1. Show your father the case of collecting network information, especially the case of acquaintance routines.
Call the police for help, and the police will explain the situation to your father;
Analyze the situation at home with your father. There is no such thing as pie in the world. You can do something else if you want to make money.
I was cheated by my friend. He said to lend me money in the name of a business loan. So far, he has borrowed 25,000 yuan.
First of all, you need to find a way to repay the loan in installments to avoid being blacklisted. If you are blacklisted, you will be in trouble. You can also use your credit card if you don't go to the bank. In addition, if you want to ask your friends for repayment, the people inside the liar can't be friends. If he doesn't pay it back, you can go to him, apply for property preservation and freeze some of his assets.
What should I do if I am cheated into getting a loan?
It is suggested to stop repayment first and wait. If creditors use illegal means in the process of debt collection, they should collect good evidence so as to safeguard their rights and interests later.
In this case, you will have three judgment schemes, depending on the evidence.
1. You should be responsible for repayment. The loan contract is signed by the borrower and the lender, and the contract is legal and effective, forming the loan contract relationship between the borrower and the lender. According to the relativity principle of the contract, the lender should require the borrower to bear the repayment responsibility. As for the legal relationship between the borrower and the user, it is handled separately.
Your brother and sister-in-law should bear the responsibility for repayment. The determination of legal relationship should be based on the true meaning of both parties, and the borrower is the real borrower. In fact, the two sides of the legal relationship of lending should be users and lenders. The borrower only borrows money on behalf of the user, not the real borrower, so the ultimate repayment responsibility should be borne by the user.
3. Both parties share the responsibility. The borrower and the actual user are loan consortia, and both parties bear equal repayment responsibilities.
Once again, don't sign letters of guarantee and IOUs for relatives unless you are ready to repay Ta.
Once again, don't sign letters of guarantee and IOUs for relatives unless you are ready to repay Ta.
Once again, don't sign letters of guarantee and IOUs for relatives unless you are ready to repay Ta.
Coordinate Wuhan, welcome to consult in need, consultation is free, so that you can take fewer detours and suffer less.
The following is a case, you can have a look if you are interested.
Chen and Sichuan Shuanglong Taide Investment Management Co., Ltd.
Trial: Chengdu Intermediate People's Court, Sichuan Province
Case number: (20 17) Chuan 0 1 Minzhong 5387.
Excerpt from the referee's opinion:
We believe that the loan contract signed by Ssangyong Ted Investment Company and Chen on 20 14128 October is the true intention of the parties, and its contents do not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and are legal and effective. Chen argued that it was the nominal borrower and the actual borrower was Jiucai Culture Investment Company. After trial, our court held that if the lender signed a loan contract with a nominal borrower and it was actually used by a third party, according to the principle of contract relativity, the nominal borrower was the counterpart of the loan contract and the nominal borrower should bear the repayment responsibility. If the nominal borrower discloses the actual user to the lender, and the true intentions of all parties are expressed only in the name of the nominal borrower, and the nominal borrower does not actually participate in the performance of the loan relationship or enjoy the benefits of the loan activities, it shall be deemed that the actual user is the actual borrower, and the actual user shall bear the repayment responsibility. Therefore, whether Chen disclosed the identity of his nominal borrower to Shuanglong Taide Investment Company when borrowing money is the focus of this case, and this fact should be proved by Chen. However, in the lawsuit, Chen did not submit evidence to prove that he disclosed the fact of the nominal borrower to Ssangyong Taide Investment Company, and the explanation submitted by Jin Jun, an outsider in the second trial, lacked probative force, which was not enough to prove the facts he advocated. Therefore, according to Article 90 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the Application of People's Republic of China (PRC)'s Civil Procedure Law, "the parties shall provide evidence on the facts on which their claims are based or on the facts on which they refute the other party's claims, except as otherwise provided by law. Before making a judgment, if the parties cannot provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove their claims, the parties who bear the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences, and Chen shall bear the consequences of failing to provide evidence.
The case sees through the scam and reveals the fraudulent loan routine!
The so-called loan fraud means that borrowers or insiders of credit institutions fabricate facts and conceal the truth to defraud credit institutions of loans. With the economic downturn and intensified competition in the industry, various cases of fraudulent loans have emerged one after another. Through some typical cases of fraudulent loans, I hope it will inspire and reference you to identify fraudulent loans.
