Jiang Jian suspected major issue false documents against the case in the criminal complaint

Wang Silu lawyers handling cases

Jiang Jian suspected major issue false documents against the case

The criminal complaint

The appellant: Jiang Jian, male, 19XX year XX month XX day of birth, the Han nationality, a city in Hunan Province, bachelor's degree, Guangdong Province, Guangzhou City, Yuexiu District, home of a road, a number of a room. For suspected major issue false documents crimes in April 23, 2012 by the Yuexiu District people's Court of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province sentenced to major issue false documents crimes, may be exempted from criminal punishment.

Defenders: Wang Silu (Guangzhou), Beijing City Yingke Law Firm

The appellant disagrees with Guangdong Province Guangzhou city Yuexiu District people's court in April 23, 2012 sentenced (2011) ear more punishment at the beginning of the word no. 980th criminal judgments, it is unclear in fact finding, erroneous application of the law, illegal procedure, especially to appeal, request your hospital trial and removed a judgment, appeal people commuted innocence.

The facts and reasons:

Decision from this paper, can clearly see the conviction thinking a trial:

The seal appears in conjunction word commentary reported [2007] 746th, "American wilderness company Kuogu capital project asset evaluation report" (hereinafter referred to as "in the assessment report"), therefore the appellant in issued the documents work; and "assessment report" the right to the use of 1000 acres of land America in the "inventory" a, so as to "significant inaccuracies"; and the 1000 acres of land assessment price is 68910000 yuan, cause state-owned assets undervalued, the American wilderness company is from Shenzhen Everbright Wah holdings, because this is "serious consequences".A judgment accordingly finds appeals made major issue false documents crimes.

This sentence, is the court "compromise", "harmony" of the sentence, conviction for the prosecution to step down, exemption from punishment in order not to affect the appeal people work.

The appeal for helpCourtFind out the facts of the case, the appellant and complete picture of the facts of the case:

In 2007 November, Guangdong America country villa development limited company intends to introduce investors, will be registered capital increased from 10000000 yuan to 50000000 yuan. In the Assets Appraisal Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Zhonglian company) by the Dongying Daming home development limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as the Daming company commissioned its holdings), Guangdong America country villa development Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the American wilderness company) capital and related assets and liabilities share issues related to assets assessment. The project is in the Assets Appraisal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as South South Branch) person in charge Fu Moudong develops and full charge, and by the project manager Liu Xuan specifically. Liu Xuan this is not certified asset appraiser qualification, unable to bear the assets assessment responsibility, but in the southern branch of the responsible person Fu Moudong let Liu Xuan wrote the draft report. The appellant is asset appraiser, but did not know about it, did not expect the report has used the seal of the appellant, report signature but also for other people take the signed.

In December 8, 2007, the company issued in the commentary report word [2007] 746th, "American wilderness company Kuogu capital project asset evaluation report", the right to the use of 1000 acres of land and American companies into the "inventory" of a, 1000 acres of land assessment price assessment report was given 68910000 yuan.

Later, the appellant to public security organs to reflect the situation, that he was not involved in the work related to Assets Appraisal Co. Ltd. of South Branch issued the "evaluation report", and cooperate with the investigation.

However, Yuexiu District's Procuratorate to the assessment report "assets" by American company 1000 acres of land prices are artificially reduce the "serious consequences" on the grounds, accused the appellant and Liu Xuan suspected of major issue false documents crimes.

More surprisingly, a judgment was made that the major issue false documents crimes, may be exempted from criminal punishment.

Many authoritative media, the case caused widespread concern in the community. After a trial, as you can see, the unfair judgment, the victim is not only the appellant, and China valuers and valuation the division. This is Chinese assessment industry practitioners of sorrow. The lawsuit success isn't the appellant's fate, assessment of the community of practitioners improve the environment, has the special significance of promoting social progress!

The concrete facts and reasons are as follows:

A, a judgment in fact that is not clear, the evidence is insufficient problem.

First, a judgment that "the report is the defendant Liu Xuan based on incomplete information, on the basis of the audit report no number of case preparation, and will be issued by the Guangzhou city land resources and Housing Management Bureau Luogang branch of Guangdong" American wilderness villa development Co., idle land survey in Guangdong "notice" American country villa development Co. Ltd. of idle land "investigation notice, the notice" investigation "this key word removal, so it can be found that the report has significant inaccuracies" (see [2012] ear more punishment at the beginning of the word no. 980th criminal judgments page thirteenth line thirteenth), belong to the facts are not clear.

In the case of complaint that the report is highly inconsistent with the facts, only basis is "issued by the Guangzhou city land resources and Housing Authority spike real investigation complex characters [2010] Document No. 234Th," but a trial avoidance evidence and problems of this key, but "according to the certificate issued by the Guangzhou city land resources and housing administration, confirmed the benchmark price of land in August 30, 2007 300500000 yuan" (see [2012] ear more punishment at the beginning of the word no. 980th criminal judgments page second line twenty-first), that the "report" invalid evidence key evidence of significant inaccuracies of unknown origin.

According to the Ministry of public security, the Ministry of Finance jointly issued the "on the strengthening of cooperation in the investigation of economic crime case notification" (the public and pass the word [2005] No. 20) provides that: "in view of accounting, audit, assessment business professional strong, is conducive to the public security organ quasi deterministic on the facts of the case, the Ministry of public security and negotiation the Ministry of finance to establish professional technical appraisal mechanism, specific work shall be undertaken by the China Association of certified public accountants and China Asset Evaluation Association, set up an expert database, the Commission according to the public security organs or the appellant, from selection personnel experts in the composition of professional technical appraisal team, provide expert opinion on Relevant Issues concerning economic cases in the. The identification of the work rules shall be formulated separately. The provincial public security organs and the financial departments may establish corresponding professional technical appraisal mechanism."Guangzhou Guotufangguan Bureau as a government department, its main duty is to the city's state-owned land planning, land expropriation, transfer of state management and relevant estate development all matters relating to land and resources. Check the relevant laws and regulations as the Department in China, are not found to have any law which endows Guotufangguan Board may carry on the appraisal to the land asset price.

