Each party fined 500,000 yuan

The Supreme People’s Court’s second circuit court recently heard an appeal regarding allegedly borrowed money between the appellant Shanghai Oubao Biotechnology Co and the respondent Liaoning Trevi Co. The court ruled that it was a case of malicious collusion and fined the parties 500,000 yuan each.

The case was the first of its kind and gathered nearly 200 observers, including NPC members, news media and students. They said the ruling was just and showed the court’s resolution in maintaining judicial fairness and integrity. Both parties admitted their conspiracy and expressed their regrets. They said they would respect and carry out the ruling.

Oubao filed a lawsuit in the Liaoning higher people’s court, asking for repayment by Trevi of a debt of 86.5 million yuan, plus interest. As Trevi acknowledged the debt, the court ruled in favor of Oubao in the first trial in March 2011.

After the ruling went into effect, Xie Tao, another creditor of Trevi, lodged a complaint at the same court, which revoked the first ruling. Oubao appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s second circuit court arranged a collegiate bench led by the presiding judge Hu Yunteng, and heard the appeal at the end of September. They listened to Xie Tao and other creditors’ claim about the case involving false creditor rights and reviewed all files from previous court sessions as well as the business files and bank account transaction records of all parties.

A public hearing of the case was held at the Liaoning Normal University’s law school on October 27. The collegiate bench maintained the revocation ruling and determined that the parties be fined 500,000 yuan each for false litigation. Several individuals from the two parties face further rulings based on their involvement and attitude in confessing their misconduct.

Frequent false litigation in civil and commercial cases has severely disrupted the regular litigation process and impaired third parties’ interests and social integrity. The Supreme Court has announced its intention to punish and eliminate this type of case. The case at hand shows the court’s resolve against false litigation and helps create a similar resolve in other courts.