Case1-Guangxi Yulin loan officer was arrested for defrauding 8 million loans in the name of 143 villagers.
Main problems: moral hazard of employees, fake loans
Recently, a number of media reported that the loan officer of a financial institution in Luchuan County, Yulin City, Guangxi Province defrauded the financial institution of more than 8 million yuan in the name of 143 villagers for his own use. Recently, the Luchuan County Procuratorate approved the arrest of the suspect on suspicion of defrauding loans. According to media reports, Zhong, a criminal suspect, lost money in order to raise money and continue to participate in gambling, and made a bad idea of defrauding loans. During the two years from 20 13 to 20 15, Zhongmou defrauded the villagers to sign the loan procedures they didn't want, and opened the villagers' account privately for their own collection.
Without the villagers' knowledge, Zhongmou applied for a loan in the name of the villagers and used it for his own gambling by using the ID card and the copy of the household registration book kept by the villagers when handling the loan. Subsequently, some villagers found that the deposits were inexplicably taken away by financial institutions, and even owed hundreds of thousands of money. At this point, the fact that Zhong defrauded the loan surfaced.
According to media reports, as of February 20 16, Zhongmou * * * fraudulently used the name of 143 to defraud loans of more than 8 million yuan, a small part of which was used to repay the defrauded loans.
Case 2-Cousins conspired to defraud the bank of 600,000 yuan.
The main problems are employee moral hazard and internal and external collusion.
2065438+February 2005, the head of a bank in Yuncheng reported to the Economic Investigation Brigade of Yuncheng County Public Security Bureau that Xu Moumou, the head of his subordinate branch, had not recovered the loan of more than 600,000 yuan so far, and was suspected of illegally lending, requesting to file a case for investigation. After receiving the report, the Economic Investigation Brigade quickly set up a task force to conduct an investigation, and found that Xu used his position convenience and the right to approve and issue loans to collude with his cousin Li to manipulate and illegally issue loans of more than 600,000 yuan, all of which were used for the business operation of his partnership with his cousin Li. Due to poor business management, more than 600,000 yuan of loans were all wasted. On March 20 15, Xu was arrested and sentenced in the same year 10. After the incident, Li Moumou has been absconding from other places, and the public security organs have repeatedly pursued it unsuccessfully. On April 15, the police investigated by the task force got reliable information and found its trail in Zhengzhou, Henan. On April 16, the task force immediately rushed to Zhengzhou, and with the cooperation of the local police, Li was arrested in a hotel. After the trial, Li truthfully confessed the facts of the crime.
After investigation, in 20 14, Li discussed with his cousin Xu and borrowed a sum of money to do business by taking advantage of Xu's convenience in the bank. After the two conspired, Li was the legal person of the enterprise, and then Li applied for it, and found Zhang Moumou, Li and other relatives and friends as guarantees to lend more than 600,000 yuan in three times for business operation. As a result, due to poor management, not only did I not make any money, but I even lost all my fundraising. At present, Li has been under criminal detention and the case is under further investigation.
Case 3-Yantai sea cucumber farmers were detained for defrauding 26 million yuan to expand their business scale.
Problems involved in false information and loan collection
According to news reports, Wang, a sea cucumber farmer in Penglai, Yantai, was criminally detained by the police in Yantai Development Zone on March 18 this year for defrauding loans. Wang deals in sea cucumber business. It turns out that business is excellent, and it takes a lot of money to expand the scale of operation. In order to obtain a bank loan, Wang defrauded the bank loan by providing false materials and making false statements, amounting to 26 million yuan.
Wang is a sea cucumber farmer in Yantai. He has earned some money in cultivating sea cucumbers in recent years and wants to carry out large-scale farming in Fujian waters. Lacking investment funds, he thought of borrowing money from the bank. Just at this time, a joint-stock bank in Yantai launched a loan business for aquaculture farmers. The bank's loan business is "three-three joint guarantee", that is, three eligible subjects can act as guarantors for each other. After the approval, the three parties can lend 3 million yuan respectively, and after the loan is successful, the three parties can get 9 million yuan.