The judgment of first instance lack important basis to judge the report lists the evaluation report, only in the presence of omission, ignoring the professional technical appraisal mechanism according to state regulations established Chinese Asset Evaluation Association "on the" Guangdong America country villa development Co. Ltd. Kuogu capital projects to the asset appraisal report "expert opinion is:...... The evaluation report on the case, the corresponding evaluation results, found no violation of evaluation standard of matters, but there are not enough problems of disclosure." Guangdong province finance hall ", and" about the advisory assets assessment question reply "reply is: three, in the Assets Appraisal Co., in business engagement within the scope of evaluation, evaluation, to issue an assets assessment report (ISBN: in the commentary report word [2007] Report No. 746th). Assessment procedures consistent with the evaluation criteria, the basic method for evaluating the basic right." "It can be identified, made the report significant false" is not correct.

Second, a judgment that "the assessment report will land into the 'stock' of accounting, but not into the 'land use' evaluation, evaluation report based on the use of land, will inevitably lead to underestimate the value of the assets of the company, and the American wilderness infringed on expansion unit process, evaluation report issued later, have been used for commissioned units and other units on the capital of a series of activities, the actual effect has been produced, it can be found that the assessment report serious consequences" (see [2012] ear more punishment at the beginning of the word no. 980th criminal judgments page thirteenth line twentieth), but it is unclear facts.The "evaluation report" and without prejudice to any investor, the legitimate rights and interests of shareholders, nor any evidence to prove that the serious consequences caused significant loss, serious consequences in fact did not cause significant damage, the first trial report about serious consequences that is wrong.

1 "assessment report" the land included in the "inventory" instead of "land use rights" assessment, itself is according to the assessment requirements. According to the accounting system of the real estate development enterprise by the Ministry of Finance promulgated the "Republic of China" (the word (1993) and No. 2) subject -- the subjects of accounting of intangible assets "161st enterprise patent right, non patent technology, trademark, copyright, land use rights, goodwill and other intangible assets...... Enterprises for real estate development to obtain land use rights, the payment of land leasing, in "development costs" (i.e. "inventory") account, not the subject ("intangible assets") accounting." Because in the enterprises for real estate development enterprises, the accounting and evaluation must execute the provisions.

2 we can Guangdong America country villa development limited company enterprise information center contrast in June 29, 2010, Guangzhou City Administration of industry and commerce registration basic information, the following shareholders of the company:

1) amount of investment in Heyuan city of Shambhala ecological resources development limited company: 100.0000 the proportion of investment capital of 10% ways: monetary

2) Dongying Daming home development limited liability company investment amount: 900.0000 the proportion of investment capital of 90% ways: monetary

The amount of capital contribution in the above unit: million

The company's registered capital of:

Registered capital: 1000 unit: million

Paid in capital: 1000 unit: million

3 obviously, we can find that the American wilderness the shareholders of the company is still the Daming company (holding 90% of the shares) and Heyuan city of Shambhala company (holding 10% of the shares), no Everbright Wah Investment Limited company 72% equity Shenzhen City, also is the American wilderness company has never been economic behavior, increase endowment spread so, the serious consequences that how to cause significant loss?

Third, a judgment that "the defendant Jiang Jian also will assess the division signet on Fu Moudong, to issue the report as" (see [2012] ear more punishment at the beginning of the word no. 980th criminal judgments page fourteenth line ninth), but it is unclear facts.The fact that the report is in the Beijing general company, is there anyone on the appellant without the knowledge of the situation in the assessment report on the use of the appellant stored in the Beijing company appraisers signet.

Liu Bin confirmed witness testimony: "in the company report custom is Corporation will leave blank paper cover company from legal signature in the branch, branch when used for registration. Issued the report is obviously not in conformity with the convention".

The southern branch of the evaluation report issued for the signature page must be registered, and the registration of the branch in the South could not find this report for the record.

The appellant's statement confirmed: "Jiang Jian in 2010 July listen a Hui said, the report is sent from Beijing has signed report" "then I asked Su Cheng, deputy general manager, Sue always said this is the corporation who signed, will not appear this kind of circumstance" (thirteen forty-five to eighteen fifteen on March 14, 2011, Guangzhou Municipal Public Security Bureau Detectation detachment to Jiang Jian interrogation record fifth pages).

Branch in the south, only the appellant and Zhang Sha appraiser is registered in Beijing city. The appellant and Zhang Sha appraiser seal has two sets: in the South Branch has one, by Fu Moudong and the person in charge of Finance custody; while in the company of Beijing Zhonglian company also has a set of. Two sets of appraiser seal font is different, in the evaluation report is the appraiser seal by the Beijing custody of the.

Two, a trial of erroneous application of the law.

The Appellant was "criminal law" the 229th paragraph third of the "major issue false documents crimes".This clause is specified as:"...... The provisions of the first paragraph of the staff, seriously irresponsible, issued documents have significant inaccuracies, resulting in serious consequences, is less than three years imprisonment or criminal detention, or be fined."

