Recently, a case in Shenzhen has been widely discussed online.
On December 15, 2022, Zhang Haitao, the original rotating general manager and “project leader of the urban renewal group” of Shenzhen WK, was sentenced to eight years in prison and fined 500,000 yuan by the Yantian District People’s Court of Shenzhen for the crime of “accepting bribes from non-state personnel”; Zhang Haitao refused to accept the verdict and appealed to the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court, which upheld the original judgment; Zhang Haitao appealed to the Guangdong Provincial Higher People’s Court, which rejected the appeal; at this point, the case seemed to be settled, and there was no possibility of overturning the verdict. However, Hu Dingfeng, the defense lawyer in this case, firmly stated: “This case is a case of innocence, and the defendant’s conviction has other major hidden facts.”
Why does the lawyer insist that it is a “case of innocence”?
According to online disclosures, the original first and second instance courts determined that the defendant Zhang Haitao “accepted bribes in the name of borrowing.” Among them, he accepted bribes of 5 million yuan from Zheng Moucheng on nine occasions; he extorted 4 million yuan from Ji Mou on two occasions; and he extorted 2 million yuan from Huang Moufa on one occasion, totaling 11 million yuan. However, the amount alleged by the prosecution was 12.85 million yuan, of which 6.85 million yuan was accepted from Zheng Moucheng.
Hu Dingfeng, the defense lawyer in the case, said: “The original first and second instance courts reversed black and white and turned a blind eye to the evidence that could prove innocence.” He believes that: the “loan” between the defendant Zhang Haitao and Zheng Moucheng was on August 15, 2018. The defendant Zhang Haitao entrusted his secretary Pan Mouyu to conduct an account reconciliation with the company’s financial personnel appointed by Zheng Moucheng, and made a “Loan Expense Statistics Table” in chronological order. After being confirmed by the defendant and Zheng Moucheng, Pan Mouyu, according to Zheng Moucheng’s request, issued a summary “IOU” with a loan amount of 5.75 million yuan under the “Loan Expense Statistics Table”, and handed this summary “IOU” to the company’s financial personnel appointed by Zheng Moucheng. Moreover, the loan of this summary “IOU” has been fully repaid with principal and interest in December 2020.
Lawyer Hu Dingfeng said: “If it is bribery, who would be so stupid as to sit down and reconcile the amount of the bribe? If it is bribery, who would be so stupid as to make a ‘Loan Expense Statistics Table’? If it is bribery, who would be so stupid as to write a summary IOU? If it is bribery, who would be so stupid as to let a third party witness?”
Lawyer Hu Dingfeng believes: “All bribery is carried out in secret, which obviously does not conform to common sense!”
Evidence leaked online shows: On May 21, 2018, Zheng Moucheng’s daughter Zheng Moumou sent a WeChat message to Zhang Haitao’s secretary Pan Mouyu, “I’m going to get that 100,000 IOU”, and Pan Mouyu replied “Okay”. At 09:51 am on August 15, 2018, Zheng Moucheng’s daughter sent a WeChat message to Zheng Moucheng, “Dad, say write a summary IOU”. At the same time, Zheng Moucheng’s daughter sent a WeChat message to Pan Mouyu, and Pan Mouyu replied: “Received, I’ll write the IOU and send it to you…”
Lawyer Hu Dingfeng pointed out that it is not difficult to see from the above evidence that the relationship between the two parties is a real loan relationship.
Lawyer Hu Dingfeng also said: During the trial of the case, he had repeatedly applied for judicial appraisal of the time when the summary “IOU” was formed, and had also repeatedly applied for witnesses to appear in court to testify, but the court did not accept them. The court neither made a judicial appraisal of these original vouchers nor agreed to the witnesses appearing in court to testify, cutting off the head and tail, reversing black and white, and the result can be imagined, innocence will also become guilt!”
At the same time, Lawyer Hu Dingfeng also said: “After the defendant Zheng Moucheng was criminally detained, Zheng Moucheng’s family found the original copies of the ‘Loan Expense Statistics Table’ and ‘IOU’ in the company’s financial room, along with the WeChat records at the time, and submitted them as evidence to the investigators of the Shenzhen Public Security Bureau. The investigators immediately summoned Pan Mouyu and made a ‘Questioning Record’ on the matter of the summary ‘IOU’. However, this important witness testimony was not transferred with the file.”
Lawyer Hu Dingfeng pointed out: Why didn’t the judicial appraisal of the formation time of the ‘IOU’ be conducted? Why wasn’t the testimony of important witnesses transferred with the file? What exactly is being hidden? Or what is being covered up? Perhaps the bribery was originally “non-existent”?
Why does the lawyer believe that the “facts are seriously misidentified”?