Wang felt that this business of the bank could just solve his urgent need, but compared with the conditions, he wanted to borrow money and lacked a guarantor, so Wang thought of his relatives at home.
Wang used his usual WeChat to find his relatives and asked them to sign the relevant documents and put their fingerprints on them. In this way, he forged the documents needed for the loan. Unexpectedly, these false materials of Wang actually passed the bank review and the loan was successfully approved.
Wang obtained three sets of loans in the form of "three guarantees", two sets of 9 million yuan and one set of 8 million yuan, totaling 26 million yuan. A lot of money was used by Wang to expand the scale, and his farming stall in the southern waters was also rolled out.
However, since 20 13, the industry of sea cucumber participation has been in a continuous downturn, and Wang's sea cucumber breeding and processing business has begun to falter.
After Wang got a loan from the bank, he was able to repay the loan on schedule in previous years, but since the second half of 20 14, Wang has been unable to repay the bank loan. In desperation, the bank reported the case to the development zone police. After the police accepted it, through investigation, it was found that many loan customers had false information in the information that Wang used to apply for a loan, and the funds were used. Relevant personnel are suspected of defrauding loans.
On March 201June 7/KLOC-0, the Development Zone Branch decided to issue a criminal detention certificate to the main suspect Wang, and arrested him at the suspect's residence the next day. At present, Wang may be investigated for criminal responsibility for providing false information to defraud loans.
Case 4-The man defrauded the bank for the "luxury car dream" and was finally sentenced for contract crimes.
The main problem is insufficient repayment ability, providing false real estate license and income certificate.
According to news reports, Xiao Liu of Daqing bought a car because he watched his buddies around him. In order to save face, he signed a special installment payment contract for credit card cars with a bank through a friend's introduction, knowing that he was unable to repay. In the process of signing the contract, Xiao Liu provided false real estate license and income certificate, defrauded the guarantee provided by a financing guarantee limited liability company, and obtained nearly 200,000 yuan from the bank for car purchase.
Because Xiao Liu has not received repayment for several consecutive periods, and after investigation, the car bought by Xiao Liu is also unknown, so the bank chose to call the police. Xiao Liu was subsequently arrested by the public security organs. In the end, after hearing in Longfeng District, Xiao Liu believed that when he signed a contract with a bank, he provided false credit certificates and concealed the real situation, which constituted a contract. He was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment 1 1 month and fined 10000 yuan.
Case 5- Three men in Weifang were arrested for forging property and defrauding 2.7 million yuan for refusing to return it.
False driving license, real estate license, land certificate and process loopholes involve problems.
Fu, Ma and Zhang are engaged in stainless steel business in Linqu County, Weifang City, Shandong Province for 20 1 1 year. A man named Fu found them and asked them if they needed a loan, saying that there was a "way" to help them with the formalities. Because there is no property mortgage, the three forged false vehicle driving license, real estate license, land certificate and other property certificates and handed them to Fu Moumou, asking him to apply for a loan.
Fu worked in the credit department of a bank. He is very familiar with the loan process, knows several acquaintances in the industry, and knows where the loopholes in bank control are. The three people gave the fake real estate license to Fu Moumou, and each person also paid him an intermediary fee of 20,000 yuan. Fu Moumou helped Zhang borrow 700,000 yuan, helped Zhang and Ma borrow 6,543.8+0,000 yuan, with a term of 654.38+0 years, and agreed with three people that he would repay 700,000 yuan.
After successfully defrauding the loan, Fu, Ma and Zhang used part of the money for their own business and the rest for consumption. After lending, the bank repeatedly asked the three people to repay, but the three refused to repay. After the verdict of the Kuiwen District People's Court in Weifang City, three people still refused to repay, and there was no property for execution among them. In June 5438+this year 10, the Economic Investigation Brigade of Kuiwen Public Security Bureau filed a case for investigation after receiving a report from the bank, and arrested Fu and Ma, saving the bank an economic loss of 460,000 yuan.
At present, Fu and Ma have been released on bail pending trial for allegedly defrauding loans, and Zhang is listed as an online pursuit target.
Case 6-The woman forged 30 false certificates to defraud 7.2 million yuan, and was finally arrested after hiding for two years.
The main problem is to provide false certificates.
