。1993年6月16日被逮捕。
Defender: Feng Jiping, lawyer of Lantian Law Firm in Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province. 辩护人冯季平,河北省石家庄市蓝天律师事务所律师。
Defender: Zhang Jinlong, lawyer of Lantian Law Firm in Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province. 辩护人张金龙,河北省石家庄市蓝天律师事务所律师。
Defendant: Raymond C Lee, male, born on May 18, 1950, of the American nationality, former secretary and financial officer of Asia Link (Group) Corporation Limited in New York, USA, dwelling at New York State, USA. He was arrested on June 16, 1993. 被告人李卓明(RAYMOND C LEE),男,1950年5月18日出生,美国籍,原系美国纽约市亚联(集团)有限公司秘书兼财务主管,住美国纽约州高麦区查当理路8号。1993年6月16日被逮捕。
Defender: Zhang Jinghe, lawyer of Xinhua Law Firm in Shijiazhuang. 辩护人张景和,石家庄市新华律师事务所律师。
Defender: L? Zhansuo, lawyer of Zhengda Law Firm in Shijiazhuang. 辩护人吕占锁,石家庄市正大律师事务所律师。
Defendant: Chang Jingshan, male, born on May 29, 1939, former deputy general manager and trade department manager of Hainan Zhongshui Great Wall International Investment Group. He was arrested on July 27, 1993. 被告人常景山,男,1939年5月29日出生,原系海南中水长城国际投资集团副总经理兼贸易部业务经理。1993年7月27日被逮捕。
Defendant: Yu Zhilai, male, born on April 5, 1944, former chief of the Tianjin Office of Hainan Huafeng Trade Company. He was arrested on July 27, 1993. 被告人于芝来,男,1944年4月5日出生,原系海南华丰贸易公司驻天津办事处负责人。1993年7月27日被逮捕。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
The People's Procuratorate of Hengshui Region Branch in Hebei Province lodged a prosecution with the Intermediate People's Court of Hengshui Region (hereinafter referred to as Hengshui Intermediate Court) against Francisco Hung Moy (Moy hereafter) and Raymond C Lee (Lee hereafter) for the crime of swindle and the crime of forging official documents and seals; against Chang Jingshan (Chang hereafter) for the crime of forging official documents and seals; and against Yu Zhilai (Yu hereafter) for the crime of forging official documents. 河北省人民检察院衡水地区分院以被告人梅直方、李卓明犯诈骗罪、伪造公文、印章罪;被告人常景山犯伪造公文、印章罪;被告人于芝来犯伪造公文罪,向衡水地区中级人民法院提起公诉。
It was found out by Hengshui Intermediate Court after trial: 衡水地区中级人民法院经审理,查明:
Moy and Lee were recommended by others to come to Hengshui, Hebei Province in the end of March 1993, successively submitted to Zhao Jinrong (Zhao hereafter), president of Agricultural Bank of China, Hengshui Central Sub-branch (hereinafter referred to as Hengshui ABOC), and Xu Zhiguo (vice president, Xu hereafter) a false letter of commitment on bringing in funds, the fabricated brochure of Asia Link (Group) Limited (hereinafter referred to as Asia Link) in New York, USA, and other materials on the pretext of “bringing in funds”. They lied by saying that Asia Link had strong economic strength for Hengshui ABOC to “bring in a huge amount of funds” in international financial market, that Hengshui ABOC only needed to issue standby letters of credit as a necessary procedure for bringing in funds without bearing any economic or legal liability, that no principal or interest needed to be returned for the funds brought in. In this way, they managed to have swindled Zhao's and Xu's trust. In order to cover up the truth of their swindling activities, when Lee had the English versions of the standby letters of credit translated into Chinese and provided the Chinese versions to Zhao and Xu for examination, he intentionally omitted the following contents: “The amount on the drafts issued means the debts relevant to the financing of the loans granted to Asia Link (Group)”. As a result, Zhao and Xu issued 