Lawyer Hu Dingfeng said: “After the second instance ruling of the case, the informant W K company itself issued a ‘Statement of Circumstances’, the content of which proves that Zhang Haitao did not violate regulations in business approval, nor did he seek benefits for the lender, and the original judgment made a major error in the identification of the key facts of this case.”
Two pieces of information revealed online also make the case identification questionable:
1. Regarding the fact that the lender Zheng Decheng’s Yucan Company undertook the urban village renovation project of Wancun and Boyu, W K did not pay Yucan Company 100% of the project progress payment in advance. The contract price of the project was 11.26 million yuan, and the actual settlement amount was 10.88 million yuan. The first payment of 6.5 million yuan was requested on November 28, 2018, and the actual payment was 5.525 million yuan. Later, W K paid four more payments for the project. As of December 31, 2020, W K had only paid a total of 9.697 million yuan in project progress payments. If 100% was reached in the first request for payment in 2018, how could subsequent payments continue? The original judgment determined that Zhang Haitao had paid Yucan Company 100% of the project progress payment in advance, which was purely fabricated.
2. Regarding the situation of Shenzhen Zhentong Engineering Co., Ltd. undertaking the WK project. The ‘Statement of Circumstances’ shows that: Zhentong Company was the group procurement unit of Shenzhen W K from 2012 to 2014. The ‘Shenzhen W K 2012-2014 Aluminum Alloy Engineering Centralized Procurement Agreement’ signed by both parties was approved and signed by the original procurement decision-making committee members of Shenzhen Company and the then general manager Zhou Mou, which has nothing to do with Zhang Haitao. Regarding the signing of contracts and the performance of contracts by Hongtaida Company, where the lender Huang Moufa is located. The ‘Statement of Circumstances’ shows:
① The demolition engineering contract of Shangjiao Ring Old Town signed in 2016 adopted direct entrustment, and this contract was stamped with the seal of the then legal person of the company, Zhou Tong;
② On June 15, 2014, the property management service contract of the Huilongpu Old Town renovation project, the process shows that the approver and decision-maker was Fan Mou;
③ On November 1, 2019, the contract for the demolition of houses in the Shangjiao Ring Village Old Town renovation project was signed, adopting direct entrustment, and the final approver and decision-maker was Cai Moujin.
Lawyer Hu Dingfeng believes: Why are all the things attributed to Zhang Haitao? Isn’t it a case of adding a crime and finding a reason?
Lawyer Hu Dingfeng said, “The above new evidence can all show that the original judgment seriously misidentified the facts, which has a significant impact on the case’s nature and handling conclusions. The defendant Zhang Haitao submitted the above new evidence when appealing to the Guangdong Provincial Higher People’s Court, but unfortunately, the Guangdong High Court did not hold a hearing on the above new evidence during the appeal review, nor did it make any evaluation.”
Why does the lawyer believe that “there are other major hidden facts in the case”?
Lawyer Hu Dingfeng said, “There are other major hidden facts behind the case. The reason why Zhang Haitao is in prison is that some people want him to shut up. He is a witness to the whistleblower’s crime of suspected huge bribery.”
Lawyer Hu Dingfeng pointed out: What is puzzling in this case is that Zhang Haitao had already returned all the loans to the lender and paid the corresponding interest. Why can’t this civil lending legal relationship be protected by law? In this case, neither the lender nor the defendant admits to bribery. I don’t know how such a “bribery transaction” was judged as an “iron case”? Why wasn’t the ‘Questioning Record’ made by the public security organs for important witnesses transferred with the file? Why were the defense’s multiple applications for witnesses to appear in court to testify and multiple applications for judicial appraisal of the ‘IOU’ rejected by the court time and time again?
Lawyer Hu Dingfeng’s series of questions have caused waves in the legal circles. During the trial of this case, Chen Weidong, Che Hao, Wang Haiyan, Li Fenfei and other well-known criminal law experts from all over the country held an expert demonstration meeting to study and demonstrate this case, and unanimously agreed: “The facts of this case are unclear and the evidence is insufficient.”
The conclusions of the legal experts on the case seem to indicate that the court judged “borrowing as bribery”, leading the law to be covered with an invisible cloak of “fairness and justice”!
If this kind of “invisible cloak” is allowed to run rampant, not only will social fairness and justice be seriously desecrated, but it will also cause deep disasters to the parties involved in the case. For society, it will evolve into a disaster that everyone can hardly escape!
Online search: Lawyer Hu Dingfeng, a native of Xiangyin, Hunan, a practicing lawyer at Guangdong Suihong Law Firm, is known for his “daring to speak, daring to think, and daring to do”. He was widely praised by society for representing the “Tan Qindong case”!
Discover more from 自由档案馆
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.