Because the bank staff did not examine the authenticity of the loan materials, the loan fund of China Minsheng Banking Corp.Ltd(600016) 2065 million yuan was overdue and could not be recovered.
Recently, the judgment document network announced the criminal ruling of the second instance of China Minsheng Banking Corp.Ltd(600016) Dalian Branch staff Wang Moujun, Zhang moujie and other illegal loans and bribery of non-state staff.
Wang Moujun, Zhang moujie, Tian and Zhao Mouyu, as bank staff, failed to examine the authenticity of loan materials, resulting in illegal loan issuance, which constituted the crime of illegal loan issuance. They were sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and fined 100000 yuan.
However, the determination of whether Wang Moujun had the crime of “accepting bribes by non-state staff” triggered a dispute over whether 1.56 million yuan was a loan or a bribe. How did the court decide?
false materials approved
After the Spring Festival in 2013, Wang found Tian, then president of Yuexiu sub branch of China Minsheng Banking Corp.Ltd(600016) Dalian Branch (hereinafter referred to as Yuexiu sub branch), and said that his relatives and friends of marine aquaculture wanted to apply for the marine fishery joint guarantee loan of the bank. Tian handed this business over to Zhao, then sales director of Yuexiu sub branch.
Subsequently, Wang organized 98 borrowers without marine aquaculture entities to form 23 groups of joint guarantee groups, forged contract, village committee certificate, bank flow, electricity bill and other loan materials, fictitious loan purpose and applied for joint guarantee loan from Yuexiu sub branch.
Tian, as the president of Yuexiu sub branch, Zhang, as the reviewer of China Minsheng Banking Corp.Ltd(600016) Dalian Branch, and Wang, as the final approver authorized by China Minsheng Banking Corp.Ltd(600016) Dalian Branch, did not strictly examine the purpose of the loan and the authenticity of the loan materials, which eventually led to the approval of false materials and the illegal issuance of loans.
According to the ruling, China Minsheng Banking Corp.Ltd(600016) Dalian Branch granted a loan of 267.3 million yuan to Wang and others, which was tested by Dalian Yongtong Judicial Expertise Center. As of May 2015, about 170.7 million yuan of loan funds were overdue and could not be recovered.
However, the illegal lending of Tian and others has not ended yet. After the loan was overdue, some joint insurance entities handled the reverse loan through Zhao Mouyu and Tian. As of June 2019, another 35.768 million yuan of loan funds had been overdue, causing huge losses to China Minsheng Banking Corp.Ltd(600016) .
In this regard, the court of first instance, in accordance with the provisions of articles 186, 67, 68, 52 and 53 of the criminal law of the people’s Republic of China, sentenced Zhao Mouyu, Tian, Zhang moujie and Wang Moujun to the crime of illegally granting loans, sentenced them to fixed-term imprisonment of five years and fined 100000 yuan.
In addition, Zhang moujie, another defendant in this case, took advantage of his position as the manager of the evaluation center of China Minsheng Banking Corp.Ltd(600016) Dalian Branch microenterprise and community risk management department, violated the relevant provisions of China Minsheng Banking Corp.Ltd(600016) loan, issued a loan of more than 20 million yuan to the borrower Ma (handled in another case), and later received a Ma Cartier women’s watch worth 35000 yuan; One Burberry men’s windbreaker, worth 10500 yuan. The stolen goods have been recovered after the crime.
However, since the amount of property Zhang received from others did not reach the larger starting point stipulated by the law, the court did not support the accusation of the public prosecution organ.
On January 2, 2020, Dalian banking and Insurance Regulatory Bureau issued three tickets, pointing at the illegal and illegal problems of China Minsheng Banking Corp.Ltd(600016) Dalian Branch’s small and micro joint guarantee credit business. Among them, the defendants Zhao Mouyu, Wang Moujun and Tian in the above-mentioned case were directly responsible for the above-mentioned acts: Zhao Mouyu was given an administrative penalty of banning from working in the banking industry for three years; Wang Moujun was given an administrative penalty of banning banking work for five years; Tian was disqualified from serving as a lifelong senior manager and given an administrative penalty of banning him from working in the banking industry for five years.
is 156 million yuan a loan or a bribe
According to the ruling, Accusation by public prosecution organ “In 2013, while serving as the general manager of the risk management department of microenterprises and communities of China Minsheng Banking Corp.Ltd(600016) Dalian Branch, Wang asked Tian for RMB 1.56 million twice in the name of purchasing real estate and decorating houses. After China Minsheng Banking Corp.Ltd(600016) found that there were irregularities in the collection and use of the above loan funds, Wang began to investigate, and Wang returned 1.56 million yuan in cash to Tian.”
For the above allegations, Wang Moujun said that 1.56 million yuan was a loan from Tian and returned in June 2014. As for the purpose of 1.56 million yuan, Wang said he bought a house for his mother and provided evidence such as commercial housing sales contract, unified invoice for real estate sales, housing purchase agreement and so on.
However, Tian confessed: “Wang Yijun said he wanted to use money, didn’t say whether he wanted it or borrowed it, and didn’t issue a debit note, so I think he wanted it. I gave Wang Yijun money because Wang Yijun had a very good relationship with the president. I wanted Wang Yijun to say something good about me in front of the president.”
Therefore, the court held that whether the 1.56 million yuan was a loan from Wang Moujun or a bribe was the key issue in determining the case.
The court of first instance held that the existing evidence could not fully prove that 1.56 million yuan was Wang Moujun’s bribe demand. First of all, Wang Moujun has a realistic basis for borrowing, has a good relationship with Tian and has a relationship basis for borrowing money. Secondly, the purpose of Tian’s bribery is inconsistent with the amount of bribery. Finally, Tian’s confession is not stable, and the confession in court is inconsistent with that in the investigation stage.
In this regard, the protest organ put forward a protest opinion, holding that the 1.56 million yuan collected by Wang Yijun was a bribe rather than a loan. The reason for the loan described by Wang Yijun was inconsistent with the actual time and purpose of buying a house, and the form of loan was contrary to common sense. Except for the “loan” involved, there was no economic contact between the two sides, and the two sides had the needs and conditions to make use of their position to make profits. Wang Yijun was forced to repay under pressure.
In response to the above protest opinions, Wang Moujun said that the delay in buying a house was affected by his wife’s opposition and the situation of the real estate market, and had already proposed the repayment intention, but Tian said there was no need to worry. In addition, Tian did not ask for entrustment from Wang Moujun, did not seek common interests, and the two had no jurisdiction and blackmail relationship. Their business was a normal work matter of the bank, and Wang Moujun did not implement any convenience.
The facts and evidence found in the trial of the second instance were consistent with those of the first instance. The court of the second instance held that there was insufficient evidence of Wang’s demand for bribes and could not rule out the possibility of Wang’s borrowing from Tian. The original judgment found that Wang’s failure to constitute the crime of bribery of non-state staff was not improper, rejected the protest and appeal and upheld the original judgment.
