Core Tip:
Hong Kong businessman Zhu Zhixing rented his enterprise to others, an act which was deemed illegal by relevant departments. When he prepared to stop this illegal act and reclaim his company, he and six employees were pursued for criminal responsibility by local judicial departments, among which four employees were charged with "disrupting social order" by the procuratorate.
On November 6, the case was retried for the third time. How did an originally ordinary illegal lease case evolve into a criminal one? The court's verdict not only relates to Hong Kong businessman Zhu Zhixing's investment confidence in Henan, but also concerns his judicial confidence.
The Mysterious Case of a Hong Kong Businessman Becoming a Fugitive: Four Employees in Linying County, Henan Pursued for Criminal Responsibility Spark Controversy
This report is from Lin Ying, Henan by our reporter Li Mengjuan.
At the age of 59, Hong Kong businessman Zhu Zhixing feels aggrieved while staying at his home in Hong Kong. "I have invested more than 100 million yuan on the mainland, and now I inexplicably became a fugitive who cannot return to the mainland."
On November 6, in Linying County, Henan Province, thousands of miles away, four employees of Zhu Zhixing's factory were held criminally responsible for "gathering to disrupt social order." This was already the third trial in Linying County Court.
The four defendants sat in the center of the courtroom, and on that day, five lawyers defended them for their innocence. The court deliberated all day without making an immediate judgment.
An Unusual Trial
On April 22, 2008, the Linying County Procuratorate prosecuted Zhang Zhenfa, Sun Xinfu, Zhang Haitao, and Zhao Dongdong, accusing them of committing the crime of "disrupting social order." On July 23 of the same year, the Linying County Court sentenced the four defendants to one to one and a half years in prison. After the defendants appealed, the Luohe Intermediate People's Court believed that the facts regarding the four defendants' disruption of social order were unclear, thus it overturned the first-instance court's verdict and remanded the case for retrial.
On February 28, 2009, after the retrial, the Linying County Court still determined that the four defendants committed the crime of gathering to disrupt social order, but the sentencing was lighter, respectively sentencing the four defendants to two years of probation. The defendants appealed again, and on April 27, the Luohe Intermediate People's Court still returned the case for retrial due to "unclear facts."
"This is a typical civil dispute, but the first-instance court treated it as a criminal case," defense lawyer Wang Lianhe believed that the Linying County Public Security Bureau and the procuratorate's intervention in this economic dispute violated the relevant regulations of the Ministry of Public Security and the Supreme Procuratorate, constituting overreach in law enforcement, which should be corrected.
In Wang Lianhe's view, the second-instance court returning the case twice for retrial sends a signal for the first-instance court to correct its own mistakes.
A Luohe city official who wished to remain anonymous stated that this case was a "hot potato," and no one dared to touch it.
Zhu Zhixing's assistant Zhang Yanghua did not have high hopes for the third retrial. He analyzed that it would be difficult for the Linying County Court to correct its own errors. If it did correct them, it would need to hold the relevant case handlers accountable, and furthermore, pay national compensation to the four defendants.
Disappointed with the first-instance court's verdict, Zhu Zhixing, who was in Hong Kong, could not make efforts for this case. Thus, he let his assistant Zhang Yanghua take full charge of the lawsuit, and Zhang carried materials written by Zhu Zhixing to petition and reflect issues.
On September 8, 2009, a ruling from the Linying County Court stopped him from petitioning. The reason was that during the litigation process of returning the case for retrial, the procuratorate applied to withdraw the prosecution due to changes in the case facts and evidence. The court allowed the procuratorate to withdraw the prosecution.
In Zhang Yanghua's view, coinciding with the period before National Day, to maintain stability and prevent him from petitioning, relevant departments took this measure. Right after National Day, on October 9, the procuratorate again prosecuted the four defendants for disrupting social order.
