Guangzhou Branch of Industrial Bank Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Airport Co., Ltd. (Loan contract dispute)@#
[Judgment Abstract]@#
1. Under the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Certain Issues Related to Suspected Economic Crimes Involving in Economic Dispute Cases, where someone forges the official seal of an organization or uses the official seal, business introduction letter, blank contract bearing the official seal of that organization to conclude economic contracts and commit a crime, and the organization has obvious fault that has a direct causation with the victim's economic losses, the organization shall be liable for damages in accordance with laws for the economic losses caused by the crime. Lack of complete regulations and rules, oversight in use of personnel and failure in supervision over its senior managers are some of such obvious fault of the organization. @#
2. Apparent authority refers to where a person signs a contract in the name of the principal without authority or by exceeding his authority or after his authority is terminated and the bona fide opposite party objectively has sufficient reason to believe that the person has the authority, the person's act as an agent is thus valid and the principal shall, as agreed on in the contract, assume civil liability to the opposite party. However, if the contract is signed in legal forms to cover up illegal purposes, it shall be void according to laws. Thus, the Contract Law's provisions regarding apparent authority do not apply to this case. @#
Supreme People's Court@#

Civil Judgment@#
(No. 124 [2008], Civil Division II, Final)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Appellant (defendant): Shenzhen Airport Co., Ltd. Domicile: Office Building 1, Fl. 3/4, Bao'an International Airport, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province.@#
Legal representative: Huang Chuanqi, chairman of the board of directors.@#
Attorney: Lu Chao, Guanghe Law Firm, Guangdong.@#
Attorney: Zhao Hui, Run & Race Law Firm, Guangdong.@#
Appellant (plaintiff): Guangzhou Branch of Industrial Bank Co., Ltd. Domicile: Jin'an Building, F. 16, 300 Dongfengzhong Rd., Guangzhou, Guangdong Province.@#
Person in charge: Zhang Changgong, bank president.@#
Attorney: Zou Yuanchang, Dongfang Kunlun Law Firm, Guangdong.@#
Attorney: Liu Haotian, Jingge Law Firm, Beijing.@#
