About Me

My Photo
China
Zeng Hanlin and his family have decided to uphold the search for truth, regardless of the outcome, they will appeal till the end of time, to let the whole world knows about his innocence, his miscarriage of justice. Therefore, we hope that the media coverage can help to appeal to the China national leaders to extract the footage or recording of the whole trial and verdict, to listen to the truth, to be our judge! Even if the result of this injustice cannot be reversed, we vowed to never give up, to persistently let the world international Media / Human Rights Organizations / Ambassador and Consulate / National Leaders know that the so-called human rights advocating country Canada, is scarifying a human life for their economic benefits. We vowed to seek justice for Zeng Hanlin, even if he die of old age in prison, we declare that we will never give up on this pursuit of justice. 曾汉林与家属决定要坚持寻求真理,无论结果如何也要上诉到底,令世人知道真相。 在此,我们希望媒体的报道可以呼吁国家领导人听听当天庭内的录像记录,评评道理! 即使这场冤案结果无法扭转,我们誓言永不放弃,向世界各国媒体/人权组织/大使领事/国家领袖等知道所谓的人权国加拿大,在获取经济利益背后的所作所为。务必要为曾汉林讨回公道,即时他老死在狱内也绝不罢休。

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Legal Opinion by China Top 21 Legal Experts on Zeng Hanlin's case

English Translated Version

Legal Opinion (Zeng Hanlin case)

Entrusted by the defendant's relative Zeng Jian (son of Zeng Hanlin), 21 legal experts and law professors from the practice of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure Law, Evidence Law, Civil Law, Company Law, etc, had a panel discussion on whether defendant Zeng Hanlin guilty of Contract Fraud can be established based on the First Instance Judgement of Chengdu Intermediate People's Court, they debated and put forward their legal opinions. The experts that were invited to attend the panel discussion include: Professor Chen Xing Liang of Peking University, Professor Li Wen Yan of Chinese People's Public Security University, Professor Zhang Si Han of National Judges College, Professor Dan Ming of Supreme People's Procuratorate of the People's Republic of China, Professor Zhou Guo Jun who is Ex-Editor of Law Science Magazine and Professors from China University of Political Science and Law such as Professor Cao Zi Dan, Professor He Bing Song, Professor Pan Chong Yi, Professor Wang Yang, Professor Liu Geng Ju, Professor Qu Xin Jiu, Professor Zhang Ling, Professor Ruan Qi Lin, Professor Li Xian Dong, Professor Wu Xue Song, Professor Yao Xin Hua, Professor Hou Guo Yun, Professor Xu Jiu Sheng, Professor Sui Peng Sheng, Professor Xue Rui Lin, Professor Pei Guang Chuan. Authored by Pei Yu.

The information provided by the Entrustor as follows:
1. A copy of <Statement of Charges>;
2. A copy of <First Instance Judgement>;
3. A copy of <First Instance Defendant Statement>;
4. A copy of <Share Transfer Agreement> on Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd transferring 40% shares to Guangdong Flying Dragon Group;
5. A copy of <Equity Transfer Agreement> on Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry transferring 75% equity to Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd;
6. A copy of <Supplemental Agreement>;
7. A copy of Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry <Asset Evaluation Report>;
8. A copy of KPMG Certified Public Accounting firm business qualification in China, a copy of <Audit Report> by KPMG Certified Public Accounting firm;
9. A copy of <Account Adjustment Agreement> signed by tripartite parties of Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd., Guangdong Flying Dragon High-speed Passenger Ferry and Guangdong Flying Dragon Group
10. Guangdong Kexin Certified Public Accounting firm presenting a copy each of <Capital Verification Report>, <Asset Evaluation Report>, <Audit Report>, <Foreign-Invested Enterprise Amendment Form>;
11. A copy of Mortgage Contract;
12. A copy of Sanjiu Enterprise <Commitment Letter>;
13. A copy of <Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court reply on related information regarding Zeng Hanlin Contract Fraud>;
14. A copy of schematic diagram of Zeng Hanlin case;
15. A copy of chronological event of Zeng Hanlin case.

Legal opinion from the group of 21 professors unanimously concluded as below:
(1) Confirming the related party transactions behaviour is the key to hearing this case, fulfilling the contract obligation with non-payment method is not illegal Chengdu Lianyi Group sold off the 40% shares from its own subsidiary Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co. Ltd for a price of RMB 68 million yuan to Guangdong Flying Dragon Group. Both parties signed a "Share Transfer Agreement" on 15 October 1997.

On 25 December 1997, Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry under the Guangdong Flying Dragon Groups signed the <Equity Transfer Agreement> with Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd. transferring 75% stake in Guangdong Flying Dragon High-speed Passenger Ferry to Chengdu Lianyi for RMB 74 million yuan.

The signing of the abovementioned two agreements and fulfilment of these two agreements was under the context of Related Party Transaction. According to the Ministry of Finance <Accounting Standards for Enterprises No. 36 - Related Party Disclosures 2006>, "Related Party Transaction describe the behaviour of the transfer of resources, services or obligations between related parties, regardless of whether or not a price is charged", in this case, whether or not a payment is received. The two involved <Equity Transfer Agreement> is the related two parties namely Chengdu Lianyi Group and Guangdong Flying Dragon Group, through related party transactions to realise asset restructuring, changing the scope of business of the listed companies, expansion of business areas to increase economic efficiency.

In the event if Chengdu Lianyi Group was just purely selling off its shares without the injection of high quality assets into the company, not only will that makes the share transfer behaviour meaningless, the two sides can never reach an agreement as well. Related party transactions by mutually holding each other equity in return to realise asset restructuring, the law permits non-payment of such transaction. Related party transactions in this case demonstrate one side holding the other party RMB 68 million yuan worth of equity, while the other side holding opposite party shares worth of RMB 74 million yuan, the price relationship is crystal clear, both parties have the option to offset the amount against each other, no payment is required for such transaction. When Guangdong Flying Dragon Group acquired 40% stake in Chengdu Lianyi Group, it is impossible that they are insolvent and in the state of payment crisis, reason being that the other party owes them RMB 74 million yuan which is higher than the RMB 68 million yuan owed to the other party (Chengdu Lianyi Group).

Related party transactions of both parties mutually holding each other's company shares resulted in the process of Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd. overturn itself from a shell company to a profitable company, this has proven that the associated two equity transfer agreement belongs to related party transactions. Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry was given the right to transfer its 75% stake to Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd.

