Zhenhua Building Materials Company of Huangmei County v. Huangshi Public Security Bureau
(Case of Administrative Appeal over Infringement of Corporate Property Rights)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Appellant (Defendant of the Original Instance): the Public Security Bureau of Huangshi City, Hubei Province.@#
Legal Representative: Zhao Zhifei, director of the bureau.@#
Attorney: Xu Haishen, chief of the legal division of Huangshi Public Security Bureau.@#
Attorney: Yan Xuewen, deputy director of the office of the command center of Huangshi Public Security Bureau.@#
Appellee (Plaintiff of the Original Instance): Zhenhua Building Materials Company of Huangmei County, Hubei Province.@#
Legal Representative: Gui Linfeng, general manager of the company.@#
Huangshi Public Security Bureau refused to accept the Administrative Judgment No. 4 [1994] of the Higher People's Court of Hubei Province and appealed to the Supreme People's Court.@#
The court of the original instance determined in the administrative judgment over the case of illegal seizure of property sued by Zhenhua Building Materials Company of Huangmei County, Hubei Province (hereinafter referred to as Zhenhua Company) against the Public Security Bureau of Huangshi City that: the steel purchased by Zhenhua Company with bank loan shall be deemed as its lawful property, so Huangshi Public Security Bureau's act of forcibly distraining the appellee's lawful property under the circumstance that the ownership of the distrained property is clear and there is evidence to prove that the property has nothing to do with the so called criminal suspect is illegal. The appellant exerted pressure on the appellee during the period when the steel was distrained, forced the appellee to conclude a contract going against the appelle's true will with Zhejiang Rui'an Means of Production Service Company (hereinafter referred to as Rui'an Company), which had no economic contractual relationship with the appellee, at the appellant's office, and forced the appellee to repay the debts owed by other people with the appellee's legally owned property, all these acts infringed upon the appellee's property ownership, so the appellant shall assume the liability for compensation incurred from its acts. In accordance with the Item 2 (5) of Article 54 and Paragraph 1 of Article 67 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the court of the original instance decided that: 1. the act of Huangshi Public Security Bureau of seizing the 133.38 tons of steel owned by Zhenhua Company on April 15th, 1993 shall be repealed; 2. the defendant shall make compensation for the plaintiff's losses from distraining steel of 357.371 yuan and other losses of 5100 yuan; and 3. the defendant shall pay the plaintiff the interest on the loan for purchasing steel.@#
．．．．．．

黄梅县振华建材物资总公司不服黄石市公安局扣押财产及侵犯企业财产权行政上诉案@#
@#
上诉人（原审被告）：湖北省黄石市公安局。@#
法定代表人：赵志飞，局长。@#
委托代理人：徐海深，黄石市公安局法制科科长。@#
委托代理人：晏学文，黄石市公安局公安指挥中心办公室副主任。@#
被上诉人（原审原告）：湖北省黄梅县振华建材物资总公司。@#
法定代表人：桂林枫，总经理。@#
上诉人黄石市公安局因不服湖北省高级人民法院（９４）鄂行初字第４号行政判决，向最高人民法院提起上诉。@#
原审法院在审理黄梅县振华建材物资总公司（以下简称黄梅振华公司）诉黄石市公安局违法扣押财产一案所作的行政判决中认定，被上诉人黄梅振华公司利用银行贷款所购钢材属该企业合法财产，上诉人黄石市公安局在所扣钢材所有权关系明确，有关证据足以证明与其所称犯罪嫌疑人无关的情况下，对被上诉人合法财产强制扣押的行为违法；上诉人在扣押钢材期间，向被上诉人施加压力，并在其办公地点主持被上诉人与无经济合同关系的浙江省瑞安市生产资料服务公司（以下简称瑞安生资公司）签订违背被上诉人真实意愿的合同，强迫被上诉人用其合法财产偿还他人所欠债务，侵犯了被上诉人财产所有权，应当承担由此产生的赔偿责任。根据《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第五十四条第（二）项第５目、第六十七条第一款之规定作出判决：（一）撤销被告黄石市公安局１９９３年４月１５日扣押原告黄梅振华公司１３３．３８吨钢材的行为；（二）被告向原告赔偿扣钢材损失３５７．３７１元，其他损失５１００元；（三）被告向原告赔偿被扣钢材贷款利息。@#
黄石市公安局对一审判决不服提起上诉，主要理由是：扣押钢材的行为是公安机关办理诈骗犯罪案件采取的刑事侦查措施，不属人民法院行政诉讼受案范围。被上诉人答辩称：黄石市公安局扣的钢材与其所谓犯罪嫌疑人无关，其目的不是为了查清犯罪事实，而是为了“搞点钱作为办案经费”；一审判决公正，应予维持。@#
最高人民法院经审理查明：被上诉人黄梅振华公司于１９９３年４月初，与黄梅县工商联建安公司签订钢材订货合同，合同约定被上诉人于１９９３年４月２４日前向黄梅工商联建安公司提供钢材２００吨。同年４月５日，被上诉人从信用社贷款７４万元，４月１２日在鄂州市购买钢材１９３．２７吨，分装两船停泊在鄂州市熊家沟码头待运。当日下午３时许，上诉人黄石市公安局刑侦支队工作人员，到码头将正在办理结算手续的被上诉人所聘副总经理张卖席带走，并口头通知码头管理部门两船钢材不得离港。被上诉人法定代表人桂林枫闻讯后，即与监督该项贷款使用情况的信贷员赴到黄石市，并于４月１３日从上诉人处得知：张卖席在原任黄梅县建材供销公司经理期间，在与瑞安生资公司等单位的经济活动中，拖欠货款，涉嫌诈骗被收容审查，其经办的上述钢材被扣押。桂林枫当即向上诉人表明：黄梅振华公司成立于１９９２年１１月，张卖席１９９３年２月才受聘于本公司，其与瑞安生资公司等单位发生业务往来时，本公司尚未成立；被扣钢材是本公司贷款所购，与张卖席被控行为无关。随后，又向上诉人出示了银行贷款凭证及购买钢材发票等有关证明材料，请求放行被扣钢材。上诉人未予理睬，并于１９９３年４月１５日出具“扣押物品清单”，将两船中大船的全部钢材１３３．３８吨运至黄石市继续扣押。被上诉人多次请求解除扣押，上诉人未予解除。此间，张卖席之妻为了使丈夫能够被解除收容审查，筹款１０万元送交上诉人，上诉人提出要交４０万元。上诉人拟就地处理钢材未成，又多次动员瑞安生资公司买下所扣钢材，以抵偿张卖席欠款，并迫使被上诉人将钢材卖给瑞安生资公司，为张卖席还债。@#
．．．．．．