Against a civil judgment (No. 1 (2005), First, Civil Division II, HPC Guangdong) of the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province for a loan dispute case, both parties, Shenzhen Airport Co., Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as "Shenzhen Airport Co.") and Guangzhou Branch of Industrial Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Industrial Bank's Guangzhou Branch”), appealed to this Court. This Court, in accordance with law, formed a collegial panel with presiding judge Zhang Shuming and acting judges Sha Ling and Zhou Lunjun to hear the case. Clerk Zhao Suijun served as record-keeper. The trial of this case is now concluded.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
The original trial court found that: In October 2002, Cui Shaoxian (general manager and director of Shenzhen Airport Co. at the time, responsible for this company's routine operations) signed a 130 million yuan bank acceptance contract with the Guangzhou branch of Minsheng Bank in the name of Shenzhen Airport Co. and affixed the official seal of this company to the contract. The 130 million yuan loan was transferred into the account of Northwest Yaao Information Technology Co. (hereinafter referred to as “Xibei Yaao Co.”), in which Zhang Yuming served as the chairman of the board of directors, and Xibei Yaao Co. issued a draft for discounting at Agricultural Bank in Yueyang, Hunan Province. In March 2003, Cui Shaoxian signed a160 million yuan loan contract with the Guangzhou Branch of Shanghai Pudong Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as “Pudong Development Bank's Guangzhou Branch”) in the name of Shenzhen Airport Co. and affixed the official seal of this company to the contract. This 160 million yuan loan was used to service the previous loan from the Guangzhou branch of Minsheng Bank. When the term of this loan expired, Cui Shaoxian personally discussed loans with employees of Industrial Bank's Guangdong Branch, introduced to them the treasurer of Xibei Yaao Co., Li Zhenhai, as an assistant accountant at Shenzhen Airport Co., and instructed Li Zhenhai to pretend to be an employee of Shenzhen Airport Co. (Cui Shaoxian personally altered his own business card for printing business cards for Li Zhenhai). On July 11, 2003, Li Zhenhai signed a Basic Credit Contract with Industrial Bank's Guangzhou Branch, using a false official seal of Shenzhen Airport Co., under which Industrial Bank agreed to provide a basic line of credit up to 300 million yuan for the normal working capital turnover of Shenzhen Airport Co. and the credit line should be valid from July 11, 2003 to July 10, 2004. On July 14 and December 9 of the same year, as instructed by Cui Shaoxian, at Cui Shaoxian's office, Li Zhenhai representing Shenzhen Airport Co. signed two loan contracts with Industrial Bank's Guangzhou Branch in the amount of 200 million yuan and 25 million yuan respectively, for a total of 225 million yuan, at an annual interest rate of 4.779% and