Zeng Hanlin is Missing! Zhou Yongkang is the Culprit?

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

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

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。

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1月20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.

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..

Open Letter to Canadian PM Stephen Harper on 27 Feb 2012 urging concern on Zeng Hanlin's appeal

Letter from Prime Minister Stephen Harper on 09 Feb 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（2011年2月16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）1月20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2011年2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。2011年11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 2012年3月2日 07:59

3月1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2011年2月被加拿大政府遣返后，一直关押在四川成都。2011年11月20日，四川成都中级法院开庭审理此案，并于2012年1月20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(右)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

2006年7月5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1997年10月15日签订了《股份转让协议书》。1997年12月25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。

加拿大华裔商人曾汉林的家人说中国法院没有公平审理曾汉林案件 by RCI (加拿大国际广播电台)

Zeng Han Lin Press Conference in Canada - 01 Mar 2012 @ 11am

PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ZENG HAN LIN PRESS CONFERENCE
Beseech a Fair and Open Trial!

Canadian government sacrifices Zeng Hanlin to China for economic reforms, ignoring human rights. Zeng Hanlin’s family has decided to engage David Matas to start the legal proceeding against Canadian government. Special Feature includes Petition from China top 21 law experts vouching that Zeng Hanlin is not a Criminal!

Details for Press Conference of Zeng Hanlin as below:

Date	:	Thursday, March 1, 2012, at 11 am
Venue	:	Offices of Mamann Sandaluk & Kingwell LLP 82 Richmond Street East (at Church Street) Toronto, ON, Canada M5C 1P1
Presenter	:	Sam Zeng (Son of Zeng Hanlin) Milly Zeng (Daughter-in-law of Zeng Hanlin) Daniel Kingwell, Barrister and Solicitor David Matas, Barrister and Solicitor (Winnipeg lawyer and human rights advocate David Matas has been nominated for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on human rights.)

Please register for this press conference by contacting Ms Diane Maxwell at (1-416) 862-0000 or email: hanyzeng@gmail.com.

About Zeng Hanlin:

•        Zeng Hanlin is a businessman in China. Ten years ago, his business partner in China collaborated with corrupted officials to set him up and framed him for "Contract Fraud".

•        Not only was he being deprived of all possessions, but was also listed as China Top 10 wanted fugitive for criminal fraud.

•        He was accused of absconding RMB 35 million yuan bank loan and fled to Canada (after his deportation back to China, it was confirmed that he did not steal a penny!).

•        Sadly, he was denied a Fair trial to prove his innocence!

•        http://zenghanlin.blogspot.com

# # #

Appeal Letter from HK Democratic Party Legislative Councillor Emily Lau to China President Hu Jintao

English Version

Appeal Letter from Hong Kong Democratic Party Legislative Councillor Emily Lau to China President Hu Jintao

Office of Emily Lau, Legislative Councillor

Document No: 120127 (1)

China

Beijing City

Xi Cheng District

Fu Cheng Street No. 2 (Zhong Nan Hai West Gate)

People Republic of China President

Mr Hu Jintao

President Hu:

On the 27th of Jan, our office had received a distress call from Hong Kong citizen Mr Zeng. It is regarding his father, Zeng Hanlin, who was involved in a contract fraud 10 years ago, wanted by the Police, eventually fleeing to Canada seeking asylum, deported from Canada to China for trial last year.

Mr Zeng mentioned that, since his father return, the china authority had handed this case over to Chengdu District Court for hearing, but the hearing was conducted as a closed-door trial. Therefore, he wishes for Mr Hu to show solicitude for his father trial, in hope that his father will get a fair and open trial. Attached are the related documents for your kind perusal.

Henceforth, Mr Zeng had requested my assistance to address this letter to you sir, beseeching your help. Should you require further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact him at hong kong number 9156 8067.

Yours faithfully,

Emily Lau

Office of Emily Lau, Legislative Councillor

Room 910, Legislative Council Complex,

1 Legislative Council Road

Central, Hong Kong

Tel: +(852) 2509 0393

Fax: +(852) 2332 1893

Email: elau@dphk.org

Website: http://www.emilylau.org.hk

 

民主党立法会议员刘慧卿为曾汉林写的请愿书

Appeal Statement

Appeal Statement

Appellant: Zeng Hanlin, Male, Chinese, born in 1945, Director of Guangdong Flying Dragon Group Co., Ltd.

Appellant contest the verdict made by Chengdu Intermediate People's Court (2011) Criminal Judgments No. 417, the appellant hereby appeal the court of second hearing to pronounce the appellant Not Guilty according to law. The specific grounds of appeal are as follows:

(A) Flying Dragon Group and the appellant did not commit an act of fraud against Chengdu Lianyi.