On November 6, the Linying County Court heard the case. The procuratorate submitted new evidence. Among it was a set of evidence proving the economic losses caused by the four defendants' disruption of social order. Song Xiaojun, a staff member of the Linying County Price Certification Center, conducted the appraisal of the losses. Song Xiaojun was also the only witness to appear in court that day. In court, the lawyer continuously questioned Song Xiaojun. One question made Song hesitate for about ten seconds without answering. At this moment, sitting two meters away from him, the prosecutor leaned over towards Song Xiaojun and hinted, "I can't remember." Immediately, Song repeated the prosecutor's words, loudly saying, "This, I can't remember." Consequently, there was some commotion in the audience section, protesting against the prosecutor. However, the presiding judge did not pay attention and continued to let the lawyer ask questions.
In fact, the witness should be brought into the courtroom by the court police, but Song Xiaojun was not. After the presiding judge announced the witness to appear, the prosecutor did not request permission from the court, directly stood up and walked out of the courtroom. About five minutes later, the prosecutor did not return to the courtroom, nor did the witness Song Xiaojun appear. Someone in the audience, unable to contain their curiosity, pushed open the courtroom door and saw the prosecutor and the witness talking in the corridor, reporting to the judge, "The two are talking outside." At this point, the presiding judge sent the associate judge to "see what's going on."
After the trial ended, the journalist interviewed the presiding judge, who remained silent on the prosecutor's hinting to the witness and personally bringing the witness into the courtroom.
Regarding the new evidence submitted in court, the defense lawyers unanimously believed it involved perjury. The lawyers requested an appraisal of the production time and signature time of the evidence. The trial lasted all day, and the court did not announce the verdict immediately. This set another suspense for Hong Kong businessman Zhu Zhixing, increasing the waiting time.
The Origin of Illegal Lease
"I hope to return to the mainland as soon as possible; this is a land I deeply love," Zhu Zhixing told the 'Democracy and Legal System Times' reporter over the phone. Despite the painful and "unfathomable" experience two years ago, he was still eagerly looking forward to it.
As early as 1994, when the Linying County Party Committee and County Government vigorously promoted investment attraction, Zhu Zhixing invested 20 million yuan in Luohe, registering and establishing the Dongmei (Linying) Artificial Board Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as: Dongmei Company).
On July 30, 2005, Zhu Zhixing leased the company to "Luohe City Luohui Decoration Materials Co., Ltd." (hereinafter referred to as: Luohui Company). The contract stipulated that Dongmei Company would collect an annual lease fee of 600,000 yuan, with a lease term of three years, expiring on July 30, 2008. After signing the contract, Zhu Zhixing handed over the company's financial, administrative seals, business license, etc., to Luohui Company.
Zhu Zhixing introduced that Zhang Guoru, the legal person of Luohui Company, was originally a distributor of Dongmei Company, "he spoke and acted well enough," Zhu Zhixing said that he had many enterprises on the mainland and was too busy, so he leased the company to Zhang Guoru. However, the subsequent events completely changed his impression of Zhang Guoru.
"I found out in August 2006 that Zhang Guoru privately engraved the seal of 'Dongmei (Xihua) Artificial Board Co., Ltd.' and used this seal to sign contracts in Xihua County, Zhoukou City," Zhu Zhixing told the reporter. Moreover, "Zhang Guoru posted false advertisements online, claiming my company was a subordinate factory of his."
What angered Zhu Zhixing the most was, "Around the Spring Festival in 2006, without my consent and without obtaining a felling permit, Luohe Company and its legal person Zhang Guoru illegally cut down 234 poplar trees in my company's courtyard," Zhu Zhixing indicated that the court eventually recognized the illegal cutting of 129 poplar trees.
In March this year, the Yancheng District Court of Luohe City sentenced Zhang Guofu to two years in prison, suspended for three years, for illegally cutting down forest trees. It was understood that Zhang Guofu and Zhang Guoru were close brothers, and Zhang Guofu served as Zhang Guoru's accountant.
Zhu Zhixing's lawyer believed that Zhang Guofu used the illegally cut forest trees for Luohe Company's production and operation, which was a job-related behavior rather than a personal action, clearly constituting a corporate crime. "The court failed to notify the victim to participate in the litigation, violating the Criminal Procedure Law."