The appellant's behavior whether to conform to the crime constitution, can be viewed from three aspects: first, there is no document issued by the behavior; second, the document content is significant inaccuracies; third, whether to cause serious consequences.

First, the appellant did not produce documents behavior.

The appellant did not first document issued by the behavior of the: the appellant did not specifically to do "assessment report" project, for the following reasons:

In 2007 November, Assets Appraisal Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as CUCBM) by the Dongying Daming home development limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as the Daming company commissioned its holdings), Guangdong America country villa development Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the American wilderness company) capital increase Kuogu matters related assets and liabilities to assets evaluation work, and in December 8, 2007 issued the "evaluation report.".

The project is in the Assets Appraisal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as South South Branch) person in charge Fu Moudong develops and full charge, and by the project manager Liu Xuan specifically.

In the interrogation record of Liu Xuan's the admitted his "participated in the asset evaluation" Guangdong America country villa development Co. Ltd., also made it clear that Fu Moudong arranged for him to do. (see March 10, 2011 twelve forty-five to twenty-three ten, Guangzhou City Public Security Bureau Detectation detachment on the Liu Xuan inquiry record second, page 3)

Liu Xuan as the project manager, the "evaluation of specific assessment report" project, including the collection of relevant information, on-site investigation, and trust companies and other Associate Company staff interviews, assessment methods, assessment procedures, preparation, modification of performance reports, he is doing in the Fu Moudong, under the guidance of Luo Mouzhi.

His record of inquiry:

In Liu Xuan's record in the said:

"Fu Moudong is in the night before I go to call to tell me that this business, ask me to help to collect relevant information about this business." (see March 10, 2011 twelve forty-five to twenty-three ten, Guangzhou City Public Security Bureau Detectation detachment on the Liu Xuan inquiry record third pages

"Do not use income approach and market approach in preparing the assessment report verified mainly communicate with Fu Moudong and Luo Mouzhi, put forward their views."

"The report which views are Fu Moudong and Luo Mouzhi's opinion, the audit report including the assessment method, the existence of the problem, the disclosure of the land." (see March 10, 2011 twelve forty-five to twenty-three ten, Guangzhou City Public Security Bureau Detectation detachment on the Liu Xuan inquiry record ninth, page 11)

Transcripts of interrogation, interrogation record in Liu Xuan, he never mentioned that Fu Moudong has arranged the appellant orgnaization of this project together with him, never mention the appellant in this project done what specific assessment, guidance for what he did.And, in the trial of Liu Xuan when asked whether the appellant knew, directed him to do the report, he replied that: "I remember in a chat with him when he talked about, but he did not instruct me, he's not my boss, I needn't be responsible for him, I is responsible for Fu Moudong"

This also can be directly confirmed Jiang Jian following this passage:

"American company intends to assets assessment Kuogu capital projects, to understand the situation, the company commissioned to assess the scene investigation, scene investigation, preparation of working papers and the report is finalized I didn't participate in, only in the verification stage I forget not involved in." (see May 10, 2011 9 0 to ten forty, Guangzhou City Public Security Bureau preliminary three brigade to Jiang Jian interrogation record first pages)

Therefore, in the "evaluation report" specific handling work, the appellant did not participate in the fact is clear, the evidence is sufficient.

The appellant did not issue a second question documents behaviorThere is no evidence: the Appellant had reviewed the "evaluation report.".

The appellant to do "specific assessment assessment report" is clear, but in whether auditing "assessment report", the appellant has not remember.

The appellant's interrogation record in more than one said, "the assessment report" "I did not participate in the assessment, but to review the report, due to a long time, I don't remember not participating in the examination." (see April 14, 2011 fourteen thirty to sixteen thirty, Guangzhou City Public Security Bureau preliminary three brigade to Jiang Jian interrogation record second pages)

The defendant Liu Xuan's record of inquiry, the transcripts of interrogation about whether the appellant has approved the "evaluation report" is just what Liu Xuan did according to the company's management system of individual speculative opinions, with great uncertainty and subjectivity.

On whether there is a review of the "evaluation report", Liu Xuan said: "as for Luo Mouzhi there is no examination I don't remember, but from the procedure should be after Luo Mouzhi and Jiang Jian" (see March 10, 2011 twelve forty-five to twenty-three ten, Guangzhou City Public Security Bureau Detectation detachment of Liu Xuan inquiry record tenth, page 11)

The appellant requestsAppealThe court noted, "from the procedure should be after Luo Mouzhi and Jiang Jian's" belongs to a conjectural judgments. Since it is not Liu Xuan's own perception, so in judgment, after the Luo Mouzhi review, or through the audit, or two individuals are reviewed, Liu Xuan cannot be determined. On whether the Appellant had a review on this issue, Liu Xuan's record of inquiry, the interrogation record is that the uncertainty representation.

In the interrogation record the witness of Luo Mouzhi, he also hold that the same expression:

"Assessment report" "concrete is responsible by Liu Xuan, I did not participate in the report, the audit process specific intermediate who participate in to ask Liu Xuan." also showed him to the appellant whether to participate in the review stage and report stage is not clear. (see eleven twenty on March 9, 2011 to 13 of 0 Guangzhou City Public Security Bureau Detectation detachment on the Luo Mouzhi inquiry record fourth pages)

"Jiang Jianyou in the" evaluation report "report...... Should be in the review stage, is also in 2007 November "(see eleven thirty on March 11, 2011 to 20 0 points, Guangzhou City Public Security Bureau Detectation detachment a brigade to Luo Mouzhi interrogation record) indicating that the witness Luo Mouzhi on whether the appellant in answer is contradictory in different time, this testimony is not reliable, shall be excluded.