Liu Yu ran an automobile trading company in Quanzhou on 20 12, and applied to the bank for three bank acceptance bills of 7.2 million yuan. The repayment date of each bill is about half a month. By the repayment date, she was unable to repay.
So, she found a guarantee company and borrowed money from the guarantee company to the bank. Borrow another sum of money from the bank and return it to the guarantee company that has the ability to repay on time. When this operation reached the second stroke, the bank stopped lending. Without the money lent by the bank, it is impossible to borrow money from the guarantee company.
She found 30 motor vehicle certificates to mortgage to the guarantee company and continued to repay the loan to the bank. At the same time, she borrowed 400,000 and 600,000 from two friends in the same way. After that, she disappeared.
The person who couldn't find her, the personnel of the guarantee company took out 30 mortgaged motor vehicle certificates and found them to be fake. After calling the police, the police confirmed that the certificate was forged and listed her as a fugitive No.2013.
After hiding for two years, Liu was arrested by public security organs a few days ago. At present, it has been arrested by the procuratorate and is ready to be transferred.
Case 7- Joint "Inside Ghost" Loan Fraud Case
The main problem is internal and external collusion and false information.
In August 2003, Feng Mingchang, a well-known private entrepreneur in Foshan, Guangdong Province, was tried by the judicial authorities for being suspected of a major financial case. But in February 2003, he was just elected as one of the 40 "Best Private Entrepreneurs" in Guangdong Province.
Since then, Feng's plate, which has the reputation of "Asia's largest plywood production base", has stopped production due to the break of the capital chain. Huaguang once had 1 10,000 employees with an annual output value of 2 billion yuan.
In June165438+1October of the same year, the "806" task force composed of relevant departments of the central government and Guangdong Province was stationed in Nanhai District, Foshan City. After the Spring Festival in 2004, Feng Mingchang was formally detained for investigation.
In June, 2004, Li Jinhua, Auditor-General of the National Audit Office, disclosed in the audit report submitted to the 10th meeting of the 10th the NPC Standing Committee that Feng Mou, a private entrepreneur in Foshan City, Guangdong Province, used 65,438+03 affiliated enterprises under his control to fabricate false financial statements and colluded with bank insiders to obtain a loan of 7,426,543,800 yuan from Nanhai Sub-branch of China Industrial and Commercial Bank.
It is reported that as of the audit, the balance was 654.38+92.9 million yuan. A large number of loans were transferred to personal savings accounts or directly withdrawn, and some were even remitted abroad through illegal channels. After preliminary verification, the loss of bank loans exceeded 654.38 billion yuan.
In the end, Feng Mingchang and Ye Jiasheng, former vice presidents of Guangdong Branch of China Industrial and Commercial Bank, Lin Yuxing, former president of Nanhai Branch, and Lin Junjiang, former president of Foshan Branch were severely punished.
Case 8-Agricultural Bank of China Baotou loan fraud case, involving 1. 1 100 million yuan.
The main problem is internal and external collusion and false information.
In March, 2005, China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) reported a major case of suspected illegal operation of Agricultural Bank of China: in less than a year, bank staff colluded with credit cooperatives and social criminals to defraud the bank of 65.438+0.1100 million yuan by misappropriating funds and falsely issuing large deposit certificates.
In 2004, Inner Mongolia Banking Regulatory Bureau organized an on-site inspection of secured loans of banking financial institutions under the unified arrangement of CBRC. During the on-site inspection of Baotou Branch of Agricultural Bank of China, Baotou Banking Supervision Branch found that individual staff members colluded with credit cooperatives and social criminals to defraud bank loans in the personal and discount business of Huitong Branch and Donghe Branch.
The inspection found that from July 2, 2003 to June 4, 2004, the staff of the Agricultural Bank of China Huitong County Branch Shifu East Road Sub-branch and Donghe Sub-branch, as well as some credit cooperatives under the jurisdiction of Damaoqi Rural Credit Cooperative Union in Baotou City colluded with social personnel to commit crimes, misappropriate interbank funds, falsely open large deposit certificates, handle false certificates, discount illegally, and obtain bank credit funds at high interest rates. At present, 98 funds involving 6500 yuan have been identified.
Case 9: A branch of a state-owned bank was defrauded of 26 million yuan by two shell companies.
