One day in the middle of June 2021, an old man with gray hair and a sad face came to the Tianjia'an District Procuratorate in Huainan City to complain: "Prosecutor, I obviously borrowed money for the company, but now it has become my debt! What is the matter?"
"Don't worry, speak slowly!" The prosecutor in charge of receiving the old man patiently calmed the old man's mood and handed him a cup of hot water. The old man took out a civil judgment and case related materials while talking.
It turned out that this was a private loan dispute, and the old man's name was Zhao. In 2019, Mr. Wu took the RMB500000 IOU written by Mr. Zhao to the court and asked Mr. Zhao to repay the principal and interest of the loan of RMB500000. After the court heard the case, Zhao was judged to be responsible for repaying the principal and interest of 300000 yuan of the loan.
"I borrowed the 300000 yuan for the company, which has nothing to do with me!" Zhao reiterated his view again excitedly. The case materials show that Zhao did plead to the judge many times in the original trial that the loan of 300000 yuan was borrowed by a construction company where he worked, and submitted relevant evidence, but it was not accepted by the court.
"You really signed the 500000 yuan IOU in Wu's hand. What's the matter?" the prosecutor asked. "The 500000 yuan IOU was made up later, and it is not true. I borrowed money from Mr. Wu for the company in three times, and each time I wrote the IOU, the company seal was stamped on the signature, and it clearly stated that I was just the operator." Mr. Zhao explained.
Hearing this, out of professional sensitivity, the prosecutor handling the case believed that the key point of the case was the three original IOUs and the IOUs of 500000 yuan provided by Wu. According to Zhao's statement, Wu knew that Zhao was borrowing money for the construction company, and three original IOUs were stamped with the company seal, which also indicated that Zhao was the operator. But in the original trial, Wu only submitted the IOUs of 500000 yuan to the court, but did not show three original IOUs, and one bite of money was borrowed by Zhao. Zhao suffers from lack of evidence.
The 500000 yuan IOU was issued by Mr. Zhao to Mr. Wu in order to facilitate the external collection of accounts (Mr. Zhao has creditor's rights to others, and wants to use it as the beginning of the collection of debts). It is only for Mr. Zhao's collection of debts, and has no substantive significance. Both parties have specially written an agreement to explain this. However, these are only the unilateral views of the complainant Zhao, and there is no sufficient evidence to prove whether the truth is true. If it is true as Zhao said, how can Wu recognize and voluntarily hand over three original IOUs?
After Zhao left, the case handling prosecutor obtained the original trial file, fully understood the court trial and evidence, and formulated a detailed investigation strategy around the true situation of the loan and the three original IOUs. Subsequently, the investigation and verification work was gradually carried out: first, the complainant was explained in detail to guide him to provide evidence effectively; Secondly, through the external investigation, the two witnesses were questioned and the situation was explained; The key is to let Wu tell the truth. At the beginning, Wu denied the original IOU, and the conversation was at an impasse.
The prosecutor adjusted his thinking in time, preached the legal policies and the legal consequences of false statements to Mr. Wu seriously, and showed the evidence he had obtained. Under the shock of the evidence, Wu's psychological defense line was completely broken, and he admitted that Zhao did indeed borrow 300000 yuan from him for the company. Three original IOUs stamped with the company seal, which indicated that Zhao was the operator, were hidden by him. The IOUs of 500000 yuan were indeed written to help Zhao ask for accounts, which is meaningless. After the conversation, Wu took the initiative to give the three original IOUs to the prosecutor.
In September 2021, the Tianjia'an District Procuratorate filed a protest against the case according to law on the ground that there was new evidence sufficient to overturn the original judgment. Huainan Procuratorate raised a protest after examination. Recently, the case was changed according to the law, and the complainant Zhao finally discharged his 300000 yuan debt that had been on his shoulder for three years.