According to the "Regulations on handling death penalty cases reviewed to determine the" evidence problems twelfth provisions of the third paragraph: "the speculation, commentary, inferential testimony, can not be used as evidence, but according to the general life experience judgment except in accordance with the facts." (according to the relevant judicial interpretations: "for other criminal cases," a reference to handling death penalty cases the judge to review evidence several provisions of the "execution")

Witness testimony is published content shall not exceed the scope of self perceived, but made the case based on their perception of the speculative, inferential testimony, if consistent with the general experience of life then it can be used as evidence in accordance with the law. Specific to the case, the witness Luo Mouzhi about the appellant audit "assessment report" testimony is not his own perception about what he is, based on the fact to judge the appellant to review the report, the appellant has he had any instructions in the transcripts of interrogation. Accordingly, he related this testimony is beyond the circumstances of the case, its perceived lack of rationality, obviously belong to the inferential statements, in accordance with the law can not be used as evidence.

Therefore, the appellant whether auditing "assessment report" fact is not clear, the evidence is not really good.

The appellant did not issue a third question documents behavior: the South Branch of "assessment report" project fees reasonable. At the same time, the appellant did not obtain any benefit in "assessment report" project, this point can be directly prove that the appellant did not handling, reviewed the report.

"Assessment report" assessment of the project cost is 150000 yuan, the South Branch strictly in accordance with the provisions of assets related to the assessment fees charged by the industry.

The South Branch provides the American wilderness villa project person in charge payment issue (2008 March) for table that the project return is Liu Xuan. This can prove that the project is the project manager Liu Xuan undertakes not to appeal people. The testimony of witnesses Liu Junhong also proved that the appellant did not get any benefits such as signature, such as payment for the project from the project.

Interrogation record of Confederate branch accounting witness Liu Junhong she said: "because the company's payroll table I to do, the project finished, only Liu Xuan and the house of an Hui to money, which Liu Xuan received the project manager to pay 5570 yuan", "Jiang Jian did not pass the assessment project for return" (see March 9, 2011 fourteen thirty to sixteen ten, Guangzhou City Public Security Bureau Detectation detachment on the Liu Junhong inquiry record second, page 4)

The person in charge of the project payment issued statement and the testimony of witnesses Liu Junhong also happens to confirm the appellant goes as follows:

"I didn't get any benefits in the business." (see May 10, 2011 9 0 to ten forty, Guangzhou City Public Security Bureau Detectation detachment three brigade of the pre-trial Jiang sword interrogation record sixth pages), is also the appellant did not receive any payment or benefit from the project, and according to the provisions of the company, to do projects and audit should obtain project payment.

She also said that one of the key points in the record of inquiry to witness Liu Junhong: "in the South Branch of the capital dominated by Fu Moudong say", "we is according to Fu Moudong 'signature of the person in charge of the project return distribution table' or 'project labor payment table' issued specific remuneration." That is, if it is Fu Moudong arranged the appellant orgnaization, audit "assessment report" project, that Fu Moudong should be sent to the appellant project returns, but no Fu Moudong in fact. This point can also be indirect evidence that Fu Moudong did not arrange the appellant is responsible for this project.

Therefore, the appellant did not do "the evaluation of specific assessment report" project is certain, the appellant also get any revenue is not from the "assessment report" project, and whether the audit the report is unclear facts, there is no evidence that the audited.

The appellant did not issue a fourth question documents behaviorA: the signature problem.

"Guangzhou City, the Public Security Bureau Criminal Technology inspection identification book" (SUI Gong by the technical literature retrieval word (2011) No. eighteenth) of the appraisal conclusion shows: "" evaluation report on "badging signature 'Jiang sword' handwriting is not the same person wrote." That Jiang Jian was not in the "evaluation report" personally signed confirmation.

The appellant's interrogation record has also repeatedly said explicitly that "assessment report" on the signature is not signed by the appellant. In 2007 November, our company "(in the Assets Appraisal Co. Ltd. of South Branch) the boss called me to say, he went to Shandong to develop real estate development company limited under the Ming Dynasty Guangdong America country villa development co....... The assets appraisal Kuogu capital, then I don't know whether to accept. In 2010 7 early, Fu Moudong...... I'm prepared to Assets Appraisal Association responses and accept the expert inquiry, I let Fu Moudong take the report to me...... Find certified asset appraiser this report is my name and my certified asset appraiser cover the reputation, I to he said, the report is not I signed it, why want to let me go response (then I know my company to undertake the business, and I company general manager Liu Xuan specifically to do) "(see April 14, 2011 fourteen thirty to sixteen thirty, Guangzhou City Public Security Bureau preliminary three brigade to Jiang Jian interrogation record third pages).

The appellant said the name was taking things from the same sign, be in "assessment report" on the record of inquiry at the signature Zhang sand also has been confirmed: "I was in 2010 December in the company of Jiang Jian told me that the report is a call Liu Xuan staff to do the above, signature is not his and I signed, because is the cover him and my certified appraiser chapter, so let me know." (see February 28, 2011 thirteen fifty to seventeen thirty-five, Guangzhou City Public Security Bureau Detectation detachment of Zhang Sha inquiry record second pages

The appellant did not issue a fifth question documents behaviorAbout signet: (Yin Jian) problem.

The appellant has a total of two sets of seals: in the South Branch has one, by Fu Moudong and the person in charge of Finance custody, while in the company of Beijing Zhonglian company also has a. According to the Union and the South Branch of the provisions, seal shall be borne by the company unified certified appraiser custody, this is the appellant company against risk assessment practices, but this does not mean that the appellant at Licensing companies can use the appellant's reputation, if the company is to use v. person Sizhang, must be agreed by the appellant I, this is also the provisions the appellant company.