Subsequently, they pumped in their 1997 full-year profit of RMB 32 million yuan into Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd., elevating this empty shell listed companies with its high-quality assets, surging the price per share of Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co. Ltd from RMB 5.40 yuan to a height of RMB 13.58 yuan, result in Chengdu Lianyi Group benefitting over RMB 200 million yuan worth of shares profit. With the 40% stake acqusition by Guangdong Flying Dragon Group in Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd., this has also generated a 10 get 3 bonus shares scheme that increased the company shares from 34.216 million shares to 54.7456 million shares.

This direct result in economic benefits was the achievement of a successful restructuring of assets under related party transactions; both parties have benefit from it. This is the complete process of related party transactions of asset restructuring. For a fully completed related party transaction, there is no legal basis and obscure for the judiciary to support one party to force the related other party for payments and even using criminal law to investigate the other party for criminal liability. Both parties in the two <Equity Transfer Agreement> has decided to adopt the same method of fulfilling the agreement by payment method. This is decision of both parties individually. In the course of fulfilling the agreement, if there is a breach of contract by one or both parties, they should bear their respective responsibilities for breaching of contract. But to change the fulfilment approach to "no payment" method by either both parties or one party is not illegal. When mutually agree to transfer both parties  company shares, the payment method was set forth in the agreement during signing, if both parties had neither perform or fully perform their obligation of the agreement, it will inevitably result in contradiction. However, this is a contract dispute, not a crime. This breach of contract relates only to the conflict of interests between both parties, it is not a threat to the society. Any dispute can be settled through a court proceeding, the Public Security Authority should not intervene.

Between June to July 1999, Sanjiu Enterprise Group, Guangdong Flying Dragon Group, Chengdu Lianyi Group reached an agreement, Sanjiu Enterprise Group will acquire Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co. Ltd 54.7456 million shares that originally belongs to Guangdong Flying Dragon Group for an amount of RMB 85 million yuan. In the end, due to lack of fund by Sanjiu Enterprise Group, this related party transactions was eventually shelved.

In the event of Chengdu Lianyi Group fulfilling the Equity Transfer Agreement, if knowing that Guangdong Flying Dragon Group Assistant General Manager Zhang Zhaohui had produced "fake" certificate of deposit and remittance statement on 10 and 12 December 1997, which they still proceed to sign the second <Equity Transfer Agreement> on 25 December 1997, this has proven that the two equity transfer agreement is a part of the related party transactions, it also show that the both parties are encounter difficulties in monetary payment to each other to fulfil the contract, therefore using the equity transfer method to offset the equity price against each other, reaching a mutual acceptable consensus. Otherwise it is impossible to sign the second <Equity Transfer Agreement>. Both two <Equity Transfer Agreement> have agreed to use the monetary payment method to perform the contract obligation to each other, but both parties have no funds to pay to each other, the only way to move forward is by using the equity price offsetting method, which is also to reach the desired protection for this related party transactions. Chengdu Lianyi Group is confident they are adequately safeguards protected, thereby participated in this related party transactions, they are not being duped to participate.

Determining that the related party transactions exist between Chengdu Lianyi Group and Guangdong Flying Dragon Group is an evidence of fact. In the 1997 annual report of Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd., under the Section 5, Clause 1, Item 4 of significant association matters reporting stated that: "Our largest shareholder Guangdong Flying Dragon Group is the transferor and parent company of Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry. This equity transfer activity is a related party transaction." "Guangdong Foreign Economic Law Office has issued a legal opinion of this related party translation that it legal and valid."

In the annual report of 1997, 1998 and interim report of 1999 reporting on Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co. Ltd's company performance, it had reported positively on the 40% Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co. Ltd equity held by Guangdong Dragon Flying Group and the 75% Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry equity held by Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd. as asset restructuring, since it is a part of the reorganization of assets, it must be related party transaction.

The process of fulfilling the two equity transfer agreement is also defined as related party transaction. Guangdong Flying Dragon Group had made an immediate deposit payment of RMB 2 million yuan to the other party upon signing the second equity transfer agreement on 25 December 1997. This indicates that the fulfilment of the first agreement was the pretext of signing the second agreement, this has also demonstrated the obligation fulfilment of these two agreements and the contracts are associated to each other right from the beginning.

(2) The RMB 74 million yuan equity price is enough to demonstrate that Zeng Hanlin is innocence; the basic fact cannot be vacillated

Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry transfer its own 75% equity worth RMB 74 million yuan to Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd., this process does not constitute fraud behaviour:

In the FIRST section of the related party transaction, the Guangdong Branch (98) No. 011 <Audit Report> presented by Guangdong Kexing Certified Public Accountants and the registration information with Administration for Industry and Commerce have proven that  during the registration of subsidiary company Guangdong Flying Dragon High-speed Passenger Ferry, Zeng Hanlin's Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry had already invested RMB 75 million yuan in it, holding a 75% stake, there is no doubt on this fact. In the process of Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry applying as a Chinese-Foreign Equity Joint Venture Company, the documents approved by the Foreign Economic and Trade indicated China counterpart equity as 51%. This is just a policy approval, which means that the China counterpart must be holding not less than 51% stake in this Joint Venture but not limiting to only 51%. According to the provision of Company Law, the equity of the investor in the company is determined by the registered capital invested by the investor.

Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry holds a 75% stake in Guangdong Flying Dragon High-speed Passenger Ferry, the offered price of RMB 74 million yuan by them is higher than the RMB 68 million yuan, an intention to cheat the other party's possession will not occur. This was also clearly reported in the 1998 annual report of Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co. Ltd under Page 15 Line 18 to Line 20; the company will pay Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry RMB 74 million yuan in three instalments between year 1999 to 2002. This is an evidence of fact.

In the SECOND section of the related party transaction, Sanjiu Enterprise Group decided to use RMB 85 million yuan to purchase 54.7456 million shares of Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd. which was originally held by Guangdong Flying Dragon Group control 5474.56 shares.

This matter was proposed and facilitated by Chengdu Lianyi Group till closure. Sanjiu Enterprise Group has put forward a condition that Chengdu Lianyi Group must removed the RMB 74 million yuan debt owed by Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd. to Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry from the company's debt. In view of this, Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd., Guangdong Flying Dragon High-speed Passenger Ferry, Guangdong Flying Dragon Group together signed a <Account Adjustment Agreement> in order to prove that the RMB 74 million yuan Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd. owed to Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry has been write off in order to remove the relevant obligation of Sanjiu Enterprise Group after the acquisition of shares. <Account Adjustment Agreement> is a document produced to terminate the former related party transactions relationship, it no longer has any direction relationship to the relevant obligation of the original two <Equity Transfer Agreement>.