Zhu Zhixing told the reporter that various problems occurred after the company was leased out, prompting him to reflect whether he should continue cooperating with Zhang Guoru. What truly made him terminate cooperation with Zhang Guoru was a penalty decision from the Luohe Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce. "After I returned to Dongguan, I saw a note on the copy of the business license stating that leasing was not allowed, and I knew this was an illegal act," Zhu returned to Henan and proactively found the Luohe Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce to confess the issue.
On September 22, 2006, the Luohe Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce determined that Dongmei Company's illegal leasing of its business license constituted misconduct. Soon after, it also determined that Luohe Company was operating without a license and ordered it to rectify. Both companies were fined 30,000 yuan.
Zhu Zhixing's lawyer believed that the Administration for Industry and Commerce's penalty decision meant that Dongmei Company and Luohe Company must terminate their contract. However, Zhang Guoru continued to occupy Dongmei Company and kept producing.
To mediate the relationship between the two companies, Linying County specially established a working group, with the county political and legal affairs secretary serving as the group leader. Liu Jifeng, advisor to Dongmei Company, experienced multiple negotiations organized by the government. He told the reporter that initially, the working group let the two companies negotiate themselves, "but they couldn't reach an agreement." Therefore, the working group suggested both parties file a civil lawsuit and let the court decide.
Government-Mediated Dispute
Initially, Zhu Zhixing thought that since the Administration for Industry and Commerce had issued an official document, Zhang Guoru should withdraw. The other party's resistance forced him to sue the court. "Since Luohe Company held our company's seal and refused to stamp the complaint, Linying County Court couldn't initiate the case. The government coordinated and asked Luohe Company to stamp the complaint, but Zhang Guoru didn't listen, and the government couldn't do anything about him."
Later, Zhu Zhixing submitted a complaint to the Luohe Intermediate People's Court and explained the situation to the court, which accepted the case. "Because the amount in dispute was less than 3 million yuan, the case could only be tried in Linying County Court, so the Luohe Intermediate Court transferred the case to Linying Court," said Zhu Zhixing's assistant Zhang Yanghua. Linying County Court scheduled the trial for the morning of October 22, 2007. Zhang Yanghua flew to Henan, but the court temporarily notified that the litigation was "suspended." "The reason was that the criminal case hadn't been concluded, so the civil case wouldn't proceed," Zhang Yanghua indicated.
This criminal case refers to Zhu Zhixing's four employees suspected of "disrupting social order." What exactly is Zhu Zhixing's relationship with this case?
Zhu Zhixing told the reporter that on October 31, 2006, he led some employees to negotiate with Luohe Company about recovering the factory, leading to disputes. On November 10, Zhang Guoru gathered 80 people to storm into the factory. "These people were all idle individuals from society, uniformly wearing white gloves and white shoes."
Conflict eventually erupted, stopping the factory's production, and nearby villagers were injured. Several villagers from Zhanggang Village told reporters: "Three people in the village were beaten by Zhang Guoru's people, and later Zhang Guoru's wife even paid medical expenses."
"The ones who beat people weren't caught, but we who didn't beat anyone were arrested," said Zhao Dongdong, one of the four defendants, feeling extremely wronged.
In fact, encountering resistance in reclaiming the company, Zhu Zhixing went to visit the provincial committee of Henan Province. "The Political and Legal Affairs Commission of Linying County called me to meet and negotiate solutions, but as soon as I arrived at Duqu Town Government, the police surrounded me, announcing that I had committed the crime of gathering to disrupt social order, and executed the arrest. I was detained in Linying County Detention Center, and at the same time, six employees of the company were also arrested." In Zhu Zhixing's view, this was "arresting people because coordination failed."
An official from Linying once told the media in an interview: "During mediation, the police did not arrest anyone; only after mediation failed were people arrested."