The testimony of witnesses Luo Mouzhi says: "if you use these Sizhang, must I consent to use the provisions of this chapter, is also the company." (see March 9, 2011 eighteen forty-five to nineteen forty, Guangzhou City Public Security Bureau Detectation detachment on the Luo Mouzhi inquiry record first, page 2)

Witnesses Zhang Sha testimony also explain that this: "work for a branch in China South, if want to use my personal seal it, should I read and agreed to cover my signet" (see March 4, 2011 11 05 to twelve thirty, Guangzhou City Public Security Bureau Detectation detachment to Zhang Mousha interrogation record the second page

Therefore, the two witness testimony that the same problem, seal for safekeeping by the company, but in the use of prescribed by the company must obtain consent before they can use. The appellant in interrogation record never said the appellant there are free to authorize others to use the appellant's reputation, nor is there any evidence to prove that the appellant authorize others to use the "evaluation report".

The appellant did not document issued by the behavior of this issue, the appellant now make a summary: in this case, issued the "whole process assessment report", which specifically, audit, signed, sealed, the Appellant was not involved does not know, facts and evidence are reflected the fundamental no document issued by the behavior. In this form the first elements of objective elements -- document issued by the behavior does not exist.

In fact, the valuation report must be approved by the three level after the audit, theThe legal representative of the report issued by the consent signature.Liu Bin for the three audit report, "was found in the evaluation process, the evaluation personnel not to Southern Co American wilderness company valuation of land out of consideration, is a fault. Liu Xuan put forward a variety of evidence to explain the situation to him, to persuade him, after three or four amendments, the 746th report by his review, the legal consent signature issue." This report is issued by the Liu Bin review, has been revised many times until Liu Bin satisfaction, but also by the general legal representative of the company to Shen Qi signature issued. It is said that the final report is issued by the 746 reflects the reviewer Liu Bin and Shen Qi is the legal representative of the evaluation opinions, not just the South Branch of the assessment staff opinions. And evaluation of law: where China domestic practice of assets evaluation agencies, to accept the customer request, issued by the post project evaluation of the completion of the asset appraisal report, assets appraisal institutions should be the legal representative (as a partner, the partnership mechanism referred to as partners) and at least two certified asset appraisers signature. Without the asset appraisal institution legal person (partner) and certified asset appraiser signed assets assessment report is invalid report. The asset appraisal institution legal person (partner) book assets assessment report of CPV in the institutions signed a clear audit opinion signed signature, asset evaluation institutions to undertake the legal liability.

Therefore, Step back and say, even if the appeal people to participate in the "evaluation report" project work, and "evaluation report issued" is the representative behavior units, while the prosecution not accused of unit crime, but only charges the appellant, men suspected of major issue false documents crimes, this is notMethodPerversely.

Second, "assessment report" did not in fact exist significant inaccuracies.

The "evaluation report" doesn't exist in the first major problems of inconsistent with the factsA: "assessment report" conformity assessment procedures, assessment method is correct, the assessment results if there is a major problem of distortion.

The so-called significant inaccuracies, refers to the document content is false, there is great discrepancy with the actual situation. In the case of "assessment report" by the case handling organ professional technical appraisal mechanism according to the provisions of the state formally commissioned the appraisal institutions are legally entitled to experts, expert opinion that certification "assessment report" does not exist significant inaccuracies problem.

Asset appraisal is a highly professional industry, asset appraisal company issued assessment report is false not by subjective judgment most probably it did not actually happen to our own understanding, cognition. All without exception in the case of the investigators, the defender. Because the "evaluation report" the existence of false professional cognition of legal person has exceeded the scope, identification of institutions through the legitimate right to whether out of practice necessary for identification, particularly in relation to the case of the economic crimes are thus more cases. But the existing on this issue to make corresponding provisions of relevant laws and regulations:

In April 25, 2005, the Ministry of public security, the Ministry of Finance jointly issued the "on the strengthening of cooperation in the investigation of economic crime case notification" (the public and pass the word [2005] 20) the provisions of article third:"In view of accounting, audit, assessment business professional strong, is conducive to the public security organ of the facts of the case to determine the nature of the Ministry of public security and the Ministry of finance, negotiating a professional technical appraisal mechanism, specific work shall be undertaken by the China Association of certified public accountants and China asset Evaluation Association, set up an expert database, the Commission according to the public security organs or the parties, from selected personnel experts in professional and technical expert team, provide expert opinion on Relevant Issues concerning economic cases in the.The identification of the work rules shall be formulated separately. The provincial public security organs and the financial departments may establish corresponding professional technical appraisal mechanism."

In this case, the case handling organ shall follow the relevant provisions have been aware of the file, the "assessment report" has brought to the Guangdong Provincial Department of Finance (which commissioned the Guangdong Province Asset Evaluation Association), Chinese Asset Evaluation Association of the expert authentication, the two Evaluation Association experts say "not" assessment report there are significant inaccuracy problems with authentication, opinions are as follows:

Guangdong province finance hall "on the advisory assets assessment question reply reply is":

"Three, in the Assets Appraisal Co., in business engagement within the scope of evaluation, evaluation, to issue an assets assessment report (ISBN: in the commentary report word [2007] Report No. 746th). Assessment procedures consistent with the evaluation criteria, the basic method for evaluating the basic right."

