Shuai Lu Says | Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court Outbreak of Large-scale Group Petition Incident

Editor’s Note: Futian Court, without a hearing, prejudged the judgment result in advance, illegally unsealed the preserved account, resulting in a reduction of nearly 49.66 million yuan in preserved property, and 49 plaintiffs are facing the inability to execute. For this reason, dozens of plaintiffs went to the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court to petition, but have not yet received a reply from the Intermediate Court.

Figure 1

Figure 2

I. Cause: Futian Court secretly unsealed the defendant’s account, triggering dissatisfaction from the plaintiff.

Recently, dozens of case parties surrounded the Litigation Service Center of the Shenzhen Intermediate Court of Guangdong Province, shouting “Leaders come out”. The scene was once out of control. After the Intermediate Court reported the case to the public security organ, the local police station came to the scene to maintain order. (See Figures 1-2)

Li Jiang, one of the parties, told the author that they purchased the furnished apartments of the Jiahui Xincheng in Futian District and found that the originally advertised furnished apartments were actually dark rooms without windows that were divided and renovated from the shopping mall. Many owners found that they were deceived and filed a lawsuit with the Futian District People’s Court (hereinafter referred to as “Futian Court”) and applied to the court to preserve the property of Shenzhen Anbang Commercial Operation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Anbang Company”), Shenzhen Wantong Financing Guarantee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Wantong Company”), and Zhongyuan Real Estate Agency (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Zhongyuan Real Estate Company”) and other twelve defendants, with a value of 106 million yuan.

“Who knew that after the court froze the defendant’s property, it secretly unsealed the account,” Li Jiang told the author. According to the ruling of the Futian Court, the reason why the court lifted the freezing of the defendant’s property was “the preservation of property affects the operation of the enterprise”.

II. Futian Court illegally unsealed the preserved account

(I) The judge is subjective and prejudges the judgment result in advance, deviating from the fair and neutral position

The reason why the Futian Court unsealed the bank accounts of Zhongyuan Real Estate Company, Anbang Company, and Wantong Company is: the plaintiff requested to revoke the sales contract, and the legal consequences of the revocation include that each plaintiff returns the house to the seller, and the registered price of the houses involved is a total of 44.84 million yuan, so the amount of deposit replaced by Zhongyuan Real Estate Company can cover the total amount of the plaintiff’s claim. (See Figures 4-11)

However, the amount the plaintiff in this case sued the defendant for was 106 million yuan. How did the judges Zhang Lingwei, Xiao Ying, and Zeng Ming, who were in charge of hearing this case, prejudge the judgment amount to be 44.84 million yuan in advance without a hearing? The three judges prejudged the judgment result in advance, which obviously deviated from the fair and neutral position.

Li Jiang said: “We applied to the court for preservation and provided guarantees. The insurance company is responsible for the losses caused to the defendant. The court is an intermediary institution and should not stand on the defendant’s position to unseal the defendant.”

(II) The court unsealed the account without the preserved person providing equivalent guarantee property

Zhongyuan Real Estate Company only provided 56 million yuan in counter-guarantees, and could only unseal the corresponding 56 million yuan in bank deposits, but the court unsealed the bank deposits exceeding 56 million yuan, resulting in a reduction of nearly 49.66 million yuan in the preserved amount, which violated the relevant provisions of the interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law.

(III) It took multiple petitions to get the court’s unsealing ruling.

According to the civil execution ruling provided by the interviewee, the Futian Court ruled on May 24, 2023, to seize, impound, and freeze the property of Shenzhen Anbang Commercial Operation Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Wantong Financing Guarantee Co., Ltd. and other 12 defendants, totaling 106 million yuan. On June 16, it was ruled to lift the freezing of the bank accounts of Shenzhen Anbang Commercial Operation Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Wantong Financing Guarantee Co., Ltd.

However, the above-mentioned unsealing ruling has not been delivered to the plaintiff for a long time.

On July 15, 2023, 49 plaintiffs went to the Futian Court to find the president Zhan Xuwei and learned that the preserved account had been unsealed. The plaintiffs asked the court for documents, but were told that the unsealing ruling was still being “proofread”. Zhang Wenpeng, the plaintiff’s agent, told the author that the court’s documents are generally delivered to both parties in a timely manner after they are made, and the current online delivery is very fast, and there is no situation where they cannot be delivered. It is rare for the plaintiff not to be delivered for a long time. In addition, the ruling has been actually executed, and the court shall not modify or proofread it without legal procedures. The court, on the grounds that the preservation of property affects the operation of the enterprise, unsealed the preserved property without the preserved person providing an equivalent guarantee, which violates the law.

The author tried to contact the person in charge of the Futian Court, but the phone was not answered for a long time.

As of the date of the article’s publication, the Shenzhen Intermediate Court still has not arranged for relevant leaders to receive the petitioning masses. Professor Zheng Xiangyuan of Tsinghua University told the author that many rights defenders only asked to reflect the problems in their work to the relevant leaders of the Shenzhen Intermediate Court, not to talk about private matters with the leaders. As party cadres, the leaders should practice the party’s mass line and come out to listen to the opinions of the masses.

Figure 3: Group photo of some plaintiffs