200 irrevocable and transferable one-year standby letters of credit on April 5, 1993, with “Asia Link” as the applicant, “Hengshui ABOC” as the issuing bank, Sawood Investment (Bahamas) Limited (hereinafter referred to as Sawood) as the beneficiary, and with the total amount at USD 10 billion. On April 6, Lee sent the above said standby letters of credit to R Mcivor (a Canadian), chief financial officer of “Sawood”, at the address provided by Moy. Subsequently, Moy used the above said standby letters of credit as the mortgaged property for the loans granted to “Sawood”. After that, two foreign enterprises inquired of Hengshui ABOC about the authenticity of the standby letters of credit it issued. Moy and Lee deceived Zhao and Xu on the grounds that Hengshui ABOC had no risk and the funds would be brought in very soon, so Hengshui ABOC unconditionally confirmed the standby letters of credit issued. On April 18, Zhao followed the commitments of Moy and Lee to ask for counter-guaranty of the standby letters of credit issued by Asia Link to Hengshui ABOC. Moy and Lee forged a standby letter of credit of United National Republic Bank, with the amount at USD 10 billion, handed it over to Zhao, and continued the deception. In June, R Mcivor sold the standby letters of credit of Hengshui ABOC in UK and Switzerland. As the relevant department of China adopted corresponding measures, no cash was paid under the above said standby letters of credit within the valid term. 被告人梅直方、李卓明经人介绍,于1993年3月底来到河北省衡水市,以“引资”为名,先后向中国农业银行衡水中心支行(以下“衡水农行”)行长赵金荣、副行长徐志国提交了虚假的“引资承诺书及编造的美国纽约市亚联(集团)有限公司(以下简称“亚联”)简介等材料,谎称“亚联”有雄厚的经济实力可在国际金融市场上为衡水农行“引入巨额资金”,“衡水农行”只须开具备用信用证作为引资的必要手续,不承担任何经济和法律责任,引入的资金不还本、不付息等,骗取赵金荣、徐志国的信任。为了掩盖其诈骗真象,李卓明将备用信用证英文本译成中文本提供给赵金荣、徐志国审查时,故意把英文本中“证明开具的汇票金额代表与给予亚联(集团)公司贷款融资相关的债务”一段内容不译,致使赵金荣、徐志国于1993年4月5日开出了以“亚联”为申请人,“衡水农行”为开证行,莎物得投资(巴哈马)有限公司(以下简称“莎物得”)为受益人,一年期不可撤销、可转让的200份总金额为100亿美元的备用信用证。4月6日,李卓明按梅直方提供的地点,将上述备用信用证寄给“莎物得”的财务主管麦西华(RMCIVOR 加拿大人)。之后,梅直方将上述备用信用证作为向“莎物得”贷款的抵押品。此后,国外有两家企业向衡水农行查询其所开备用信用证的真实性。梅直方、李卓明又以衡水农行无风险和资金很快引入欺骗赵金荣、徐志国,使衡水农行对所开备用信用证作了无条件确认。4月18日,赵金荣按梅直方、李卓明作过的承诺,索要亚联对衡水农行开具备用信用证的反担保。梅直方、李卓明假造了一份联合国家共和银行的100亿美元备用信用证交给赵金荣,继续进行欺骗。同年6月,麦西华在英国、瑞士出售衡水农行的备用信用证,因我国有关部门采取相应措施,上述备用信用证在有效期限内尚未出现资金支付情况。
In March 1993, Moy intended to confirm the USD 1,680 million under No. 0014 and No. 0015 forged standby letters of credit of Agricultural Bank of China, Sanya Branch in Guangzhou for Canadian Robert Palm. Upon Chang's proposal and Moy's and Lee's consent, Chang had the seals of Agricultural Bank of China, Hebei Branch, etc. illicitly carved. Subsequently, Moy, Lee, Chang and Yu jointly forged the letters of guarantee of Agricultural Bank of China, Hebei Branch for the No. 0014 and No. 0015 standby letters of credit. In April, Moy, Lee, Chang and Yu again forged the letter of guarantee of Agricultural Bank of China, Hebei Branch for the No. 0015 standby letter of credit with the amount at USD 1.6 billion in Hengshui. Moy sent the two letters of guarantee forged to Robert Palm. 1993年3月,被告人梅直方在广州为给加拿大罗伯特·帕姆保兑伪造的中国农业银行三亚分行0014、0015号总金额16.8亿美元的备用信用证,经被告人常景山提议,梅直方和被告人李卓明同意,由常景山找人私刻了中国农业银行河北省分行等单位的印章。随后,梅直方、李卓明、常景山及被告人于芝来共同伪造了中国农业银行河北省分行对0014、0015号备用信用证的保函。同年4月,梅直方、李卓明、常景山、于芝来又在衡水市再次伪造了中国农业银行河北省分行对0015号金额为16亿美元备用信用证的保函。两次伪造的保函均由梅直方寄给了罗伯特·帕姆。