This <Account Adjustment Agreement> cannot be used as a proof to show that Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd. does not owe the other party the equity amount of RMB 74 million yuan, neither can it be used as a reason for both companies not to swap their shares. As Sanjiu Enterprise Group did not fulfil the contractual obligation on the acquisition of 54.7456 million shares with RMB 85 million yuan, whether the <Account Adjustment Agreement> is true or false is immaterial and has been ineffective. As long as the RMB 74 million yuan stock price still exist, Zeng Hanlin is innocence. It should be noted that the main content of the <Account Adjustment Agreement> is to remove the debt owed by Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co. Ltd to Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry for the equity transfer in contra with the profit owed by Guangdong Flying Dragon High-speed Passenger Ferry to Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co. Ltd. From the principle content of the contract, without the RMB 74 million yuan main creditor Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry (the original Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry is the parent company of Guangdong Flying Dragon High-speed Passenger Ferry) participating in signing the contract, from a debt perspective, after Guangdong Flying Dragon High-speed Passenger Ferry has been acquired by Chengdu Lianyi Industries Co. Ltd, whether its profits should be submitted to the major shareholder Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co. Ltd, is a matter between Guangdong Flying Dragon High-speed Passenger Ferry and its major shareholder Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd., while the RMB 74 million yuan equity transfer amount is an issue between Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd. and Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry. After the 75% stake in Guangdong Flying Dragon High-speed Passenger Ferry has been acquired by Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co. Ltd, it no longer belongs to Guangdong Flying Dragon Group. These two different debt amounts cannot be contra in this circumstance. This <Account Adjustment Agreement> is therefore not a legally binding agreement and has no legal effect. Ironically, this agreement has becomes the evidence of fact that Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd. do owed Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry the equity amount of RMB 74 million yuan, an irrefutable fact.

(3) The error of law used in the First Instance Judgement

In accordance with the provisions of Article No. 224 of the Criminal Law, Contract Fraud refers to whomever during the course of signing or fulfilling a contract, commits the act to defraud money or property of the other party for the purpose of illegal possession. The errors of law used in the First Instance Judgment are as follows:

(i) Subjective conclusion on defendant Zeng Hanlin "having the intention to illegal possess" is totally groundless, has no basis of fact.

The fraud behaviour defined in the First Instance Judgment was base on Zhang Zhaohui fabricating fake certificate of deposit and remittance documents to Chengdu Lianyi Group Co., Ltd., so the purpose of illegal possession was established in this manner, this is illusionary.

The equity transfer involved in this case is a part of the related party transactions, Zeng Hanlin as the associated party in order to allow Guangdong Flying Dragon Group to go through assets restructuring, had paid a hefty sum in this backdoor listing. This proved that he had no intention to illegally possess the property of the other party. Evaluating the price paid by Guangdong Flying Dragon will need to take into consideration of the two contracts. Guangdong Flying Dragon Group injected its subsidiary company, Guangdong Flying Dragon High-speed Passenger Ferry, high quality asset worth more than RMB 100 million yuan into Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd. despite that Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co. Ltd has not made any payment. Apart from the transfer of 75% stake to Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co. Ltd, Guangdong Flying Dragon High-speed Passenger Ferry had even thrown in a full year of 1997 annual profit; this profit alone has already worth RMB 32.85 million yuan. An extra payment of RMB 2 million yuan in cash, another RMB 6 million ,all in all, a total of RMB 40.85 million yuan into the profit basket of Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co. Ltd. As of 17 August 1998 when the Public Security Authority place the case on file for investigation and prosecution, Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co. Ltd was supposed to pay to Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry the equity price of RMB 13 million yuan, but NOT a penny was paid while Guangdong Flying Dragon Group has fulfilled all milestone payment obligation in accordance with the contract clause. Apparently, it does not have the purpose of illegal possession, the facts have proven this.

(ii) Objective conclusion on defendant Zeng Hanlin defrauding the 40% stake in Chengdu Lianyi Industries Co., Ltd is totally illogical. Defining the loan of RMB 35 million yuan as an integral part of the contract fraud has no legal sense.

(a) Transposing the cause and effect, time and relationship, event chronological order that leads to a wrong conclusion. The first instance verdict determined that the defendant Zeng Hanlin fulfil a small part of the contract as a bait, instigating Zhang Zhaohui to fabricate false certificates of deposit, remittance documents and using other means to swindle Chengdu Lianyi Group RMB 68 million yuan worth of corporate shares. This reverse of the event chronological order, time and relationship is completely illogical. When Guangdong Flying Dragon Group acquire the 40% stake in Chengdu Lianyi Co., Ltd., the contract was signed on 15 October 1997. The false certificates of deposit and remittance certificate were issued on 10 December 1997 and 12 December 1997, the payment of the contract deposit of RMB 2 million yuan was done in 26 December 1997. In addition, Guangdong Flying Dragon Group has also paid to Chengdu Lianyi Group an amount of RMB 6 million yuan in September 1998. All these fraudulent pretences determined in the first instance verdict occurred after the signing of the first <Equity Transfer Agreement>. Thus, the recognition of these facts in the first instance verdict has completely reversed the order of the event chronological order, time and relationship, will definitely leads to a wrong conclusion, judgment error by the prosecutore is inevitable.

(b) Using fulfilment of a small part of the contract as a bail to deceive Chengdu Lianyi Group in continuing to honour the contract, this cannot be established. The first instance verdict determined that Guangdong Flying Dragon uses the plot of "fulfilling a small part of the contract as bait to trick Chengdu Lianyi Group in fulfilling the contract, as a matter of fact, this is not just fulfilment of a small part of the contract, but full payment performed periodically to fulfil its obligations by Guangdong Flying Dragon Group. After both parties had signed on the two <Equity Transfer Agreement>, Guangdong Flying Dragon Group has injected its subsidiary Guangdong Flying Dragon High-speed Passenger Ferry's 1997 whole year profit of RMB 32.85 million yuan into Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co. Ltd, plus cash payments of RMB 8 million yuan, a totalled of RMB 40.85 million yuan. In accordance to the terms and conditions defined in the first <Equity Transfer Agreement>, before the Public Security Authority place the case on file for investigation and prosecution on 17 August 1998, the payment required from Guangdong Flying Dragon Group for the equity price happens to be only RMB 40 million yuan.

(4) Defining the loan of RMB 35 million yuan as an integral part of the contract fraud has no legal sense

The first instance verdict ascertained that "Guangdong Flying Group deceived Chengdu Lianyi Group into signing the Equity Transfer Agreement, and followed with fulfilling only a small part of the contract, producing false certificates of deposit and remittance documents and other means to trick the Chengdu Lianyi Group to continue performing its obligation on the contract, conning Chengdu Lianyi Group RMB 68 million worth of equity, using it as a  security pledged for loans and occupying the loan for own use, this behaviour constitute a contract fraud and the defraud amount is extremely huge. Defendant Zeng Hanlin is the Chairman and General Manager of Flying Dragon Group, is the executive with direct responsibilities in the company and is therefore directly responsible for the crime in his unit, this behaviour constitute a crime of contract fraud." From this judgment, the first instance verdict obviously had ascertained the loan of RMB 35 million yuan as an integral part of the contract fraud. Such ascertainment is erroneous.