Advisor Liu Jifeng of Dongmei Company told the reporter that initially, the government's attitude towards Zhu Zhixing was not very strong, but after a phone call from Zhu boss, his fate also changed.
"At that time, I was also present, and I heard Zhu boss say on the phone: 'You don't mess around, if you do, I will go to Beijing and report you to the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection,'" Liu Jifeng believed that after local officials encountered resistance, they changed their attitude towards Zhu, and now it was "riding a tiger and finding it hard to dismount."
Who Is Guilty?
Zhu Zhixing said that when he and six employees were arrested, it was just before the Spring Festival. Each of them paid 10,000 yuan as bail for release on bail pending trial. Zhu Zhixing returned to Hong Kong, and two others were "at large." Subsequently, Zhu was wanted by the police, and only four employees were captured.
On November 6, in court, none of the four defendants believed they were guilty.
Zhao Dongdong and Zhang Haitao said that on that day, they were repairing machines and did not participate in the dispute between the two sides.
Sun Xinfu claimed that Zhu Zhixing owed him money, "that day, hearing he came back from Hong Kong, I went to the factory to ask for the money," "how does debt collection become the crime of disrupting social order?"
Zhang Zhenfa is the village committee director of Gangzhang Village. He said he went to the factory because the township leadership asked him to maintain order.
In court, besides fierce debates about these four defendants, the argument between the prosecution and defense regarding whether Zhang Guoru or Zhu Zhixing was guilty was even more intense. Because in the eyes of the lawyers, the basis for the prosecutor's accusation that the four defendants committed a crime was the determination that Zhu Zhixing's act of reclaiming the factory constituted a crime. "Whether Zhu Zhixing's occupation of Dongmei Board Factory causing the factory to stop work constitutes a crime directly determines whether the four defendants committed a crime."
The prosecutor argued, "Zhang Guoru leased this factory, he necessarily had to invest manpower and resources," "he (Zhu Zhixing) doesn't want to rent anymore and takes it back. If everyone followed his logic, I think society would be in chaos."
The defense attorney said, Zhu Zhixing proposed to terminate the contract with Zhang Guoru based on the Luohe City Administration for Industry and Commerce's penalty decision, aiming to correct illegal behavior. Zhang Guoru did not cooperate actively, instead leading dozens of people to threaten Zhu Zhixing, refusing to comply with the Luohe City Administration for Industry and Commerce's penalty decision, obstructing Zhu Zhixing's rightful act of reclaiming the factory. "If anyone has committed an illegal act, it's Zhang Guoru."
"Do you say Zhang Guoru is illegal, then he is illegal?" the prosecutor questioned.
"I have evidence!"
"I also have evidence proving Zhu Zhixing is illegal." The prosecution and defense argued in court. After being restrained by the presiding judge, the trial atmosphere gradually calmed down.
Outside the courtroom, Zhang Guoru might be unaware of the heated debate inside. On July 30, 2008, the lease contract expired, but now, he is still conducting production in Dongmei Company.
"We must have Zhu Zhixing himself come; we won't talk to his lawyer. Whatever he owes me, whatever I owe him, once settled, we'll leave immediately. But Zhu Zhixing dares not come." Zhang Guoru once said in an interview.
Zhu Zhixing said that he was wanted, so he definitely couldn't come to the mainland, and Zhang Guoru was using this point to plan to occupy his enterprise long-term.
It was learned that Zhu Zhixing had prepared to invest in an 85 million yuan chemical project in Luohe, but due to the Dongmei board factory incident, it was not implemented. An informed person regretfully told the reporter: "Zhu Xingzhi's 85 million yuan project had already signed an investment agreement with the Yuanhui Industrial and Trade Park Management Committee of Luohe City, and the Henan Provincial Development and Reform Commission had approved the project."
On the other end of the phone, Zhu Zhixing said that even if the warrant for his arrest was canceled, this project in Henan would no longer be suitable for investment. "The investment environment has changed." (At the request of the interviewee, Liu Jifeng is a pseudonym.)