The above-mentioned facts can be proven with the documentary evidence including the brochure of Asia Link Group, the agreement on cooperation in bringing in foreign funds for investment and development, the power of attorney for issuing letters of credit, the letter of commitment, the original copies of the standby letters of credit issued by Hengshui ABOC, which were recovered from abroad, the USD 10 billion standby letters of credit issued by United National Republic Bank to Moy, the loan agreement and investment agreement between Sawood and Asia Link, the public security organ's criminal technological authentication conclusion on the letters of guarantee forged by Moy and Lee, et al, and testimonies of witnesses. The facts can therefore be confirmed. 上述事实,有查获的亚联集团简介、合作引进外资投资开发协议书、开证委托书、承诺书、从国外追回的衡水农行开具的备用信用证原件,梅直方以联合国家共和银行开具的100亿美元备用信用证,莎物得和亚联的贷款协议、投资协议等书证,公安机关对梅直方、李卓明等人伪造的保函的刑事科学技术鉴定和证人证言证实,足以认定。
Hengshui Intermediate Court held that, Moy and Lee swindled USD 10 billion of huge-amount properties from the People's Republic of China by fabricating facts and concealing truth for the purpose of illegal possession, and their acts constituted the crime of swindle as prescribed in Article 152 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China. The criminal circumstances of the above two defendants were particularly serious, and they should be severely punished according to law. Lee could confess his criminal facts frankly and disclose some criminal activities of the offenders in the same case after the case occurred, and thus could be given lighter punishment in light of the specific situation. In accordance with Article 30 北大法宝of the Criminal Law, deportation may, either independently or in supplement, be imposed upon a foreigner who commits a crime. Moy, Lee and Chang jointly forged the seals of Agricultural Bank of China, Hebei Branch and other entities and the letters of guarantee for relevant letters of credit, and their acts constituted the crime of forging official documents and seals as prescribed in Article 167 of the Criminal Law. Yu participated in forging the letter of guarantee for the relevant letters of credit of Agricultural Bank of China, and his acts constituted the crime of forging official document as prescribed in Article 167 光宗耀祖支撑着我去教室of the Criminal Law. Either Moy or Lee committed more than one crime, and both of them should be subject to combined punishment in accordance withArticle 64 (1) of the Criminal Law. A criminal who commits the crime of seriously undermining public order may be sentenced to deprivation of political rights as a supplementary punishment in accordance with Article 52 of the Criminal Law. In accordance with Article 60 of the Criminal Law, the criminal's illegal proceeds and the properties used for committing the crime shall be confiscated. 衡水地区中级人民法院认为,被告人梅直方、李卓明以非法占有为目的,采用虚构事实和隐瞒真相的方法,骗取中华人民共和国100亿美元的巨额财产,其行为构成《中华人民共和国刑法》第一百五十二条规定的诈骗罪。上述二被告人犯罪情节特别严重,依法应予严惩。李卓明在案发后,能担白交待犯罪事实,揭发同案犯部分罪行,可酌情从轻处罚。依照刑法三十条请你喝茶的规定,对于犯罪的外国人,可以附加适用驱逐出境。被告人梅直方、李卓明、常景山共同伪造中国农业银行河北省分行等单位的印章和对有关信用证的保函,其行为构成刑法一百六十七条规定的伪造公文、印章罪。被告人于芝来参与伪造中国农业银行对有关信用证的保函,其行为构成刑法一百六十七条规定的伪造公文罪。梅直方、李卓明一人犯数罪,依照刑法卡在了奇怪的地方六十四条第一款的规定,应当实行数罪并罚。对严重破坏社会秩序的犯罪分子,依照刑法五十二条的规定,可以附加剥夺政治权利。依照刑法六十条的规定,犯罪分子的违法所得和供犯罪使用的本人财物,应当予以没收。
Therefore, Hengshui Intermediate Court adjudicated as follows on April 25, 1994: 据此,衡水地区中级人民法院于1994年4月25日,判决如下:
1. Moy has committed the crime of swindle, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment for 15 years, attached with the supplementary punishment of deportation, and his gold necklace valued at USD 2,000 shall be confiscated; he has committed the crime of forging official document and seal, and shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment for 7 years; it is decided to enforce fixed-term imprisonment for 20 years and the deportation, and the gold necklace valued at USD 2,000 shall be confiscated. 一,被告人梅直方犯诈骗罪,判处有期徒刑十五年,附加驱逐出境,没收美金2000元,金项链一条;犯伪造公文、印章罪,判处有期徒刑七年;决定执行有期徒刑二十年,驱逐出境,没收美金2000元,金项链一条。
2. Lee has committed the crime of swindle, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment for 10 years, attached with the supplementary punishment of deportation; he has committed the crime of forging official document and seal, and shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment for 6 years; it is decided to enforce fixed-term imprisonment for 14 years, attached with the supplementary punishment of deportation. 二,被告人李卓明犯诈骗罪,判处有期徒刑十年,附加驱逐出境;犯伪造公文、印章罪,判处有期徒刑六年;决定执行有期徒刑十四年,驱逐出境。
3. Chang has committed the crime of forging official document and seal, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment for 7 years, and shall be deprived of political rights for 2 years. 三,被告人常景山犯伪造公文、印章罪,判处有期徒刑七年,剥夺政治权利二年。
4. Yu has committed the crime of forging official document, and shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment for 2 years. 四,被告人于芝来犯伪造公文罪,判处有期徒刑二年。
After the judgment of the first instance was announced, Moy, Lee and Chang were dissatisfied and appealed. Moy's appellate ground was: the USD 10 billion of standby letters of credit were sent abroad but were not cashed; they did not play an important role in participating in forging the official documents and seals; the punishments in the original judgment were too severe. Lee's appellate ground was that he did not play an important role in the crime of swindling, and he requested a lighter punishment. Chang's appellate ground was that he could voluntarily confess his crimes of forging official documents and seals, and thus requested a lighter punishment. 第一审宣判后,被告人梅直方、李卓明、常景山不服,提出上诉。梅直方的上诉理由是:100亿美元备用信用证虽然发往国外但未兑现;参与伪造公文、印章所起的作用不重要;原判量刑重。李卓明的上述理由是,在诈骗犯罪中未起主要作用,要求从轻判处。常景山的上诉理由是:能主动交待伪造公文、印章犯罪,要求从轻判处。
JUDGMENT 
The Higher People's Court of Hebei Province (hereinafter referred to as Hebei Higher Court) holds after the trial: Moy plotted to swindle Hengshui ABOC, caused serious and harmful consequences, and played a decisive role in the criminal activities of forging official document and seal; Lee actively participated in cheating Hengshui ABOC, and played an important role in the criminal activities; Chang did not confess his criminal activities voluntarily. None of the three appellants' appellate grounds can be tenable. In the judgment of the first instance, the criminal facts of each defendant were clearly found, the evidence was confirmative and sufficient, the convictions were accurate, the penalties were proper, and the trial procedures were lawful. Therefore, Hebei Higher Court ruled in accordance with Article 136 (i) of the “Criminal Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China” in the final instance on May 13, 1994: The appeal of Moy, Lee and Chang shall be rejected, and the original judgment shall be sustained.

 河北省高级人民法院审理认为:上诉人梅直方策划诈骗衡水农行,已造成严重的危害后果,在伪造公文、印章的犯罪活动中起决定性的作用;上诉人李卓明积极参与诈骗衡水农行,在犯罪活动中起了重要作用;上诉人常景山并无主动交待所犯罪行的表现。三上诉人的上诉理由均不能成立。一审判决认定各被告人犯罪事实清楚,证据确实、充分,定罪准确,量刑适当,审判程序合法。据此,河北省高级人民法院依照《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第一百三十六条第(一)项的规定,于1994年5月13日终审裁定:驳回上诉人梅直方、李卓明、常景山的上诉,维持原判。
 

     
     
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