(1) Flying Dragon Group and the appellant did not instigate any fraud in the acquisition of 40% equity interest in Chengdu Liangyi.

Verdict from the court of first hearing was based on the verbal opinion of witnesses Zhang Zhaohui, Wen Rupei, Li Kai, denying the assets assessment report made by rating agencies on Guangdong Flying Dragon High-speed and subsequently ascertained that Flying Dragon Group was heavily in debt during the acquisition of Chengdu Lianyi's equity. This ascertainment bias finds no reason or logic, is a serious contradictory to the facts.

During the court of first hearing trial, after cross-examination, prosecutor admitted their blunder in court on the miscalculation of Flying Dragon Group liabilities by duplicating the company debt's amount repeatedly, and therefore amended the Flying Dragon Group debts to RMB 30 million yuan during the acquisition of Chengdu Lianyi. However, in the testimony of Zhang Zhaohui, he confirmed Flying Dragon Group debts amount to be RMB 56 million yuan; Li Kai's testimony confirmed Flying Dragon Group assets are not worth more than RMB 60 million yuan, with a debt ratio of 200% which is equivalent to RMB 120 million yuan; Wen Rupei's testimony confirmed Flying Dragon Group liabilities to be tens of millions. Evidently, Zhang, Li and Wen testimonies all contradict each other and are serious misrepresentation of fact, inadequate to be used as evidence. (Note: however in the trial, none of the witness was ever summon to the stand)

Appellant believes that, to ascertain the amount of a corporate asset, it can only be based on factual evidence or financial assessment report. By using the conflicting testimonies of Zhang and the others in the absence of any documentary evidence in this case, to negate the certification reports made by authoritative national rating agencies (Guangdong Evaluation Corporation) and the audit reports made by internationally recognized auditors (KPMG Certified Public Accounting firm), this identification is erroneous, as well as lack of legal grounds. Definitely disputable and unconvincing.

Relevant documentary evidence indicated that during the acquisition of Chengdu Lianyi, the total assets of Flying Dragon High-speed (a subsidiary of Flying Dragon Group) were more than hundreds of millions, Guangdong Asset Evaluation report clearly documented the debt was only RMB 13.85 million. To strongly emphasise, the second restructuring of the asset was a related transactions, to achieve an asset restructuring project, it must be mutually committed by both sides and agreement must be signed for the asset swap, allowing injection of high-quality assets. In this connected transaction, Chengdu Lianyi had acquired Flying Dragon High-speed 75% equity through this joint interest valuing at a total RMB 74 million yuan, Chengdu Lianyi has also never made any payment to Flying Dragon Group, such assets condition and account receivable for Flying Dragon Group, how would Flying Dragon Group be termed as "heavily in debt," this is absolutely a deviation of fact and false allegations. According to proven information, Chengdu Lianyi Group debt ratio was several times higher than Flying Dragon Group at then.

Since Flying Dragon Group was not heavily in debt, and they had never concealed any information towards Chengdu Lianyi, therefore, no fraud was even instigated.

(2) Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry and the Appellant did not commit an act of fraud in the transfer of 75% stake to Chengdu Lianyi.

Verdict from the court of first hearing decided that Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry stake ownership in Flying Dragon High-speed was 51% instead of 75%. This was based on the approval of Guangdong Foreign Economic and Trade Commission (1997) No.416. However, in the same volume of the company's business files clearly recorded that the Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry stake ownership in Flying Dragon High-speed to be 75%. In the verification report of Guangdong Kexing Certified Public Accountants, it clearly documented that Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry invested RMB 75 million yuan in Flying Dragon High-speed, accounting for 75% of total funding. Undoubtedly, it illustrate that Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry actual holding of shares in Flying Dragon High-speed is 75%, the not yet approval of Guangdong Foreign Economic and Trade Commission filing is only a mere procedural flaw, it does not contradict the objective reality.