China Asset Evaluation Association about "Guangdong America country villa development Co. Ltd. Kuogu capital projects to the asset appraisal report" expert opinion is:

"Question five: in the Southern Branch issued an assessment report is in accordance with the procedures, reference evaluation method is correct, the results are just, true, reasonable.

Expert group thinks:

1. From the report show content and papers, institutions to assess the staff on November 16, 2007 to 18 days on-site inventory, from the above information, no assessment agencies assessment business in violation of the program evaluation standards.

The 2 assessment report on the evaluation method is analyzed, using the asset based approach is more appropriate way, in accordance with the current evaluation criteria.

3 according to the existing data, the assessment of land within the enterprise that has not obtained, and provide effective "use of land", to confirm the validity of the ownership of the land legally.

The evaluation report on the case, the corresponding evaluation results, found no violation of evaluation standard of matters, but there are not enough problems of disclosure."

According to the expert authentication opinions Guangdong province finance hall and China Asset Evaluation Association has done, "assessment report" evaluation program compliance, appropriate assessment method, assessment results are not found to have violated the standard items, namely basic does not exist in any assessment of severe problem of distortion. As for the China Appraisal Society mentioned "disclosure" insufficient refers to the report used for content understanding is necessary to explain, is because we need to evaluate the matters more explanation, namely the disclosure is not sufficient, it is only effective in understanding to report, but not "assessment report" evaluation program, assessment methods and results in error.

Professional technical appraisal mechanism according to state regulations established, expert authentication opinions China Asset Evaluation Association and Guangdong Province issued by the "Association for the evaluation of the assessment report", in the proof of "assessment report" does not exist significant misrepresentation of the facts are objective, which is the most authoritative and evidence effect.

The "evaluation report" does not exist second major facts:Spike in real investigation of multi word [2010] No. 234Th "letters" attachments "that"Benchmark premium views(in fact, the Guangzhou city land resources and housing authority found that the spike in real investigation of multi word [2010] No. 234Th "letters" attachments "that" is notTheIssue, detailed below.)Not judging "assessment report" is a major problem on the basis of facts.

The so-called documentary evidence refers to the contents of the document and reflects the thought to prove the true circumstances of a case of written material or other material. Prosecutors will be invalidSpike in real investigation of multi word [2010] No. 234Th "letters" attachments "that"As the documentary evidence to prove that the price of land, as of the base date in the land for 300500000 yuan. But the benchmark land price and date "assessment report" in land assessment price is completely different in content and quantity, because the prerequisite conditions for this benchmark land price assessment report "and" assessment of the land is completely different, the benchmark land price assessment to determine whether the report "" assessment of the price of the facts to be proved false lack of relevance, consistency, objectivity. Based on this, the documentary evidence does not have the qualification of evidence and probative force should be, not admissible.

In addition, according to the Ministry of public security, the Ministry of Finance jointly issued the "on the strengthening of cooperation in the investigation of economic crime case notification" (the public and pass the word [2005] 20) specified in the:"In view of accounting, audit, assessment business professional strong, is conducive to the public security organ of the facts of the case to determine the nature of the Ministry of public security and the Ministry of finance, negotiating a professional technical appraisal mechanism, specific work shall be undertaken by the China Association of certified public accountants and China asset Evaluation Association, set up an expert database, the Commission according to the public security organs or the parties, from selected personnel experts in professional and technical expert team, provide expert opinion on Relevant Issues concerning economic cases in the. The identification of the work rules shall be formulated separately. The provincial public security organs and the financial departments may establish corresponding professional technical appraisal mechanism." Guangzhou Guotufangguan Bureau as a government department, its main duty is to the city's state-owned land planning, land expropriation, transfer of state management and relevant estate development all matters relating to land and resources. Check the relevant laws and regulations as the Department in China, have not found any law which gives him can evaluate the land asset prices of power.

The land is worth at baseline, should with what procedures, what way, is by the case handling organ entrusted appraisal institution legal right to assess what kind of standards based assessment. If a government agency to a proof can prove the assessment of price, the court will issue a certificate to prove that a person is guilty? This is justified.

The "evaluation report" does not exist third major factsThe land price assessment: the existence of the problem of distortion.

InvalidSpike in real investigation of multi word [2010] No. 234Th "letters" attachments "that"Just list shows the benchmark price of land: "I had to check the Guangdong America country villa development Co. Ltd. under the name of the 1000 acres of land, the benchmark prices in August 30, 2007 ($300500000), for reference."Benchmark land price has a specific meaning, it is to obtain legal ownership of land, complete, to meet the "five links one ping" development degree and reasonable for the volume of basic conditions, confirmation, and the land property rights legal validity cannot land development level is zero, meaning there is no planning condition assessment of the value of the land is completely inconsistent, there is not any comparable.

In this regard, the public security organ to assess the association Chinese assets assessment report said: "the land value of stock is only 6891.32 yuan, Guangzhou City Land Bureau spike real investigation complex word [2010] 234Th text display, Guangdong America country villa development Co. Ltd.'s 1000 acres of land in the benchmark project benchmark premium for not less than 300000000 yuan. The benchmark land price belongs to the public information, professional assessment personnel shall know, whether there is low, if the low rated how degree to the evaluation report effect."

Chinese Asset Evaluation Association expert group opinion of your certification:"According to the" on the Guangzhou announced the use right of state-owned land benchmark price of notice "(SUI China real word [2006]669 date), 2007 Guangzhou city to implement the benchmark land price is the land under normal market conditions, the" five links one ping "land development degree and reasonable volume rate of land price. The existing information disclosure, to evaluate the range of land, enterprises are not made and provide effective "use of land", to confirm the validity of the ownership of the land legally; secondly, to evaluate the range of land, until now still undeveloped, the relevant land demolition work has not yet started, belonging to the students; enterprises in July 9, 2007, received the Guangzhou city land resources and Housing Management Bureau Luogang branch to the number of Guangdong American Wilderness Resort Development Company Limited as the "ear rose real [2007] No. 46" of the "Guangdong America country villa development Co. Ltd. of idle land notice", there is a big uncertainty of land development.