Firstly, Guangdong Flying Dragon Group did not sign the Equity Transfer Agreement for the loan. Even though Guangdong Flying Dragon Group had uses its 54.7456 million equity in Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co. Ltd as a security pledged for loans of RMB 35 million but this was not its intention in acquiring the other 40% equity in the first place. The <Equity Transfer Agreement> was signed on 15 October 1997 while the loan of RMB 35 million yuan from Bank of Communications was obtained on 18 August 1998, the before and after of both incidents happened at an interval of 10 months apart. During this period of time, the financial statement from Guangdong Flying Dragon High-speed Passenger Ferry had been merged and consolidated with Chengdu Lianyi Group; its profit has been injected into Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co., Ltd. as well. To take note, the 75% stake of Guangdong Flying Dragon High-speed Passenger Ferry had now belongs to Chengdu Lianyi Industrial Co. Ltd, although the changes have not been completed in the Administration for Industry & Commerce but the registration of changes had been approved by the SFC. The equity transfer does not consider the changes in the Administration of Industry & Commerce as a necessary element. Occupying the loan will not be the real intention of Guangdong Flying Dragon Group. The loan of RMB 35 million yuan was actually used to repay Guangdong Flying Dragon High-speed Passenger Ferry debts for the purchased of ships, docks, boat as well as for the company operation cost. In addition, there was a RMB 6 million yuan paid to Chengdu Lianyi Group. The distribution and usage of the money clearly illustrated that the real purpose of the loan was to create a multi-win-win situation; this kind of situation cannot be generated immediately during the signing of the Equity Transfer Agreement.

Secondly, identifying the loan amount as "illegal possession" is incorrect. Amount borrowed from the bank has to be returned upon the expiry of the loan terms with its principle amount and interest. The RMB 35 million yuan was put back into the company for use, as long as the interest was paid up, the borrower has the right to possess it. Borrower behaviour in the case of non-infringement of capital ownership, does not exhibit any element of contract fraud, it cannot constitute a crime. In this case, the defendant Zeng Hanlin did not use the whole or any part of the RMB 35 million yuan loan for personal possession, or taken abroad, or for personal splurge, or withhold without return; Guangdong Flying Dragon Group did not default the loan interest payment or exhibit a behaviour of intending not to pay the principle amount plus interest. Henceforth, there is no recognised behaviour of illegal possession or attempt to illegally occupy the RMB 35 million yuan by Guangdong Flying Group.

Therefore, the RMB 35 million yuan loan should not be considered as part of the integral part of the contract fraud.

Thirdly, the indirect fraud cannot be established. Using the defraud Chengdu Lianyi Group 40% equity and determining using the "defraud" 40% equity to pledge as security for the loan of RMB 35 million yuan is indirect fraud and constitute a contract fraud, this analysis cannot be established. There are two reasons to this: Firstly, the precondition is falsify, before Guangdong Flying Dragon Group transfer the 40% equity, no fraud was performed, the 40% equity was not acquired through fraudulent behaviour; Secondly, there is no exclusivity for such inference from the logic, the conclusion is inappropriate.

Fourthly, there is insufficient evidence to establish that Zeng Hanlin had committed contract fraud.

(1) Relevant authority was in accordance with procedures in disclosure of information and had never concealed any information to anyone. KPMG LLP is an accounting firm approved by the Ministry of Finance and China Securities Regulatory Commission, an establishment of Chinese-Foreign cooperative with audit qualification. Guangdong Asset Evaluation Company is a specialized agency of assessment approved by the State-owned Assets Administration Bureau and the China Securities Regulatory Commission to engage in securities business assets evaluation. Documents produced by the three institutions as mentioned above have legal effect. They produce documents to prove the following:

(i) When signing the Equity Transfer Agreement on 15 October 1997, <Audit Report> clearly documented in the 13 vessels collaterals conditions in 1996, 1997 and 1998; this <Audit Report> is an important document that Chengdu Lianyi Group has to peruse;

(ii) Guangdong Asset Evaluation Report issued on 18 December 1997 sets out the year ended 31 December 1996 that Guangdong Flying Dragon High-Speed Passenger Ferry contained a debt of RM 13.9808 million yuan, this document is a must-read document for Chengdu Lianyi Group when they entered into the Equity Transfer Agreement. Moreover, this document is openly published in the annual reports of the listed companies in 1997, there is no intention to conceal information and no one was unaware of this information.

(iii) <Assessment Report> issued by the Guangdong Kexin Certified Public Accounting firm on 18 March 1996 proved that as per the base date of 31 December 1995, Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry original face value of its fixed assets was worth a value of RMB 102,630,389 yuan, the evaluation value of assets is worth RMB 95,096,899 yuan, after assessment, the assess value of fixed assets are worth at RMB 100,014,399 yuan, evaluation variance show an increment of 5.17 percent. The capital verification report issued by Guangdong Kexing Certified Public Accounting firm on 3 July 1996 states that: As of 31 December 1995, Guangdong Flying Dragon High-speed Passenger Ferry total assets are worth RMB 107 million yuan, total liabilities of RMB 7.46 million yuan and net assets (equity) at RMB 99.62 million yuan, paid-up capital at RMB 99.6213184 million. These financial figures are the "must read" information when Chengdu Lianyi Group signed the <Equity Transfer Agreement>. This information was never concealed to anyone.

(2) The prosecutor modify the debt owing data right in the court, the previous accusation of hugh debt amount concluding the inability of Guangdong Flying Dragon Group not being able to honour the acquisition payment just fall apart. A total collapsed.

