On October 14, 2021, Lawyer Li Mingyang from Guangdong Legal Shengbang Law Firm received a banner of "Good Lawyer of Yangcheng, Defender of Justice" from Hong Kong citizen Ms. Huang.

In recent years, with the purpose of illegal possession and under the guise of private lending, there has been a frequent occurrence of illegal possession of other people's property through methods such as "inflated debt", "signing large and small loan contracts", "creating fund transfer records", "recklessly determining breach of contract", and "transferring documents to settle accounts". How should the "victim" respond after being maliciously sued?

Case Review

In September 2019, Ms. Huang, a Hong Kong citizen, went to the mainland to invest in e-commerce and trade. Due to a temporary shortage of working capital of 200000 yuan, she applied for a loan from a mainland bank as a Hong Kong resident, which took a long time and was complicated and difficult. Therefore, after a brief introduction, I found Feng, who specializes in private lending business, to help. Feng claimed that borrowing 200000 yuan is not a problem, but the amount is too small and difficult to operate. I would like to introduce a loan owner (lender) named Li. You signed a 1 million loan contract and a housing mortgage loan contract with him, but in reality, you only repaid the loan principal of 200000 yuan and interest. I am responsible for repaying the principal and interest for the remaining 800000 yuan. The reason for this operation is because it can help our company achieve great results, and the procedures are fast and convenient, which is also a common practice in mainland China. Due to her lack of understanding of private lending and procedures in mainland China, after several rounds of lobbying and brainwashing by Mr. Feng, Ms. Huang, a Hong Kong resident who had just arrived in mainland China, mistakenly signed a series of five contracts, including a "Loan Contract" and a "Real Estate Mortgage Contract", with Mr. Li, a financier. The contract stipulates that Ms. Huang will use her property located in Yuexiu District, with a value of 3.4 million yuan, as collateral for the maximum amount, to borrow 1 million yuan from Li, with a monthly interest rate of 1.5% and a loan term of one year. At the same time, Feng issued a confirmation letter to Ms. Huang, promising that Feng would be responsible for returning the principal and interest of 800000 yuan, and Ms. Huang would be responsible for returning the interest of 200000 yuan and 2000 yuan per month. On the same day after the contract was signed and the mortgage procedures were completed, Ms. Huang received 1 million yuan in cash through a series of fund payment transfers. On the same day, she transferred 800000 yuan and a series of interest and handling fees to Feng.

Two months later, the lender, Mr. Li, urged Ms. Huang to collect a monthly interest of 15000 yuan. Only then did Ms. Huang realize that she had been deceived because she had borrowed 200000 yuan, and the agreed monthly interest should be 2000 yuan. How could interest be calculated based on a principal of 1 million yuan? So he immediately confronted Feng, but Feng could no longer be reached. So, Ms. Huang reported to the police on the grounds of being deceived, but there was no definite result after the police accepted it for a long time. Later, Li repeatedly urged Ms. Huang for collection and failed to negotiate. Li then sued Ms. Huang to the court, demanding that Ms. Huang return the loan principal of 1 million yuan and interest expenses to Li, and demanded that the mortgaged house be auctioned off to prioritize repayment of the loan. Ms. Huang argued that she was deceived into signing a loan contract for 100 yuan, with an actual loan of less than 200000 yuan and only paid interest of 4000 yuan for two months as agreed. After a court hearing, the first instance court determined that there was a genuine, legal, and effective loan relationship between the two parties, and therefore ruled that Ms. Huang should repay Li with the loan principal of 970000 yuan and interest and other expenses.

After the first instance verdict, Ms. Huang was extremely anxious. Her mother was even more worried about the mortgaged house being auctioned off. After being introduced by others, she approached our lawyer, Li Mingyang, to entrust her to represent her in the appeal. After accepting the commission and filing an appeal, Lawyer Li Mingyang discovered during the review and investigation that Feng had defrauded more than 80 victims and involved several billion yuan in cases through similar means. He then submitted relevant materials and evidence to the second instance court and applied for the court to review Feng's fraud file, as well as to request Feng to appear in court for cross-examination. After multiple communications, court interrogations, and debates, Lawyer Li Mingyang has proposed that this case is a typical "arbitrage loan" case. Li's side is suspected of colluding with Feng to use small and large contracts, creating funds to embezzle and defraud Ms. Huang's house, which constitutes a crime of fraud.

The second instance court ultimately accepted lawyer Li Mingyang's agency viewpoint and revoked the first instance judgment in accordance with the law, ruling to dismiss all Li's litigation claims. After receiving the second trial verdict, Ms. Huang finally breathed a sigh of relief as she finally saved the only house her mother gave her in mainland China. Ms. Huang was deeply moved by the hard-earned victory in the lawsuit, and praised Lawyer Li Mingyang for his professional ability and dedication.

The bright red banner represents the recognition of lawyers by the parties involved in handling cases, as well as encouragement and encouragement for all lawyers in the institution. Our lawyers will continue to adhere to the concept of "standardization, professionalism, and brand", and strive to provide clients with more, better, and more professional legal assistance!