What's wrong with this lawyer?!

I was originally a legal prodigy...

Cui Zhengyu scratched his head embarrassedly upon hearing the words and said, "Director Tang, I was just looking for fun..."

Old Tang waved his hand and laughed, "It's nothing, there's always someone who learns first, and everyone has their specialization, that's very normal."

"But since you asked, while we're walking back, I'll explain it to you casually."

"In criminal law, there are crimes related to litigation, such as obstruction of justice, aiding in the destruction or fabrication of evidence, false litigation, and so on."

"I believe you've read those, right?"

Cui Zhengyu nodded again, he had read the criminal law from start to finish.

Obstruction of justice: preventing a witness from testifying or instructing others to commit perjury through violence, threats, bribery, etc.

This is also a relatively early criminal charge, criticized by many legal practitioners due to its vague description.

The main issue is the latter sentence: instructing others to commit perjury.

This is often confused with solicitation and other behaviors, leading to frequent debates in practice.

However, tracing back to the origins, this charge was introduced due to serious retaliation against witnesses at the time.

So in practice, there are basically two situations: obstructing a witness from testifying or getting others to perjure in court.

Similarly, aiding in the destruction or fabrication of evidence involves a third party helping the litigant fabricate evidence, and the criminal is the third party.

False litigation is even clearer, an added crime in the 2015 Criminal Law Amendment (IX), which requires the fabrication of facts and concealment of truth to "initiate litigation."

It targets the plaintiff's criminal responsibility.

So when you put it all together, you'll find that there's a part missing here, such as how to handle situations in civil cases where the defendant presents falsified major evidence during defense.

The defendant is the litigant, and if the litigant perjures themselves, it doesn't seem to fit the above charges.

"If you've seen all these and find they don't correspond, it means there's no clear provision in the criminal law, so we have to analyze it from another perspective."

"Don't you think this behavior is especially like a triangular fraud?"

"Triangular fraud?" Cui Zhengyu was perplexed upon hearing this, "What is triangular fraud?"

Triangular fraud, a term in criminal cases, refers to acts aimed at unlawful possession by fabricating facts or concealing truth, causing the deceived to misunderstand and consequently dispose of a third party's property.

If you don't understand, let me give an example: Zhang San impersonates a laundry shop staff and knocks on Li Si's door, claiming to wash Li Si's clothes.

Li Si's sister believes him and hands over high-end suits to Zhang San. Here, Li Si's sister is the deceived person, disposing Li Si's property, while Li Si is the victim.

Zhang San then constitutes fraud, which is a classic case of triangular fraud.

This similarly leads to litigation fraud, where the court is like Li Si's sister, rendering a judgment based on fabricated evidence in Zhang San's favor, making the court the deceived party.

However, litigation fraud is highly controversial, with a significant number of people arguing that since the court's decision is based on judicial adjudication, it should not be prosecuted as fraud.

As early as 2002, the Supreme Procuratorate issued a response: "On the Legal Application Issues Concerning the Fabrication of Evidence to Deceive the Court for Civil Judgments to Occupy Others' Property."

It stated: "For acts aimed at unlawful possession by fabricating evidence to obtain civil judgments to occupy others' property, which mainly infringe upon the normal adjudication activities of the People's Court, it should be handled according to the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law by the People's Court, and not be pursued as a criminal fraud responsibility."

This is the earliest characterization and the reason why many believe litigation fraud should not be prosecuted as fraud.

However, later the Supreme Court corrected this, because the 2015 Criminal Law added the crime of false litigation, which led to issues.

According to the provisions, fabricating evidence to sue should be considered false litigation, but before 2015, there was no such charge, and the law does not apply retroactively. So, for actions before 2015, are they just ignored?

A few days ago it was fine, but doing the same thing days later would be a crime, which is clearly inappropriate.

So the Supreme Court issued a judicial interpretation: for actions before 2015, treat them as fraud!

This fundamentally corrects the view that litigation fraud is also fraud!

Then there were those who inquired without foresight, saying that the Supreme Procuratorate in 2002 stated not to pursue it as fraud, and now you say to prosecute as fraud, who should we listen to?

In response, the Criminal Court of the Supreme Court issued a guiding case to make a determination through case guidance.

This means the response from the Supreme Procuratorate was not a judicial interpretation, and it conflicts with our current judicial interpretation, so it should not be used.

In layman's terms: what they said doesn't count; you should listen to what I say!

So you see, the theoretical and practical circles have huge disputes over this issue, with regional traditions and other factors involved, leaving no accurate statement in this area.

Let alone Cui Zhengyu, who had only been studying criminal law for a few days; even with more study, there would be no solution.

The boundary between fraud and civil deceit is inherently confused, and when reporting most cases, no case is filed; the advice is to sue.

Specifically to the case, Old Tang has studied it carefully, and he believes that Dajin Company's circumstances are too severe, so its responsibility must be pursued, not just fines.

Even if fined at the maximum rate, the Civil Procedure Law stipulates only up to one million, but how much were they short initially in this case; it's at least computed in tens of millions!