for a term of one year. The business license and tax registration certificate of Shenzhen Airport Co., the identification certificate of its legal representative, the power of attorney, the board resolution and other relevant materials needed for opening a bank account and the loans were all submitted by Cui Shaoxian, and a false official seal of Shenzhen Airport Co. was affixed to each of them. After the 225 million yuan loan was issued, Li Zhenhai, as instructed by Cui Shaoxian, used 160 million yuan of the loan to repay the 160 million yuan loan from Pudong Development Bank's Guangzhou Branch through the account of Shenzhen Airport Air Cargo Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Shenzhen Airport Air Cargo Co.”). The remaining funds were transferred into the accounts of Xibei Yaao Co. and other companies. On July 5, 2004, when the maturity date of the 225 million loan approached, Cui Shaoxian, in his office, signed in person three refinancing loan contracts with Industrial Bank's Guangzhou Branch, using a false official seal of Shenzhen Airport Co., each in the amount of 75 million yuan, with an annual interest rate of 5.841% and for a term of one year, and the term of the 225 million yuan loan was extended. On August 11, 2004 and January 4, 2005, Industrial Bank's Guangzhou Branch, directly or through accounting firm Ernst & Young, issued loan audit letters and direct recovery letters to Shenzhen Airport Co., and Cui Shaoxian again personally prepared and signed replies from Shenzhen Airport Co. to Industrial Bank's Guangzhou Branch, using a false official seal of this company.@#
．．．．．．

兴业银行广州分行与深圳市机场股份有限公司借款合同纠纷案@#
[裁判摘要]@#
一、根据最高人民法院《关于在审理经济纠纷案件中涉及经济犯罪嫌疑若干问题的规定》，行为人私刻单位公章或者擅自使用单位公章、业务介绍信、盖有公章的空白合同书以签订经济合同的方法进行的犯罪行为，单位有明显过错，且该过错行为与被害人的经济损失之间有因果关系的，单位对该过错行为所造成的损失，依法应当承担赔偿责任。单位规章制度不健全、用人失察、对其高级管理人员监管不力，属于单位具有明显过错的具体表现。@#
二、表见代理是指行为人没有代理权、超越代理权或者代理权终止后仍以代理人名义订立合同，而善意相对人客观上有充分的理由相信行为人具有代理权的，该代理行为有效，被代理人应按照合同约定承担其与相对人之间的民事责任。但如果合同系以合法形式掩盖非法目的，则合同依法为无效合同，在此情况下不应适用合同法关于表见代理的规定。@#
最高人民法院@#
民事判决书@#
(2008)民二终字第124号@#
@#
上诉人(原审被告)：深圳市机场股份有限公司。@#
法定代表人：黄传奇，该公司董事长。@#
委托代理人：鲁潮，广东广和律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人：赵辉，广东仁人律师事务所律师。@#
上诉人(原审原告)：兴业银行广州分行。@#
负责人：张长弓，该行行长。@#
委托代理人：邹院昌，广东东方昆仑律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人：刘昊天，北京金格律师事务所律师。@#
上诉人深圳市机场股份有限公司(以下简称深圳机场公司)、兴业银行广州分行因借款合同纠纷一案，不服广东省高级人民法院(2005)粤高法民二初字第1号民事判决，向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成由审判员张树明担任审判长，代理审判员沙玲、周伦军参加的合议庭进行了审理。书记员赵穗军担任记录。本案现已审理终结。@#
@#