The first instance verdict determines the defendant "concealing the truth of the huge liabilities and inability to pay", but a clear explanation for the "huge debt" was never clearly defined. As per the prosecutor statement in court, in accordance with the confession of the defendant testimony of Li Kai ascertained that the total debt amount  of the defendant at that time was RMB 120 million yuan, in accordance with the prosecutor immediate amendment in the court during the first instance trial was reduced to RMB 30 million yuan, in accordance to the Guangdong Assets Evaluation Report, the total liabilities was RMB 13.9808 million yuan, according to the audit report, the net assets was valued at RMB 108.5322 million yuan, regardless of whether the debt amount was RMB 30 million yuan or RMB 13.9808 million yuan, the company can never be in the insolvent state and no ability to pay. The First Instance hearing is based merely on the verbal testimony of Zhang Zhaohui and Li Kai to conclude that Guangdong Flying Dragon Group is in no position to make payment; there is no factual basis to be established. The prosecution judgement on Zhang Zhaohui 11 years ago was based on the precondition that the company debt amounted to RMB 120 million yuan and was in the state of insolvency. After 11 years, a further hearing on 17 November 2011, prosecutors had amended the debt amount in court from RMB 120 million yuan RMB 30 million yuan. This act has proven the testimony of Zhang Zhaohui, Li Kai, etc (Zhang Zhaohui testimony at then proved that the asset amount during the equity transfer of Guangdong Flying Dragon Group to be RMB 50 to 60 million; Li Kai testimony at then prove that during the equity transfer, the liabilities of Guangdong Flying Dragon Group to be RMB 120 million yuan, debt ratio was 200%) are fictitious, the testimony in the original trial at then from Zhang and Li are groundless and cannot be adopted. According to the rules of evidence, documentary evidence of proof are more effectiveness than oral evidence of proof, when two are in conflict, the documentary evidence shall be admissible. Therefore, the court should not recognised Zeng Hanlin as instigating a contract fraud.

(3) Solitary testimony is inadmissible. The First Instance trial produce evidence of false deposit slips, false remittance documents to deceive each other, towards this, Zeng Hanlin has never admitted to this accusation, the trial volume contains only the solitary testimony of Zhang Zhaohui, this is inadmissible.

(4) To force the defendant to bear the legal consequences dereliction of duty by the informants is unjustifiable.

Base solely on the claim of the informants that he is not aware of the RMB 35 million yuan loan from Guangdong Flying Dragon Group to determine the behaviour of defendant pledging the equity for loans of RMB 35 million yuan is a fraudulent act of contract fraud, this is baseless and lack of evidence of fact. In accordance with the provisions of law, to use a public company shares to be pledged as a security for loans, public notice has to be made, the Borrower had already made a public notice to the Shenzhen Stock Exchange in advance. This proved that the borrower Guangdong Flying Dragon Group and its legal representative Zeng Hanlin have no intention to conceal any information from the other party. The informant as the Vice Chairman of a listed company did not do his part to peruse the Exchange publicity documents is a strong case of dereliction of duty. The informant cannot use his dereliction of duty as a reason to seek legal compensation from the other party. Therefore, Zeng Hanlin's borrowing behaviour cannot constitute a contract fraud.

Illustration of the related party relationship between Guangdong Flying Dragon and Chengdu Lianyi:




The 21 Legal Professionals and Law Professors unanimously concluded that Zeng Hanlin is NOT guilty of “Contract Fraud”, it is merely a “Civil Matter”. Their signature as attached:


Click on the link to view the video of the panel discussion: http://youtu.be/WRI36uVzg1A

京城21位刑法教授揭秘曾汉林中国最大股权交易案的意见书

京城21位刑法教授揭秘曾汉林中国最大股权交易案的意见书









Monday, April 16, 2012

Zeng Hanlin appeal secretly carry out / 高院法官马雪晴证实曾汉林在狱内被秘密宣判

Click on this link to listen to the recorded conversation: http://youtu.be/H4R9IHwXhyM

End Mar 2012 - Appeal of Zeng Hanlin was clandestinely carried out without notifying Zeng Hanlin's defendant lawyer or the involvement of his lawyer in this appeal.

After much entangles and our persistent inquiring, the Sichuan Province Higher People's Court Judge, Ma Xueqing, had finally admitted that near end of March 2012, they have delegate a Sichuan Province Intermediate People's Court Administrator, Xu Yang, to deliver the Second Instance Verdict to Zeng Hanlin in Chengdu Detention Centre. Cruelly revealing to the innocence Zeng Hanlin that his appeal was rejected and Sichuan will continue to uphold the original First Instance Verdict. All these are done in a detention centre without the presence of Zeng Hanlin's lawyer and have no intention to notify Zeng Hanlin's lawyer about the appeal verdict.

Upon getting this message, Zeng Hanlin family members had been fighting for the rights to visit Zeng Hanlin in prison according to law, and require the Sichuan Province Higher People's Court to provide the Second Instance Verdict for the appeal in accordance with the law. These entire requests were refused or put under procrastination. The Court mentioned that Zeng Hanlin was still held in Chengdu Detention Centre.

The Sichuan provincial government official contact information:

Sichuan Higher People's Court
Contact Person: Ma Xueqing
Position: Judge
Tel: (86-28) 8756 7680

Sichuan Intermediate People's Court
Contact Person: Xu Yang
Title: Court Administrator
Tel: (86-28) 8291 5079

Contact: Wei Jun
Position: Clerk
Tel: (86-28) 8291 5720

Chengdu Detention Center
Add: Chengdu City, Pixian Anjing Town, Zhengyi Road No. 3, Postal Code: 611731
Tel: (86-28) 8792 0447 (86-28) 8640 7825 (On Duty Room) (86-28) 8640 7839

==============================================

成都高院法官马雪晴_证实曾汉林在狱内被秘密宣判

整个过程并没有通知曾汉林律师,也不肯发放上诉的二审宣判书。

如今曾汉林已经下落不明!

曾汉林对判决不服,在成都中级人民法院一审宣判后,委托律师向四川省高级人民法院提出上诉。期间曾汉林案获得了21位中国著名刑法学泰斗的合力支持,认为他无罪,并为他制­定了一份证明他无罪的法律意见书。这是新中国立国以来,首次有这么多刑法学专家公开集体向地方法院提出反对其判决结果。专家团中有多位更参与了中国的立法工作。

在上诉期间,曾汉林律师与家人曾多次尝试联系四川省中高级人民法院了解进度。但一直聊无音讯。经过多翻纠缠后,四川省高级人民法院法官马雪晴于今天终于承认,他们在3月底­,已经委托了四川省中级人民法院法官徐飏等在监狱内向曾汉林进行了秘密宣判,通知曾汉林驳回其上诉,维持原判。

得此消息后,曾汉林家属要求依法获得与曾汉林见面的权利,以及要求他们依法提供二审判决书,但遭到推搪拒绝。法院声称曾汉林仍在成都看守所,但家属按法官指示,于2012­年4月11日到访成都看守所询问情况,但看守所工作人员透露曾汉林早已经不在此看守所内。现在曾汉林不知所终,人间蒸发。四川法院与看守所各部门相互推搪拒绝透露。

至今曾汉林家属与律师均无法得知其下落,判决书被拒絕獲取。家屬在别无他法下,唯有寻求加拿大总理及国际传媒协助寻人。希望中央領導人關注事件,為曾漢林申冤平反。

四川省政府官方人员联系资料:

四川省高级人民法院
联系人:马雪晴
职位:法官
电话:(86-28)8756 7680

四川省中级人民法院
联系人:徐颺
职位:审批员
电话:(86-28)8291 5079

联系人:魏军
职位:书记员
电话:(86-28)8291 5720

成都看守所
地址:成都市郫县安靖镇正义路3号, 邮政编码:611731
电话:(86-28) 8792 0447 (86-28)8640 7825 值班室 (86-28)8640 7839


想听马雪晴的录音,请点击这链接:http://youtu.be/H4R9IHwXhyM

Sunday, April 1, 2012

China 21 Law Expert proving Zeng Hanlin's innocence - 21位法学教授一致认为曾汉林不构成合同诈骗

China 21 top legal expert unanimously agree that Zeng Hanlin's case is not a Contract Fraud but merely a Civil Matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21 legal experts and law professors from the practice of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure Law, Evidence Law, Civil Law, Company Law, etc, had a panel discussion on whether defendant Zeng Hanlin guilty of Contract Fraud can be established based on the First Instance Judgement of Chengdu Intermediate People's Court, they debated and put forward their legal opinions. The experts that were invited to attend the panel discussion include: Professor Chen Xing Liang of Peking University, Professor Li Wen Yan of Chinese People's Public Security University, Professor Zhang Si Han of National Judges College, Professor Dan Ming of Supreme People's Procuratorate of the People's Republic of China, Professor Zhou Guo Jun who is Ex-Editor of Law Science Magazine and Professors from China University of Political Science and Law such as Professor Cao Zi Dan, Professor He Bing Song, Professor Pan Chong Yi, Professor Wang Yang, Professor Liu Geng Ju, Professor Qu Xin Jiu, Professor Zhang Ling, Professor Ruan Qi Lin, Professor Li Xian Dong, Professor Wu Xue Song, Professor Yao Xin Hua, Professor Hou Guo Yun, Professor Xu Jiu Sheng, Professor Sui Peng Sheng, Professor Xue Rui Lin, Professor Pei Guang Chuan. Authored by Pei Yu.

京城21位著名法学教授一致认为曾汉林案不构成合同诈骗
---------------------------------------------------

21位来自刑法学、刑诉法学、证据学、民法学、公司法学诸领域的法学教授,专门就成都中级人民法院一审判决所认定的,被告人曾汉林犯有合同诈骗罪是否成立的问题,进行了论­证并提出本法律意见书。

应邀出席论证会的有:
北京大学陈兴良教授,
中国公安大学李文燕教授、
国家法官学院张泗汉教授、
检察理论研究所单民教授、
《中国法学》杂志前主编周国­均教授,

还有中国政法大学曹子丹教授、
何秉松教授、
攀崇义教授、
王扬教授、
刘根菊教授、
曲新久教授、
张凌教授、
阮齐林教授、
李显冬教授、
吴雪松教授、
姚新华教授、
侯国云教­授、
徐久生教授、
隋彭生教授、
薛瑞麟教授、
裴广川教授。

由裴愚执笔。

点击这个链接以观看21位法学教授的论证会: http://youtu.be/WRI36uVzg1A

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Justice for Zeng Hanlin-Chengdu Reporter expose inside news 曾汉林冤案-成都记者正义爆内幕

>> Link to Publicity Dept of Sichuan Province enforcing reporting restriction, prohibiting all reporters to report any related news on Mr Zeng Hanlin. http://youtu.be/GUhEFky0MAo


This conversation between Sam Zeng (son of Zeng Hanlin) and Peng Jiang (a reporter with Chengdu Evening News) is a true reflection on how Sichuan Chengdu has been trying ways and means to keep Mr Zeng's trial under wrap.

Just a few hours after the publication of Peng Jiang's report on Chengdu Evening News, a reporting restriction order was sent down from Publicity Department of Sichuan Province to Chief Editor of Chengdu Evening News, prohibiting any further reporting of Mr Zeng miscarriage of justice on the newspaper.

Apart from Chengdu Evening News, another newspaper in Chengdu (Huaxi City News) had been given reporting restriction as well. Strict order was given not to report any news relating to Mr Zeng Hanlin.

Note: This is a Chengdu's conspiracy! We can now ascertain that Chengdu District Court is trying to cover up their mistakes made on Zeng Hanlin, the verdict on Mr Zeng Hanlin is just a self-directed movie, serving as a decoy to cover up their grave mistake! To save them from embarrassment!

Introduction to Chengdu Evening Newspaper"Chengdu Evening Newspaper" was founded on 01 May 1956; the header was personally inscribed by Comrade Jiang Zemin. 01 July 2001, after stripping off its official CPC Chengdu Municipal functions, Chengdu Evening Newspaper has became a distinct public report with urban characteristics.

Born in 1956, is responsible for all reports of Chengdu. Chengdu Evening News, adhere to the news localization, differentiation, characterization, focus on education, transportation, life, health, wealth, environmental, business, new knowledge and other urban progress and civilization. Her reader's group cover the various sectors of the people in Chengdu, is one of the best medium for community information.


曾汉林冤案-成都记者正义爆内幕

《成都晚报》创刊于1956年5月1日,现在的报头由江泽民同志亲自题写。2001年7月1日,《成都晚报》剥离中共成都市委机关报职能,成为一张具有鲜明都市特色的综合­性市民报。

生于一九五六,负责报道成都。成都晚报坚持新闻本土化、差异化、特色化,重点关注教育、交通、生命、健康、财富、环保、创业、新知等有关城市进步文明的新闻。她的读者群覆­盖到成都市民的各个阶层,是社会各界发布信息的最佳媒体之一。

Monday, March 26, 2012

聲稱審理受地方政府施壓 曾漢林家人致函北京求公道 by 星岛日报 (Sing Tao Daily)

聲稱審理受地方政府施壓 曾漢林家人致函北京求公道
[2012-03-24]
本報記者
首名被加拿大政府遣返的中國通緝犯、廣東商人曾漢林的案件有新進展。不僅其家人已經再次入稟加拿大聯邦法庭,要求聯邦政府披露就曾漢林案與中國交涉的情況,其家人還向中國最高領導人胡溫致函,聲稱案件審理受到地方政府施壓。

現年66歲的曾漢林,在去年2月被加拿大政府遣返後,一直關押在四川成都,並在今年120日被宣判其合同詐騙罪成立,判處15年有期徒刑。其家人認為審判不公,已經向四川成都高級法院提起上訴,現等待二審開庭。