Land value corresponding to the Guangzhou City Land Bureau reply (Rehmannia price), land asset value corresponding and assessment report (based on the date of actual condition, enterprises obtain land occurred from time to time spending), there is a big difference between the two, therefore, it is difficult to judge the results of two kinds of comparability." That is not a specific connotation of right of land price as a yardstick to measure another fundamental rights connotation of land price assessment whether different appropriate standards. For example, Guangzhou commercial housing price of 15000 yuan per square metre, refers to the three cards are complete and have real estate, land warrants for the meaning of real estate prices, and illegal property equally, the same location area, the same physical condition is not the price of 15000 yuan per square metre.

Liu Xuan carried out on-site survey the plot, in his interrogation record said: "this we can only see from a distance, no way in, this is the original state, the mountains of trees still, no electricity."

In the registered assets it has mentioned this problem for the division of Zhang Mousha:

"Q: according to the survey, we found that the Guangdong America country villa development Co. Ltd. under the name of the 1000 acres of land in August 31, 2007 land base premium value of about 300000000 Yuan, why in the South Branch Company issued the assessment report to the value of about 70000000 yuan, is so far?

Answer: the specific situation to the field investigation. If the land is life so that its price and has a five Ping price will have more gap."

In addition, the land since September 13, 2007 has been banned in Guangzhou City Intermediate People's Court (sealed case number: (2007) spike French hold No. 2948th civil award and the notice for assistance in execution), in September 10, 2009 by the application for renewal of letter (see the development zone of Guangzhou City real estate search list). Issued in the "evaluation report" before the land has been seized, more that involved in the plot development of uncertainty. Thus "assessment report" is not in the normal market conditions, according to the benchmark premium for land have legitimate property rights as the premise (i.e., confirmed the first instance court ascertained that the Guangzhou Guotufangguan Board of the benchmark price of 300500000 yuan) as the standard to evaluate.

Therefore, the property rights legal integrity as benchmark premium internal premise, as a measure of ownership of legal validity can not be confirmed in the land evaluation value is the right standard, there is no legal basis and evaluation criterion, the principle of legality is not in conformity with the assets assessment. Guangzhou Guotufangguan Bureau reply has not identified the ownership of legal validity can not confirm the land evaluation value under the condition of validity, relevant laws and regulations of the state does not give Guotufangguan sector assessment of expertise, legal professional expertise and the case handling organ has achieved has clearly pointed out the difference value of the benchmark land price and evaluation on the content and can not be ratio of. The premium to the benchmark as the legitimate management authority validity cannot confirm that under the conditions of the land value, is clearly a misuse of Guangzhou Guotufangguan Bureau reply card, do not have the effect that "assessment report" major false evidence.

The "evaluation report" does not exist fourth problems: the major false land evaluate whether significant inaccuracies, no causal relationship between the fact and logic and "indictment" by the "evaluation report" defective items and evaluation subjects, and the land into the "inventory" rather than "subjects into the assessment of land the right to use", is the national related laws and regulations, shall not be violated, not accused of "assessment report" significant inaccuracies.

In addition,"Assessment report" attached to the audit report has not yet been signed, according to relevant state regulations, and the enterprises should have the responsibility to provide the signature and seal of the audit report, "assessment report" as the reference documents. "Signed evaluation report" also exist defects. This is the problem of assessment personnel and institutions of professional management should be resolutely corrected. But the defect core issues of the case, namely the legal validity of the land can not be confirmed, only according to the input value (cost) valuation, there is no effect.Therefore, it is not the same serious irresponsible for evaluation staff, lead to "causality assessment report" seriously untrue.

First instance verdict: "Jiang Jian serious irresponsible behavior, leading to" the assessment report "" the American company 1000 acres of land use in the 'stock' an evaluation, not into the 'project assessment of land use rights', causing major losses." This is against the law and regulations, also ignored the expert authentication opinions made the public security organ according to law.

According to the accounting system of the real estate development enterprise by the Ministry of Finance promulgated the "Republic of China" (the word (1993) No. 2 and No. 161st) "Intangible assets
The subjects of accounting firmsThe patent right, non patent technology, trademark, copyright,Land use rights,Goodwill etc.All intangible assets value......

Enterprises for real estate development to obtain land use rights, the payment of land leasing, in "development costs" (i.e. "inventory", the defenders note) account, not the subject ("intangible assets", the defenders note) accounting." Because in the enterprises for real estate development enterprises, the accounting and evaluation must execute the provisions.

This is a major problem. For the right to use the land, in the land development industry, real estate development enterprises, the land is the object of labor, and thus in the "inventory" under Accounting and assessment; for other enterprises, the land use rights in the enterprise as the tool of labor, and thus in the intangible assets - land use right under the calculation and evaluation. In this regard, the authorities handling the case to China Asset Evaluation Association, has been a clear answer is: "expert group thinks: according to the relevant provisions of the accounting standards, as a real estate development enterprise to develop the land use right of the cost should be accounted for in the 'stock', the results are summarized in the table in the assessment of current assets; report of nineteenth pages of the assets assessment results summary table 'land use rights' belongs to the scope of intangible assets. According to the requirements of the accounting standards for enterprises, real estate development for the land to be developed not listed in the accounting subjects, so the table 'land use rights' assessment of the value of not shown, is caused by the accounting system of accounting standards for different reasons, it did not show the value of the land value, do not indicate the presence of leakage."