The main problem is staff dereliction of duty, shell companies.
Conghua Sub-branch of a state-owned bank has been loaned 26 million yuan by two shell leather bag companies in Guangzhou. In 20 15, Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court sentenced the vice president of the branch, the manager of the financial business sub-center and two loan officers for dereliction of duty, and the criminal responsibility 1 year ranged from 9 months to 3 years.
20 1 1 June, Li (female), then the account manager (i.e. loan officer) of a state-owned bank in Conghua Branch, failed to conduct strict on-site investigation to verify the actual operation of the borrowing company and issue an investigation report when handling the loan business of Guangzhou Daxiang Software Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Daxiang Company"), so the pre-loan investigation became a mere formality and the post-loan supervision was lax. However, Kuang, the manager of the financial business sub-center of small enterprises, and the vice president in charge of credit business also agreed to confirm without in-depth investigation and verification, which caused the bank to borrow 20 million yuan from Daxiang Company through Zhang and others, causing the bank to lose nearly160,000 yuan at the time of the incident, resulting in non-performing loans.
Almost at the same time, another account manager, Wu Mou, handled the loan business of Guangzhou Peng Yi Trading Company (hereinafter referred to as "Peng Yi Company") in 20654381October+0165438+February. Nor did it conduct on-the-spot investigation and verification of the actual operation of the borrowing company and issue an investigation report, which caused the bank to borrow 6 million yuan from the company through Zhang and others at the time of the incident, resulting in a loss of 4.23 million yuan.
There is a simple reason. The loan officer didn't make a detailed investigation, because the business was introduced by the leader, and the account manager Li confessed that Daxiang Company was introduced by Kuang, the manager of the small enterprise financial business sub-center. They visited the site together and found that the address did not match the business license. The other party explained that they had just moved to a new address. Li also confessed that because the other party provided the company statement and bank flow, she acquiesced to verify the actual operation of the company. When Ding signed it, Li didn't compare it carefully.
Wu Mou, a loan officer, confessed that he didn't make a field trip because Peng Yi Company was introduced by Chen Mou, the vice president. When tracking the loan destination and the lender's post-loan business premises, he did not go to the scene to check, but only asked the lender to send him relevant information. Chen Mou, the vice president, admitted that he didn't know whether the bank employees had visited the two companies on the spot before the loan. He is responsible for being cheated of bank loans because he failed to know the real situation of these loan companies.
Case 10: Shandong Seventh Company defrauded nearly 400 million bills of exchange through trade financing.
The main problem is virtual trade.
On August 20 14, the Intermediate People's Court of Binzhou City, Shandong Province sentenced a bill fraud case. Guo, a native of Boxing County, Binzhou City, Shandong Province, and his wife set up seven affiliated enterprises such as Zibo Yongchi Automobile Sales Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Yongchi Automobile") and Shandong Hongchangda Automobile Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Hongchangda Automobile"), and defrauded ICBC, Shang Qi Bank, Shandong Boxing Rural Cooperative Bank and Agricultural Bank through false purchase and sale contracts between affiliated enterprises.39653.99999999995
After Guo and others were prosecuted, in 20 13 years, the people of Boxing County convicted the above seven companies and Guo for defrauding bill acceptance, among which Guo was sentenced to 4 years in prison and fined 654.38+10,000 yuan. After the judgment of the first instance, Guo refused to accept the appeal. One of the reasons is that financial institutions should be clear that both parties to the purchase and sale contract are affiliated companies and whether the purchase and sale contract is true or not. He himself did not use fraudulent means to obtain bill acceptance. On August 7, 20 14, Binzhou Intermediate People's Court upheld the original judgment in the second instance.
Guo used the above seven companies to sign false purchase and sale contracts to defraud the bank acceptance bill 1 1 times, with a total amount of 3.91ten thousand yuan and an exposure amount of10.823 billion yuan. Among them, ICBC Binzhou Binyin Sub-branch accepted two bills of exchange, with an amount of 40 million yuan and an exposure of 6,543,800 yuan; Boxing Sub-branch of Bank of Shang Qi with an amount of150,000 yuan and an exposure of 7.5 million yuan; Pangjia Sub-branch of Rural Cooperative Bank, with a total amount of 36 million yuan and an exposure of108,000 yuan; Agricultural Bank of China Bincheng Sub-branch handled the acceptance bill business for six times, with an amount of 300 million yuan and an exposure of 654.38+46 million yuan.