身在中國的曾漢林兒子曾孝國,昨日透過長途對本報披露該案最新進展情況稱,曾漢林在加拿大的家屬已經委託曾代表賴昌星的加拿大人權律師馬塔斯(David Matas),向加拿大聯邦政府提起訴訟。因總理哈珀表示已經將此案委託聯邦外交部和移民部跟進,曾家表示至今並沒有得到回覆,希望聯邦政府披露與中國交涉的情況。

有著加拿大和香港雙重身份的曾孝國,本月14日委託香港立法會議員,向中國最高領導人胡錦濤和溫家寶及四川省委書記劉奇葆轉發了公開信,詳述四川公檢法三權力機構製造冤案,希望中央領導人關注案情,捍衛司法獨立公正。

曾孝國強調父親是非常愛國的商人,他們並不想被加拿大和中國政府誤認為是搞事者和反動者,他們現在的做法全是迫於無奈,只希望洗清曾漢林的冤情。最重要的是他們認為曾漢林沒有得到公平審判。

Family of Chinese deportee in prison sues Ottawa by AFP (Agence France-Presse)

Family of Chinese deportee in prison sues Ottawa

AFP – Fri, Mar 23, 2012


The family of a Chinese millionaire serving 15 years in prison for fraud after being deported from Canada is suing Ottawa to try to bolster his bid for release, the family's lawyer said Thursday.

Zeng Hanlin, 66, fled China in 2004 to escape the charges but was deported in March last year after Canadian authorities dismissed concerns he could be tortured or executed if he returned to China.

He was tried and convicted of fraud in November over a stock scheme linked to a failed business merger and a court in the southwestern city of Chengdu in February sentenced him to 15 years in prison.

Canadian rights lawyer David Matas said the family has written to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ask him to "express concern" about Zeng's prosecution to Chinese authorities, and is now pressing its case in federal court.

In its letters to Harper, obtained by AFP, the family said the first legal proceedings did not meet "basic standards of due process or human rights."

Zeng had been denied contact with his family, medication for diabetes, and proper legal counsel, they said.
Canada bans the return of prisoners to countries where they might face torture, or unfair prosecution.

"All we want is for the Canadian government to say it is concerned about the criminal proceedings against him (Zeng), and that it is expressing that concern to the government of China," Matas told AFP.

"The hope is that Ottawa's involvement would impact on his appeal, either resulting in a withdrawal of the prosecution or a ruling at the appeal's court that the trial was unfair," he said.

Zeng lodged an appeal against his sentence last month, while his family maintains that he is "innocent" of the charges and wants the case to be heard in an open court in Beijing to ensure a fair trial.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Letter from Prime Minister Stephen Harper on 29 Feb 2012

We have received 2 identical reply from PM office. Previously, PMO took 3 months to reply to our Open Letter (09 feb 2012). Now they took 3 days to reply (29 Feb 2012). There was no mentioning of how PMO would further respond to our demands and what explicit action to be taken. This reply seems to be an acknowledgement only.

This reply had only showcase the social responsibility that PMO had fulfilled but no substantive action had been taken. We do not want to be under the impression that canadian government is just patronizing us to delay the whole matters. Please correct us if we are wrong.

This response is good news for us, but in the meantime, it is of no substantive significance. In the end, we are unsure if Canadian government had communicate with the Chinese counterpart on Zeng Hanlin unfair treatment?

What concrete action taken by the Government of Canada is still unknown. This is the key issue for us. Sichuan Chengdu can always close case in lightning speed.

We hope that the Canadian government can shed some lights on what substantive diplomatic action would they undertake to raise Zeng Hanlin case to China..

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Canada asked to press China on trial of deportee by AFP (Agence France Presse)

Canada asked to press China on trial of deportee

Agence France Presse in Ottawa
(AFP) – 01 March 2012



OTTAWA — The family of a Chinese millionaire serving 15 years in prison for fraud after being deported from Canada said his trial was unfair and urged Ottawa on Thursday to take up the matter with Beijing.
Zeng Hanlin, 66, fled in 2004 to escape the charges but was deported in March last year after Canadian authorities dismissed concerns he would be tortured or executed if he returned to China.
He was tried and convicted of fraud in November over a stock scheme linked to a failed business merger and a court in the southwestern city of Chengdu in February sentenced him to 15 years in prison.
A lawyer for his family, Daniel Kingwell, said in a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, obtained by AFP, that the legal proceedings did not meet "basic standards of due process or human rights."
"We are writing you to request that the Canadian government express concern to Chinese authorities regarding the ongoing criminal proceedings against Han Lin Zeng," Kingwell wrote.
Kingwell said Zeng had been denied contact with his family, medication for diabetes, and proper legal counsel.
The case has garnered attention "as a significant precedent in the removal of fugitives to China from abroad," he added. "The world is watching Mr. Zeng's treatment by the Chinese court, and Canada's role in his removal."
Canada, which does not practice capital punishment, bans the return of prisoners to countries where they might face the death penalty. But it has recently deported several people wanted by China.
Zeng has lodged an appeal against his sentence, while his family maintains that he is "innocent" of the charges and wants the case to be heard in an open court in Beijing to ensure a fair trial.
The family cited a group of 21 Chinese law professors who claimed in a video presented at a press conference in Toronto that the "contractual dispute giving rise to (Zeng's) conviction is a civil matter only, and not a criminal matter."

曾汉林一审判15年 子吁加国干预 by New Tang Dynasty Television

曾汉林一审判15年 子吁加国干预




2012-03-01

在去年(2011216日)被加拿大遣返回中国的原广东飞龙集团董事长曾汉林,因为1999年的股权诈骗案,在今年(2012年)120日被四川省中级人民法院一审判处15年徒刑,并处罚金200万。曾汉林的儿子及曾汉林在加拿大申请难民的代理律师等认为曾没有得到公平审理,要求加拿大政府进行干预。请看记者秋旻的报导。


曾汉林儿媳 Milly Zeng:「我们要求一个公平公正的审讯。」
曾汉林的儿子及儿媳分别从香港及新加坡,通过网络视频向加拿大媒体通报曾汉林在四川法院审理的情况。
曾汉林儿子 曾健:「在中国四川,你们关着门打这个官司,人也不能进去,只有两个(亲友进去)。审判时他们用证人把我父亲定罪,但是一个证人也没有出庭,反而把活生生的证据放到一边。」

曾健说,不仅案子得不到公平公开的审判,四川当局还不准当地媒体报道此案。根据曾健提供的视频,多位中国法学专家一致认为曾汉林案是一起民事股权纠纷,而不是刑事合同诈骗。

现年66岁的曾汉林1999年被指以「资产重组,借殻上市」为名,利用合同骗取成都联谊(集团)股权,被称作「中国最大股权诈骗案」。曾汉林当年逃到加拿大,2004年提出难民申请,最终失败,於20112月被递解出境,成为第一例加拿大强制遣返回中国的通缉犯。201111月(17日),成都市中级法院开始审理曾汉林案,并在今年一审裁决诈骗罪成立。

