Previously, the second people's court of east chang city, in a private lending case, the plaintiff, cai chou wah, engaged a specially authorized lawyer, lin. One state handed over the altered bank transfer certificate to the court, claiming the amount of the transfer to be $100,000, which the court later found to be $10,000. As the aforementioned plaintiff and his lawyer had constituted an impediment to civil proceedings, the court imposed a fine of $30,000 on the plaintiff, cai cai hua himself, and $10,000 on his legal representative, rong-gyu。
Change bank transfer vouchers to $100,000
In recent days, the second people's court of dongqiao city held a public hearing in the case of the plaintiff, cai tsai wah, v. The defendant, one of the precision moulds of dongqiao city ltd., xu tsiao tsai, and one of the private borrowing disputes. The plaintiff, cai ohua, demanded repayment of the loan of $332,000 and interest。
In court, cai zihua was not present, and his specially authorized counsel, zhong zian, and his generally authorized paralegal, hu chi jo, were present。
On the other hand, cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai cai by 7 may 2019 however, the details of the transaction show that on 7 may 2019, cai zihua's account had a balance of $208026. 82 before it was transferred to the defendant's account, and that the balance following the transfer was $8026. 82. It can thus be inferred that the actual amount of the transfer should be $10,000 and that the transaction indicated in the transaction detail should be “-10,000. 00”, while the transaction particulars submitted to the court by one of cai china showed a marked redacted mark, which was then shown as “100000. 00”。
In the face of the judge's questioning, the complainant, zai zihua's representative, zhong zilong and hu zijo, initially insisted that the transfer should amount to $100,000 and later stated that it needed to be verified with cai zihua himself. According to hu jojo, the details of the transaction were given to hu jojo by an outsider, who was only present at the time, and which was altered when hu jo jojo obtained the details。
On the order of the court, after the conclusion of the trial, cai was present for investigation. Cai tsai wah admits that the transfer was indeed $10,000, not $100,000. According to cai zihua, the details of the transaction were placed in the car for a period of time after he had printed it in the bank and handed over to his agent, hu chi zijo, who was only present at the time and who gave the details to hu zi zijo。
Both the plaintiff and the attorney-in-law were fined
The court found that the bank transaction details in the case were important evidence in the present case, but that the evidence was clearly altered, that cai tsai hua and his agents denied that they had done so, and that csai tsai hsai had given the details of the transaction to the agent for use in the proceedings, and that his statements were contradictory and could not be reasonably explained. At the same time, the details of the transactions in question were printed from the bank, generated automatically for the system, and there was no possibility of any handwritten modification, which should be clearly known to one of the countries that was specifically authorized. However, in one country, the altered details of the transaction are still being submitted as evidence in court proceedings and the transfer is claimed to be $100,000. In conclusion, the plaintiff's actions constitute the falsification of material evidence that prevents the people's court from considering the case, and the state of cai xianhua and gong are guilty of such acts and are liable under the law。
On the basis of their standing and the extent of their conduct, the court decided to impose a fine of $30,000 on the complainant, cai chou hua himself, and $10,000 on his specially authorized lawyer, zhong zian. The above-mentioned fines were paid earlier。
[extension reading] forgery of evidence, personal fine of up to $100,000
Under the relevant provisions of the code of civil procedure, individual fines amount to less than $100,000 and unit fines range from $50,000 to less than $1 million for obstruction of civil proceedings before the people's court, for example for forgery of evidence。
Text: yoon kim-jung