If the latter fails to repay after the acceptance exposure expires, the guarantee enterprise will repay it on its behalf. For the 30 million yuan previously exposed, the guarantee company compensated 6.5438+million yuan, and after the Agricultural Bank of China advanced 20 million yuan, it filed a lawsuit against Hongchangda Automobile. As of July 20 14, 14, the Agricultural Bank of China has recovered15510,000 yuan and received Hongchangda Automobile 12 semi-trailer tankers, which should not cause actual losses.
The method used by Guo and others is not clever, that is, relying on enterprises to "turn their left hands upside down" and sign false sales contracts. Take China Agricultural Bank as an example. 20 12 On March 20th, Guo forged the purchase and sale contract between Hongchangda Automobile Company and Yongchi Automobile Company in the name of Hongchangda Automobile Company, and applied to Bincheng Sub-branch of Agricultural Bank of China for an acceptance bill of 60 million yuan, with a deposit of 30 million yuan, an exposure of 30 million yuan and a maturity date of 2065438. Only one day later, on 20 1, 20 12, Guo handled an acceptance bill of 80 million yuan in Bincheng Sub-branch by the same means, with a deposit of 40 million yuan and an exposure of 40 million yuan.
In addition, the seven companies actually controlled by Guo Can can only see some clues from their names, and many companies with the same name, such as Hongchangda, may have been related before.
Case11-The first case of loan fraud in Zhejiang: the "Yin-Yang account" loan fraud case.
The main problems are shell companies, yin and yang accounts.
On February 23, 2006, at 65438, a branch of Bank of Communications reported to Hangzhou Public Security Bureau that He Zhijun, the legal representative of Zhejiang Zhijun Holding Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhijun Company), was suspected of having borrowed hundreds of millions of yuan from the bank and had fled abroad, requesting the public security organ to file a case for investigation. With the investigation of public security organs, a shocking case gradually surfaced.
From 2003 to August 2006, Zhijun Company suddenly appeared more than 100 subsidiaries with registered capital exceeding10 million yuan. The bosses of the subsidiaries are all employees of the company, and some are even chefs in the canteen. This abnormal phenomenon has attracted the attention of public security organs. After receiving the report, on June 5438+1October 5, 2007, Hangzhou Public Security Bureau decided to file an investigation on the suspected contracting case of Zhijun Company and He Zhijun. On April 23rd, 2007, the Hangzhou Procuratorate approved the arrest of He Zhijun, who was at large.
The procuratorate accused that from 1995 to the time of the crime, He Zhijun instructed Wang Chengfu, Zang Zuozhi and others to set up more than 40 affiliated companies in all parts of the country, the so-called "Zhijun Department", but these companies registered their subordinates, relatives and friends who did not actually contribute or participate in business decisions as "nominal" shareholders or legal representatives when registering for industry and commerce.
According to the survey, most Zhijun enterprises have two sets of report systems. Provide a set of real reporting system for industry and commerce and taxation, called account A; Another set of false reporting system provides bank loans, called account B, which inflated assets, sales revenue, net profit and sales cost and reduced long-term investment. These two sets of "yin-yang accounts" have been used for several years and have been tried and tested in the process of illegal loan fraud.
From the first half of 2003 to August 2006, knowing that he was completely unable to perform the contract, He Zhijun still instructed the staff of Junzhi Department to provide copies of the revised audit report, fabricated false financial statements, forged industrial products purchase and sale contracts, provided false copies of special VAT invoices and other materials, and guaranteed each other in the names of "empty shell" Junzhi Department West Asia Company, Kailida Company, CIMC Company, Jiuyuan Company, Chen Xing Company and Antai Company, and defrauded them successively.
Case 12: The largest bank in Beijing defrauded loans: the executives of rural commercial banks colluded inside and outside, and shell companies defrauded loans of 700 million yuan.
The main problem is shell companies, internal and external collusion.