Verdict from the court of first hearing decided that Flying Dragon Group and the Appellant had withheld the information on the change of equity ownership from Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry to Flying Dragon High-speed and the ship mortgage to the bank. But the verdict from the court of first hearing has ignored the fact that the vessels had actually been delivered to Flying Dragon High-speed for usage and all proceeds have been contributed to Flying Dragon High-speed. Since 1997, Flying Dragon High-speed had injected its capital into Chengdu Lianyi, Chengdu Lianyi benefitted greatly from the 75% equity investment from Flying Dragon High-speed. In the span of two years after the equity investment by Flying Dragon High-speed, Chengdu Lianyi generate huge profits every year, was even able to implement a 10 shares plus 3 bonus shares scheme complimentary to all Chengdu Lianyi shareholders, this includes Informants Xu Huaizhong, Zhou Guangjun, etc had all benefitted from this bonus system and derived a huge amount of profit from it. Without the equity injection of Flying Dragon High-speed, Chengdu Lianyi will have no profits, let alone the 10 shares plus 3 bonus shares complimentary dividends, this is a cold hard fact. Therefore, merely based on the document procedures flaw to negate a truth that had happened, this is not reasonable. Regarding the mortgage on the ship, firstly, to be clear and concise, all financial conditions of Flying Dragon High-speed from 1993 to 1999 are assessed and rated by national agency and verified by audit authorities, from 1997 to 1999 its financial position was also documented in the listed company annual report and announced to the public, including the then financial condition and collateral conditions, apparently the listed company's annual reports and announcement statement have been verified by Chengdu Lianyi board of directors before announcing to the public, board of directors included the informant Xu Huaizhong (Vice Chairman). Thus, Flying Dragon Group did not conceal any information. According to the asset conditions of the then Flying Dragon Group, without any doubt, they have the ability to acquire the shares.

Verdict from the court of first hearing decided that Chengdu Lianyi shares report on Flying Dragon Group profit is a unilateral statement, intended to explain the report is untrue. But the fact is, a listed company's annual report, is required to be approved by all members of the board of directors, among the board of directors also include the informants Xu Huaizhong (Vice Chairman), Zhou Guangjun (Managing Director), the annual reports must be confirmed by this two person, and then verified by qualified audit accounting firm, and finally approved by the Securities and Futures Commission before it can be announced to the public. If the audit report exist any error or contain any falsified information, all related institutions will be held accountable. These institutions include local audit institutions in Sichuan, but the fact is not. Therefore, the evidence is absolutely impossible to be a unilateral statement by Flying Dragon Group as mentioned in the verdict from the court of first hearing. To negate such evidence of fact like child's play is definitely unreasonable, unconvincing and unpersuasive.

In the event of transferring Flying Dragon High-speed 75% stakes, Flying Dragon Group and the Appellant not only did not commit any fraud, they had even transfer their high quality asset Flying Dragon High-speed 75% stake worth of RMB 74 million yuan of assets actually into Chengdu Lianyi shares, and generated a profit of RMB 32 million for Chengdu Lianyi in 1997, profit of RMB 23 million yuan in 1998, implemented a 10 shares plus 3 bonus shares scheme compliment to all Chengdu Lianyi shareholders, so to benefit all shareholders, created remarkable profit results, all including Xu Huaizhong, Zhou Guangjun had harvested bountifully from this profit gain. This is the reality of the facts.

(3) In the Chengdu Lianyi payment collection process for the transfer of shares, Flying Dragon Group and the Appellant did not instigate any fraud.

Verdict from the court of first hearing was based on the testimonies of Xu Huaizhong, Zhou Guangjun, Zhang Zhaohui, etc, implying that the Appellant had instructed Zhang Zhaohui to forged certificates of deposit and wire transfer documents, evidence is clearly weak and insufficient. Xu Huaizhong, Zhou Guangjun being the informants of the case, having conflicting interest with the case, as an Informant, the adverse statement against Flying Dragon Group and the Appellant, inherently lack of credibility. Zhang Zhaohui, a fraud perpetrator, in order to shirk its responsibility and shift blame to the Appellant, the possibility of this act cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the conflicting testimonies of the trio including Zhang Zhaohui, under cross-examination in the trial, the prosecutor had even admitted during the trial that the testimonies of the trio including Zhaohui exist serious inaccuracies, more importantly, its argument on the Appellant instigating the fabrication is purely a solitary testament, and it does not have probative force. Therefore, in the absence of substantial evidence, we cannot claim that the Appellant had instigated Zhang Zhaohui to fabricate certificate. Even if Zhang Zhaohui as an individual had forged documents, this is a behavior that occurs in order to elude responsibilities, this is a civil act, and the prosecutor had admitted during the trial that this is an act of evasion.

(B) Flying Dragon Group and the Appellant have no purpose or intention for any illegal possession of Chengdu Lianyi equity.