To sum up,"Assessment report" the land included in the "inventory" instead of "land use rights" assessment, itself is according to the requirements of the evaluation, it is not because the assessment report defective items (such as audit reports without number, signature problem caused by), is not itself does not lead to the "evaluation report" serious inconsistent with the facts, and caused great loss.

Spike in real investigation of multi word [2010] No. 234Th "letters" attachments "that"Benchmark premium opinions are not judged "assessment report" is a major problem on the basis of facts.

Spike in real investigation of multi word [2010] No. 234Th "letters" attachments "that"Display the land in the base day of benchmark land price is 300500000 yuan, and the "evaluation report" assessment of the price of nearly 7 ten million yuan, this is the "evaluation report" value is significant inaccuracies problems, regardless of whether lead to significant losses. The two is based on different conditions or two different price comparison two evaluation object on completely different connotation that behoove gap, identified as "assessment report" result in significant losses to achieve, is an obvious mistake. This is due to "serious consequences assessment report" did not cause any significant losses, a trialSentenceThe huge price difference by comparing the two evaluation object behoove are identified as significant loss to. To do so, will have to the existence of confusing the significant inaccuracies and is causing major losses and serious consequences of crime, the "evaluation report" does not have a statutory crime.

In fact, the Guangzhou city land resources and housing authority found that the spike in real investigation of multi word [2010] No. 234Th "letters" attachment "instructions" issued Guotufangguan Bureau of Guangzhou city is not.The "description" content is the assessment of the general land false pretenses Guangzhou Guotufangguan Bureau of Guangdong America country villa development limited company name 1000 mu of land is about 300500000 yuan. The "that" no Guangzhou Guotufangguan Bureau confirmed chapter; afterwards the also denied to produce a spike in real investigation of complex word [2010] No. 234Th "letters" attachment "explain"; see expression from the contents of the not very professional, and the Guangzhou city land resources and housing management authority documents contradict. Therefore, this evidence of the prosecution of unknown sources of evidence, should belong to invalid. Because the evidence is invalid, so there is no evidence to prove that the "evaluation report" significant inaccuracies, elements that do not meet the major issue false documents of the crime

Third, "assessment report" and did not cause a significant loss of serious consequences.In this case the charges of belonging to the result crime, must cause serious consequences may constitute a crime, and involved the "evaluation report" and without prejudice to any investor, the legitimate rights and interests of shareholders, nor any evidence to prove that the serious consequences caused significant loss, serious consequences in fact it did not result in significant losses.

In addition, the appellant should reflect a fact: in the companyThe valuation report must be approved by the three level after the audit, theThe legal representative of the report issued by the consent signature.The evaluation report issued by the assessment issued by the company is clearly, and the appellant dawn the report in do not know the. In the company without the appellant agreed to use the seal, the report under investigation and urged the appellant to the jury. As already mentioned, the appellant has a total of two sets of seals: in the South Branch has one, by Fu Moudong and the person in charge of Finance custody; while in the company of Beijing Zhonglian company also has a. According to the Union and the South Branch of the provisions, seal shall be borne by the company unified certified appraiser custody, this is company against risk assessment practices. But this does not mean that the appellant to Licensing companies can use his seal, if the company wants to use his signet, must be agreed with him, and this is their company's regulations. Why in this assessment report, couplet company without the appellant agreed to use the appellant's seal, and also take signed the appellant's name. The appellant until 2010 only to know this assessment report, the experts and to participate in the July 23, 2010 in China, under the pressure of the will.

Three,A trial procedure law and its influence.

This case has seriously exceeded the legal time limit, belong to illegal procedure."Criminal Procedure Law of the people's Republic of China" 168th stipulates: "the people's court shall accept the case of public prosecution, within one month after the sentence, not later than one month and a half. The act of 126th under one of the circumstances stipulated by the provincial, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the central government, the higher people's court approval or decision, may be extended by one month." But in this case since the November 3, 2011 hearing today to make judgments, already had a full five months twenty days, has seriously exceeded the legal time limit, a serious breach of the procedures, serious violations of the law of criminal procedure.

In a word,Actually,AppellantNo specific handling over "Guangdong America country villa development Co. Ltd. Kuogu capital projects to" asset evaluation report (in the commentary report word [2007 ] No. 746th), also did not check "assessment report". The "evaluation report" onAppellantSignature, seal is not his own, and no evidence that Jiang Jian authorized on behalf of signature. Therefore, issued the "whole process assessment report", which specifically, audit, signature, stamp,AppellantDid not participate, facts and evidence are reflected in Jiang Jian no document issued by the behavior. The first objective elements in the constituent elements of the document issued by the behavior does not exist.More important is the most critical points is, no significant inaccuracies; did not cause serious consequences. But the charges of belonging to the result crime, must cause serious consequences may constitute a crime, and involved the "evaluation report" and without prejudice to any investor, the legitimate rights and interests of shareholders, nor any evidence to prove that the serious consequences caused significant loss, serious consequences in fact did not cause significant losses.

No matter from the law or from the evidence, the appellant is innocent. The appellant case to this evidence is based on the fact, resolutely bring pleading not guilty.

Finally, the appellant also believe in justice, the sunshine of the second instance, your house will respect the facts and the law, to a fair trial attitude, in open court, eventually to the appellant.

Yours sincerely

Guangdong Province Guangzhou City Intermediate People's court

The appellant: Jiang Jian