On 2012 10 June10, the Beijing Higher People's Court sentenced the largest bank loan fraud case in this city, and finally sentenced eight former senior executives of Beijing Rural Commercial Bank, including five branch presidents and vice presidents, including Tian Jun, the former branch president of the central business district of this bank. Among them, Tian Jun was sentenced to 20 years in prison, and Hu Yi, the chairman of Beijing Huading Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd., was sentenced to 3 years to 17 years in prison.
It is reported that eight senior executives of Beijing Rural Commercial Bank, together with Hu Yi and his employees, defrauded the bank of 708 million yuan through fictitious mortgage procedures for second-hand houses and loan procedures for small businesses.
It was found that from February 2007 to February 2008, Hu Yi and Li Jingjing, directors of Huading Guarantee Company, defrauded 255 loans from Dajiaoting Sub-branch and shibalidian Sub-branch of Rural Commercial Bank, amounting to more than 4.47 million yuan. In addition, Hu Yi and others used the name of 45 companies, fictitious companies need liquidity and other excuses, and adopted the way of mutual guarantee. From September 2008 to February 2009, they defrauded 45 loans from shibalidian Sub-branch, amounting to more than 266,543.8+0 billion yuan. Before the incident, * * * caused economic losses of more than 360 million yuan.
The case surfaced in September 2008. When Zhao, an employee of the Personal Finance Department of Bank of Communications, was preparing to borrow money to buy a car, he inadvertently inquired from the bank credit information system that he had inexplicably got a second-hand house loan of 2 million yuan in shibalidian Branch of Beijing Rural Commercial Bank. Coincidentally, during the same period, when Wei, an employee of CCB, was preparing to buy a house with a loan, he also found himself "mortgaged" in Beijing Rural Commercial Bank and immediately called the police. Faced with such a strange thing, they complained to the head office of Beijing Rural Commercial Bank and directly reported the matter to the Beijing Banking Regulatory Bureau.
Then, on February 27th, 2009, Hu Yi's ex-wife Li Jingjing went to the business department of a rural commercial bank to apply for a credit card, so as to withdraw a loan from one of the shell companies. At this time, the careful bank teller found that the official seal of this loan enterprise, which was established many years ago, was actually new and there was no inkpad at all. After careful investigation, the bank found that the withdrawal account actually involved many small business loans, so it called the police.
At the end of March 2009, the shocking case that Beijing Rural Commercial Bank was cheated of 460 million yuan was exposed. At that time, eight responsible persons, including Tian Jun, president of the central branch of the bank, were suspected of colluding to defraud loans and were investigated by the judicial authorities. An Dong, the legal representative of Huading Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd., and Hu Yi, the actual controller who provided guarantee for the loan, were also investigated by the judicial authorities and taken compulsory measures.
20 10 June, Beijing Banking Regulatory Bureau confirmed that former president Jin and former vice president Jiang Chao of Beijing Rural Commercial Bank were suspended, and former president Tian Jun of Central Business District Branch was also removed from administrative and party posts.
At the beginning of August, 2065438+00, Hu Yi, the chairman of Beijing Huading Credit Guarantee Company, was tried in the Second Intermediate People's Court together with eight bank cadres who defrauded loans. It is reported that there were *** 18 defendants in this case at that time, including the presidents and vice presidents of Beijing Rural Commercial Bank CBD Sub-branch, shibalidian Sub-branch and Dajiaoting Sub-branch, who were accused of taking bribes of nearly 10 million yuan. The trial is expected to last five days. After the incident, only half of the cheated 708 million yuan was recovered.
The enlightenment of the above cases
The above bloody loan fraud cases have sounded the alarm for our credit institutions. The author believes that the above cases give us the following enlightenment:
Revelation 1: The main forms of fraudulent loans
Looking at the above 12 cases, the main forms of fraudulent loans are: (1) providing false information, including false ID card, real estate license, false driving license, false land certificate, false qualification certificate, false income certificate and false financial information. ; (2) False trade financing and fictitious trade. In such cases, there are often Yin and Yang companies and affiliated companies, as reflected in case 10; (3) using shell companies to defraud loans, such as case 9, case 1 1, case12; (4) employee moral hazard, employee dereliction of duty, internal and external collusion. In the process of borrowers using false information, false trade and shell companies to defraud loans, some cases of fraudulent loans exist internal and external collusion and employees' dereliction of duty.