Verdict from the court of first hearing decided that Flying Dragon Group and the Appellant in the absence of the ability to fulfil the contract obligation had proceed with the acquisition of equity interest in Chengdu Lianyi, has instigate a fraud. As mentioned earlier, during the acquisition of shares, Flying Dragon Group apart from owning RMB 50 million yuan worth of vessels, it also possess RMB 50 million worth of assets and properties in construction in progress, buildings, store ships and shipyards, machinery and equipments, land use rights,  it’s also has several profitable subsidiaries, including Guangdong Asia Daily Chemical, the well-known chemical plant in Guangdong Province that provided Chengdu Lianyi with RMB 6.8 million profit in 1997, more importantly, in the related transaction under this restructuring of assets, Chengdu Lianyi acquired 75% stake in Flying Dragon High-speed, worth RMB 74 million yuan, and has not been honouring any payment to Flying Dragon Group. The undeniable fact is that Flying Dragon Group has substantial account receivables due to this trade off equity and other assets in possession, this absolute fact has proven Flying Dragon Group having the ability to pay the acquisition price. Using such basis to deny Flying Dragon Group ability to make payment, such rationale is absolutely unfair to Flying Dragon Group, because as the reciprocate acquirer, Chengdu Lianyi should be paying RMB 74 million yuan to Flying Dragon Group in this shares swapping. Given such situation, the audit should be a fair perspective on these two companies located in Guangdong Province and Sichuan Province. Not based on the unilateral statement to repudiate the reality of the real situation, this verdict is definitely lack of legal basis, disputable and unconvincing.

Flying Dragon Group and the Appellant pledge their stock to obtain loans, after repaying the transfer amount for the acquisition to the transferor, the balance was used for business operation, not a penny was squander away. To be precise, in the signed Equity Transfer Agreement between Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry Ltd and Chengdu Yi Industrial Co., it was clearly defined under Clause 6.2 that after 1996, all credits and debts of Guangdong High-speed Passenger Ferry will be undertaken by Chengdu Lianyi. In the span of the two years, the Appellant coexist with the company, working hard to create huge profits for Chengdu Lianyi, implementing the 10 shares plus 3 bonus shares scheme complimenting all shareholders, in coexistence with creditors as well, facing creditor with a positive attitude and seeking common development with the creditors, actively fulfilling his duties and commitment. Never had the Appellant hide or try to elude. Only when the Appellant was wanted by the national public security, helplessly not able to clarify himself that he has no choice but to flee, not fleeing because of any inability to repay debt. These facts illustrated that Flying Dragon Group and the Appellant have no purpose or intention to illegally take possession of other property.

(C) Zeng Hanlin and his families affirmed that Chengdu Intermediate People's Court's verdict is UNFAIR, a serious lack of objectivity and fairness. Had requested to transfer this case to the Supreme People Court for public hearing. The reasons as below:

(1) This case contains many controversy, both Guangdong Province and Sichuan Province holds different judgment, the court decisions vary, different viewpoints of law.

Guangdong and Sichuan, both legal (ruling) verdict is based on the judgments of their individual civil economic law and criminal law, and are all made according to the law. The two encountered conflict in executing the verdict. In regards to the Flying Dragon Group RMB 35 million yuan loan taken from Bank of Communication in 1998, the two provinces derived at two different conclusions. Guangdong Province Court found that the equity trading agreements and Bank loans are under legal compliance, it does not involve any criminal offense; Sichuan Province final decision determined that the loan is a contract fraud proceeds. Due to the fact that two provinces People's Court derived at extremely opposite judgment, that leads to the two sentences not being able to be executed.

(2) This case is associated with local protectionism

Chengdu Lianyi Group is a collective township and village enterprise of Chengdu City, Guangdong Flying Dragon is an enterprise originated from Guangdong province. This result in the two District Court’s ruling in opposite direction, not being able to be fair and objective. According to the relevant judicial understanding, the two court decisions should be adjourned to a higher court for hearing. The final decision should come from the Supreme People Court.

(3) The final outcome of this case is associated with significant interest in the District Court

In the Intermediate People's Court's verdict, we can clearly see that their decisions lack objectivity and fairness. Reason being that this case till now is still highly controversial. If the point of law were to overturn the verdict, this will greatly impact the previous verdict made by the district court in Chengdu, they may have to bear the responsibility of negligence. Given these conflicting interest, Chengdu District Court is bound to be affected and fail to maintain fairness and independence judgment on this case, inability to be objective and fair to trial this case.

   

In summary, Flying Dragon Group and the Appellant's conduct did not constitute a contract fraud. Beseech the thorough investigation and prudent judgment of the Court of second hearing.

Sincerely to:

Sichuan Higher People's Court

(Beijing City, King & Capital Law firm lawyer Yang Zhaodong, Zhu Yalin, appealing on behalf of the Appellant Zeng Hanlin under his consent)

                                           

                                                                                                                                                                                21 January 2012