Civil suit for conversion to criminal charge? A ridiculous trial in which the client is absent.

Let's go over the case and get a taste of the quality of the case.

In February 2021, Xinjiang Energy Group (Xinjiang Energy Group) Chairman Hu Guoqiang's extramarital girlfriend Zhang Zhang took eight bags to Beijing to buy a house, 34.8 million, all in cash.

Bank managers are good in warning that money-laundering may be suspected. The owner of the house, Liu Lin, did not want to sell, and Zhang added 4 million to purchase furniture — an oral agreement, not included in the contract.

Then Zhang gave up a supplementary agreement, which said "houses with furniture", but the list of "subsidies" was agreed: [yes] [none], none of which was ticked.

And then the scene started to go astray.

Zhang's Zhang's Zhang-Tang is "sizing" twice, and the tenant is tired of losing his rent early; Four million dollars were withheld, both sides collapsed and Zhang promised to arrest Liu and sentence her to seven years.

Liu Yuan started reporting. Her driver went to Xinjiang to investigate Hu Guoqiang ' s death, was beaten to the point of open skull damage and was interrogated personally by Hu Guoqiang, forcing him to frame his employer;

Liu was dragged, beaten and ripped by two men who were following him on the airport, and the perpetrator was held in administrative detention, and the punishment was laid in the file in black and white.

At the end of spring and summer 2023, Liu Xie filed an action against a total of 7.794,000: $4 million for furniture, $780,000 for rent, $1.714 million for breach of contract, $1 million for moral damages and $300,000 for counsel.

If I were to be a sitting judge, scheduled, met with a normal reaction to the dispute: sitting, confrontation, identification.

The defendant then threatened the plaintiffs that they would not withdraw their complaint, and that the lawyers would not survive for three months.

Then, no one paid the costs and was dismissed. Civil proceedings, until here.

In October 2023, a criminal case was opened.

First instance judgement

• Shun Zhao, Attempted extortion, six years and ten months, 29 June 2026.

Amount: 7.794 million, per cent.

This figure is called for in civil indictments and in criminal judgements for extortion.

Look at the shape of this criminal trial: the victim, Hu Guoqiang, Zhang Zhang Zhang, has not made a statement to date;

The plaintiff, the defendant, the lawyer, the intermediary, the tenant, the mediator in the civil suit, did not have a single statement and none of them appeared before the court.

This is a trial in which almost all the parties are absent.

The defendant is empty.

It does not conform to any procedural law, but it follows a simple logic: they fear not 7.79 million, but court sessions.

The start of the trial, when 34.8 million cash is in the cash, is on the table — a question that is indeed a matter of course for a prosecutor who has found nearly billions of cash in his home and is suspected of embezzling billions.

Now that the court is strangled, I, the judge, will sit in the paper and be absent.

First, 4 million for furniture. The plaintiff had an oral agreement and an intermediary recording; The defendant ' s supplementary agreement was contradictory. The support is supported when the facts are not clear and the intermediary is brought to court and the facts are established.

Second, $780,000 in rent. The tenant rented 52,000 monthly, the contract was in and the fact of withdrawal was.

The plaintiff is counted by 60,000 times 13 months, which is high, at my discretion.

Third, 1714,000 default money. The contract contained 20 per cent of the total price, and the first was established in principle, which was too high for me to make a discretionary reduction under the law.

Fourth, 1 million for moral damages. The beating at the airport was accompanied by a decision on administrative penalties, which I am deeply sympathetic to — but the complaint of violation was not substantiated and was rejected.

Fifth, 300,000 lawyers' fees. The contract was not agreed upon and rejected.

It's over. Less than half of $7,794,000.

Watch my cut two.

The judge cut the motion, using the “no support of the Court” in the judgement; Another cut, with the charge.

The same amount of money that was not supported was the result of a decision in the civil court, which became the amount of the crime in the criminal court.

• If each rejected petition is subject to a sentence of imprisonment, the national court's handcuff reserve is not sufficient.

That's a very clear line, actually. Criminal Trial Reference Case No. 509: Claims are large in amount, but based on civil disputes, the purpose of unlawful possession cannot be established.

In the final analysis, four words: basis of rights. These five bills, written on the basis of a well-founded basis, are also on appeal; It's called blackmail.

Moreover, in April 2022, the defendant, on his own initiative, brought 3 million cash “compensation”, and Liu Xie refused to receive it, saying: “How much is the compensation, the court decided”.

The blackmailer sent money on his own initiative and the blackmailer refused to take it. In the interview recording, the other party asked “what are the conditions” and Liu said “no” “outside the apology”.

Hu Guoqiang's horse Sun Shiqing phone calls say, "You want a contract for the project," and Zhao Shusentha says, "No. The blogger adds:

It is worth mentioning that the plaintiff's lawyer and the defendant's lawyer, from the same firm.

The plaintiff's lawyer, Jiang-i, said in a recorded recording in April 2022: “The blackmail was not complete and the attempt was enough for him to drink a pot. The blogger adds:

Two years later, the prosecution ' s complaint was on schedule: an attempt at extortion.

The victim did not make a statement and the plaintiff did not appear before the court. Actually, all I can do is hammering: insufficient evidence, undefined facts.

• And a hammer!

Of course, what really needs to be reconsidered is the way the five accounts are recorded.

Four million dollars of furniture, a civil dispute in which the oral agreement was recorded in support of the record, not extortion;

(a) $780,000 in rent, a default on the fact of the refund, not extortion;

(a) The sum of 1,174,000 for breach of contract is a arithmetical issue of the terms of the contract and not extortion;

(a) 1 million for moral damage, a claim that was legally rejected in the breach of the law, not extortion;

The 300,000 lawyer fees were not supported without an agreement, not extortion.

Five books were moved into the criminal judgement, and became “Attempted extortion, $7,794,000, no difference”.

So, what is to be done in the second instance is to untie the five accounts in one piece: which one has a rights basis and which one is being asked for in vain;

Which one of these cases is to be considered a civil court, and which one of them is to be considered as misappropriation for criminal purposes.

Intermediaries, tenants, contracts, administrative penalties at the airport, and agreements for fees of lawyers are all available.

And most important — Hu Guoqiang, Chang Zhang — is here to take a statement.

The trial in which almost all the clients were absent could not afford to hold a charge of extortion.

Recommended reading

779,000 civil charges are blackmail?

The report of the corruption officer, who was sent to prison by the back-handed: the "securing" of the Zhao Shing case is absurd.

Shun Yi Zhu Shwe wins: Who is afraid?

The person who was not asked about it: what did the "Yin" who disappeared in the Zhao Shusheng case do?

Four times, he's been put in jail.