原审法院审理查明：2002年10月间，崔绍先(时任深圳机场公司总经理、董事会董事，主持深圳机场公司的日常工作)使用深圳机场公司的公章以深圳机场公司名义与民生银行广州分行签订了1．3亿元的银行承兑合同。贷出的1．3亿元被转入由张玉明任董事长的西北亚奥信息技术公司 (以下简称西北亚奥公司)，由西北亚奥公司开出汇票在湖南岳阳农行贴现。2003年 3月，崔绍先使用深圳机场公司的公章以深圳机场公司名义与上海浦东发展银行广州分行(以下简称浦发银行广州分行)签订了贷款1．6亿元的合同，以该1．6亿元贷款偿还了前笔向民生银行广州分行的借款本息。在此笔贷款到期时，崔绍先亲自与兴业银行广州分行人员商谈贷款，并向兴业银行广州分行人员介绍西北亚奥公司出纳员李振海为深圳机场公司助理会计师，指使李振海假冒深圳机场公司工作人员(崔亲笔涂改自己的名片给李振海印制名片)，使用私刻的深圳机场公司公章于2003年7月11日与兴业银行广州分行签订《基本授信合同》，约定兴业银行向深圳机场公司提供最高限额为人民币3亿元的基本授信额度，用于解决深圳机场公司正常的流动资金周转，授信有效期自2003年7月11日至2004年7月10日止。同年7月14日和 12月9日，李振海按崔绍先的授意代表深圳机场公司在崔绍先办公室与兴业银行广州分行分别签订了数额为2亿和2500万元的两份贷款合同，共贷款2．25亿元，年利率4．779％，贷款期限一年。开户和贷款所需的深圳机场公司营业执照、税务登记证、法定代表人身份证明、授权委托书、董事会决议等相关资料，全部由崔绍先提交并加盖私刻的深圳机场公司公章。2．25亿元贷款发放后，李振海按崔绍先的授意将其中的1．6亿元通过深圳市机场航空货运有限公司(以下简称深圳机场航空货运公司)账户偿还浦发银行广州分行的1．6亿元借款。余款转入西北亚奥公司等处。在 2．25亿元贷款即将到期时，2004年7月5日，崔绍先又亲自用私刻的深圳机场公司假公章在其办公室与兴业银行广州分行签订了三份各7500万元的借新贷还旧贷合同，年利率5．841％，贷款期限一年，对2．25亿元贷款延期。2004年8月11日和2005年1月4日，兴业银行广州分行直接或通过安永会计师事务所向深圳机场公司发出贷款核数函和直接追收函，崔绍先又亲自拟函和签名并使用私刻的深圳机场公司公章行文答复兴业银行广州分行。@#
兴业银行广州分行发放2．25亿元贷款后，已收至2004年11月24日共667万元的贷款利息。其中深圳航空货运有限公司汇入309万元；深圳市深唐供水设备工业有限公司汇入90万元；新宝莱实业发展 (深圳)有限公司汇入10万元；李振海交现金188万元；张玉明深圳账户转款70万元。@#
原审法院另查明：2005年2月24日，张玉明、崔绍先、李振海等人因涉嫌贷款诈骗犯罪被深圳市公安局逮捕。2006年2月 27日，深圳市人民检察院对崔绍先等人涉嫌犯罪一案向深圳市中级人民法院提起公诉。2007年8月7日，深圳市中级人民法院对崔绍先、张玉明、李振海等所涉贷款诈骗罪一案作出(2006)深中法刑二初字第 134号刑事判决。该刑事判决认定以下事实：2003年5月，被告人崔绍先为帮助被告人张玉明融资，以深圳机场公司名义和浦发展银行广州分行签订2亿元人民币的基本授信合同及1．6亿元的贷款合同，该贷款被张玉明的公司占有。为了偿还到期的该笔贷款，被告人张玉明、崔绍先商定盗用深圳机场公司的名义以机场扩建候机楼需资金的理由向兴业银行广州分行贷款。被告人张玉明、崔绍先授意被告人李振海假冒机场公司的财务人员办理向兴业银行广州分行贷款的具体事宜。同年7月11日，被告人李振海假冒深圳机场公司的财务人员代表该公司与兴业银行广州分行签订了金额为3亿元人民币的基本授信合同，伪造深圳机场公司法定代表人授权书，代表该公司与兴业银行广州分行签订了金额分别为2亿元人民币和0．25亿元人民币的借款合同，并在合同及所有贷款资料上加盖其伪造的深圳机场公司公章。2．25亿元人民币贷出后，全部由李振海转到张玉明控制的公司非法占有。　2004年初， 2．25亿元人民币即将到期，被告人张玉明、崔绍先、李振海采取“借新还旧”的方式，利用上述授信合同内剩余的0．75亿元贷款额度，循环贷款三次，共计贷款2．25亿元人民币，将还贷的期限变相延长一年。被告人崔绍先在延期的贷款合同上签名。被告人李振海在延期的贷款合同上加盖了伪造的深圳机场公司公章。该判决认为：张玉明、田其伟、崔绍先、李振海以非法占有为目的，使用虚假的证明文件和经济合同，诈骗银行贷款，数额特别巨大，其行为已构成诈骗贷款罪；张玉明、田其伟构成合同诈骗罪。在共同犯罪中，张玉明在诈骗贷款和合同诈骗均是主犯。田其伟在诈骗贷款是从犯，在合同诈骗是主犯。崔绍先在贷款诈骗中虽未占有赃款，但其协助张玉明进行贷款诈骗，帮助张玉明非法占有他人财产，属贷款诈骗共犯中的从犯。鉴于崔绍先没有实际占有他人财产，犯罪后主动投案如实供述自己的罪行，应认定为自首，归案后协助公安机关抓获同案犯张玉明、李振海，属于重大立功表现，依法应当减轻处罚。该院判决：一、被告人张玉明犯贷款诈骗罪，判处无期徒刑，剥夺政治权利终身，并处没收个人全部财产；犯合同诈骗罪，判处无期徒刑，剥夺政治权利终身，并处没收个人全部财产。决定执行无期徒刑，剥夺政治权利终身，并处没收个人全部财产；被告人田其伟犯贷款诈骗罪，判处有期徒刑八年，并处罚金人民币1万元；犯合同诈骗，判处有期徒刑十五年，并处罚金人民币2万元。决定执行有期徒刑十七年，并处罚金人民币3万元；被告人李振海犯贷款诈骗罪，判处有期徒刑十五年，并处罚金人民币2万元；被告人崔绍先犯贷款诈骗罪，判处有期徒刑六年，并处罚金人民币1万元。二、缴扣的假印章由公安机关予以没收销毁，犯罪所得的财物继续予以追缴。深圳市中级人民法院作出该刑事一审判决后，张玉明、田其伟、李振海三人向广东省高级人民法院提出上诉。崔绍先在一审承认控罪，判决后未提出上诉。@#
兴业银行广州分行于2005年1月向原审法院提起诉讼，请求：一、判令解除双方2003年7月11日签署的《基本授信合同》及基于该《基本授信合同》签订的金额分别为2亿元和2500万元的两份贷款合同及2004年7月与深圳机场公司以借新还旧的方式签订的每份金额为7500万元的借款合同。二、判令深圳机场公司立即返还借款本金22500万元、利息及罚息212592936元(合计：人民币22 712 592．36元，暂计至2005年1月24日)；三、由深圳机场公司承担本案兴业银行广州分行为实现债权而支付的所有费用。原审法院受理后，因深圳市公安局对深圳机场公司原总经理崔绍先等人涉嫌贷款诈骗一案正在进行刑事侦查，根据深圳机场公司的申请，该院于 2005年12月19日裁定中止案件的审理。在深圳市人民检察院对崔绍先等人涉嫌利用合同诈骗贷款一案向深圳市中级人民法院提起公诉，深圳市中级人民法院对该刑事案件开庭审理后，原审法院恢复案件审理。@#
．．．．．．