曾汉林加拿大律师 金威尔:「这不仅关系到基本人权和加拿大价值观,也关系到未来的加中关系。」
曾汉林的加拿大律师金威尔(Daniel Kingwell)说,加拿大法庭基於相信曾在中国能得到公平审判才做出遣返决定的。
曾汉林加拿大律师 金威尔:「如果曾汉林不能得到公平审判,到目前为止的确如此。此案肯定会被今後类似案子引用,这将成为今後一个新的障碍,如果要从加拿大遣返罪犯回中国。如果那样的情况发生将有损加中关系。」

金威尔已经向总理哈珀去信,要求加拿大政府出面干预此事。曾经为赖昌星辩护的着名国际人权律师麦塔斯认为,曾汉林案有可能出现转机,因为据他所知,此案不涉及中共高层权利斗争。
着名国际人权律师 麦塔斯:「有些案子中共当局无论如何也不会改变,无论国际社会如何施加压力,如果中共感到威胁自身状况,但这个案子似乎不存在这个问题。」

曾健说,他们已经在1月底向四川省高院提出上诉,并要求将案子转到北京的法院审判,但至今没有任何回复。他们希望借助加拿大的媒体披露曾汉林案的真实情况,从而为父亲争取公平审判的机会。

新唐人记者秋旻加拿大多伦多报导。

首名强制遣返中国通缉犯曾汉林家属喊冤 by info51ca

首名强制遣返中国通缉犯曾汉林家属喊冤
加国无忧 51.CA 201232 07:59
31日,第一个被加拿大政府强制遣返的中国通缉犯、广东商人曾汉林的家人和前加拿大代表律师在多伦多召开记者会,称曾汉林在中国没有得到公平审讯和基本人权保障,呼吁加拿大政府向中国政府施压,保证曾汉林的上诉能得到公平审讯。曾汉林在加拿大期间申请难民的代表律师Daniel Kingwell和赖昌星的代表律师David Matas出席了记者会,身在香港的曾汉林儿子曾健和在新加坡的曾健妻子Milly透过视频联线参加了记者会。 曾汉林家属喊冤

曾汉林儿子曾健坚称其父无辜,案件是纯粹的民事商业纠纷案件,并不涉及刑事犯罪。据曾健介绍,曾汉林在20112月被加拿大政府遣返后,一直关押在四川成都。20111120日,四川成都中级法院开庭审理此案,并于2012120日宣判其合同诈骗罪成立,判处15年有期徒刑。曾汉林有10天期限可以提出上诉。目前,其上诉已经提交给四川成都高级法院,并等待进一步消息。
 曾汉林儿子曾健和妻子Milly透过视频联线参加了记者会

 曾汉林代表律师Daniel Kingwell()和赖昌星的代表律师David Matas
曾健称,在案件的审讯过程中,成都中级法院是在春节放假前一天,开庭审理其父的案件,但依法上诉期限只有10天,而春节假期是计算在内的。这样在法院放假结束后,曾家只有1天时间提交上诉,且只有5天时间用来为一个长达10余年的案件搜集证据,时间非常仓促。 曾健表示,之所以向加拿大媒体公开事件,是因他们不相信四川成都的法庭,10年前的审判者在10年后审理同一案件,怎么可能公正?如果推翻以前的判决,就等于说他们自己10年前做错了。为此他们希望中国中央政府能直接介入此案,并希望将此案移到北京去公开审理。 发表致哈珀公开信

Daniel Kingwell
和曾汉林的家人认为法院对曾汉林的审判,不符合基本程序正义和人权标准,呼吁加拿大政府要对此重视,因为这不仅关乎国际人权标准,也关系到加拿大政府今后再次遣返逃犯回中国的问题。


Daniel Kingwel



200675号,曾汉林在多伦多某餐厅

公开信中罗列了10项曾汉林在中国受到的不公正待遇。主要涉及︰在曾汉林被关押期间基本人权没有得到保障,包括不许与家人见面,没有得到适当医疗照顾,在开始几个月内不允许聘请律师,尽管其最后找到一位非常满意的北京律师,但只被允许在开庭前进行了3次简短的有监督的会见。案件的审讯是闭门进行,只有曾的两名家人被允许进入法庭,媒体则被拒之门外。在宣判后,受曾家人委托,21位中国法学教授就判决所认定的曾汉林犯有合同诈骗罪是否成立的问题,进行了论证并提出法律意见书。该意见书认为对曾的判决违反中国法律,但该论证会尽管有媒体出席,却被政府禁止报道。
 第一个被加拿大政府强制遣返的中国通缉犯曾汉林



 二十一位教授提出法律意见,确认关联交易是正确审理本案的关键,非付款方式履行合同并不违法。成都联益(集团)公司以6800万元的对价将自己在其下属的成都联益实业股份有限公司40%的股权,转让给广东飞龙集团有限公司。为此,双方在19971015日签订了《股份转让协议书》。19971225日,广东飞龙集团有限公司属下的广东高速客轮有限公司,与成都联益实业股份有限公司签订了《股权转让协议书》,广东高速客轮有限公司以7400万元为对价将广东飞龙高速客轮有限公司75%的股权转让给成都联益实业股份有限公司。


上述两份协议的签订和履行是在关联交易的背景下进行的。对于已经完成了的关联交易,司法机关支持一方强制关联另一方付款甚至采用刑事手段追究股权受让方的刑事责任,是没有法律根据的。双方相互转让自己公司的股份,均约定采取付款方式签合同,而双方都未履行或未完全履行协议,必然产生矛盾。但是,这属合同纠纷,不是犯罪。因为这种违约行为仅仅涉及当事人之间的是非利害,不会危害社会。有矛盾可以直接去法院诉讼,公安机关不应插手

专家出具《法律意见书》
受被告人曾汉林亲属曾健的委托,21位来自刑法学、刑诉法学、证据学、民法学、公司法学诸领域的法学教授,专门就成都中级人民法院一审判决所认定的,被告人曾汉林犯有合同诈骗罪是否成立的问题,进行了论证并提出本法律意见书。应邀出席论证会的有:北京大学陈兴良教授,中国公安大学李文燕教授、国家法官学院张泗汉教授、中国政法大学曹子丹教授等21人。
宣布其事务所已经代表曾汉林于本周一向加拿大总理哈珀及有关部长发出了一封公开信,要求加拿大政府向中国当局表达对正在审理中的曾汉林案件的关注。该信目前还没有得到加拿大政府的回复。