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

上诉状

上诉状

上诉人：曾汉林，男，汉族，1945年出生，系广东飞龙集团有限公司董事长。

上诉人不服成都市中级法院（2011）成刑初字第417号刑事判决，现提出上诉，请二审法院依法改判上诉人无罪。具体上诉理由如下：

一、     飞龙集团及上诉人没有对成都联益实施欺诈行为。

1、飞龙集团及上诉人在收购成都联益40%股权中没有实施欺诈行为。

一审判决以证人张朝晖、温汝培、李凯等人的证言否定评估机构所做出的广东飞龙高速的资产报告，进而认定飞龙集团在收购成都联益时已经负有巨额债务。这一认定没有任何道理，与事实严重不符。

在一审庭审中，经过质证，公诉机关当庭承认重复错误计算飞龙集团负债额，继而改为在收购成都联益时飞龙集团的负债总额为人民币3000万元左右。但张朝晖在证言中却证实飞龙集团负债有5600万元；李凯在证言中证实飞龙集团资产不足6000万元，负债率200%即为负债1.2亿元；温汝培在证言中证实飞龙集团负债有好几千万。可见，张、李、温的证言之间相互矛盾，严重失实，不足为证。（备注：在庭审中从没出现任何一个关于本案件的证人）

上诉人认为，确定一个企业资产的多少，只能依据财务凭证或者评估报告。一审判决在没有任何书证的情况下，仅凭张等人的相互矛盾的证言来否定拥有国家认证资格的权威评估机构（广东评估公司）及国际公认的权威审计机构（毕马威华振会计师事务所）作出的报告，此认定必然是错误的，也缺乏法律理据。绝不能服众。

相关书证确实表明，在收购成都联益时，飞龙集团旗下的飞龙高速资产总额逾亿元，广东资产评估报告明确记载当时负债为1385万元。更为强调的是该次的资产重组是一个关联交易，要达成一个资产重组项目，必须是要双方承诺签订相互资产对调，优质资产注入。在这次的关连交易中，成都联益含权收购的飞龙高速75%股权，总价值7400万，成都联益也一直没有付款给飞龙集团，这样的资产状况和飞龙所拥有的应收款，如何算是“负巨额债务”，这绝对是错误失实的指控。根据资料显示成都联益集团当时的负债率就比飞龙集团高出数倍。

飞龙集团没有负巨额债务，也没有对成都联益隐瞒什么，因此，没有实施任何欺诈。

2、广东高速客轮及上诉人在向成都联益出让75%股权中没有实施欺诈行为。

一审判决认为，广东高速客轮在飞龙高速公司中的持股是51%不是75%。依据是广东省经贸委（1997）416号批复。但是，同样在卷的飞龙高速公司的工商档案中却记载着广东高速客轮在飞龙高速公司持有的股份是75%，广东科信会计师事务所的验资报告中，也明确记载了广东高速客轮向飞龙高速出资人民币 7500万元，占全部出资的75%。这说明，广东高速客轮在飞龙高速公司实际持有的股份是75%，未经广东省经贸委批准备案只是程序上的瑕疵，并不能否定这一客观存在的事实。

一审判决认为飞龙集团及上诉人对成都联益隐瞒了广东高速客轮没有将船舶的所有权变更到飞龙高速名下，且该等船舶已经抵押给银行的事实。但是一审判决却忽略了这样的事实：这些船舶已经实际交付给飞龙高速使用，所得收益已经归属飞龙高速所有。从1997年开始飞龙高速也把财务合并到成都联益，继而成都联益因飞龙高速的75%股权注入，入主的两年里，每年都产生丰厚利润，实施了10送3股，成都联益的全部股东都已得益，包括举报人徐怀中，周光军同样因此得益丰厚，如果没有飞龙高速的75%股权注入，成都联益就没有利润，就没有10送3股的股本送赠分红，这是铁一般的事实，所以单以文件手续瑕疵否定已经发生的事实，这绝不合理。关于船舶的抵押，首先，要明确的是飞龙高速的财务状况从1993到1999年都是经过国家级的评估或审计部门机构核实，1997年至1999年中的财务状况在上市公司对外公告的年报中有记载，包括当时的财务状况与抵押状况，而上市公司的年度报告及公告都经过成都联益董事会核实通过才对外公告的，其中也包括举报人徐怀中（副董事长）在内。由此可见飞龙集团并没有作出任何的隐瞒。飞龙集团当时的资产实力，毋庸置疑是具有收购股权的能力。

一审判决认为成都联益股份关于飞龙集团盈利的年报是飞龙集团单方陈述，意在说明该年报是不真实的。但事实是，一家上市公司的年报，是需要通过全体董事会成员核准通过，董事之中包括举报人徐怀中（副董事长），周光军（董事总经理），年报必须经两人之手确认，再经合资格的会计师事务所的审核，最后通过证监会批准才公报出来的。如果这些审核报告真的存在虚假问题，这些关连机构都应该被追究责任。而这些机构也包括四川当地的审计机构，但事实并非如此。故此，这些证据绝对不可能像一审所认为凭飞龙集团一方的陈述就可以产生的。以这样儿戏般认定事实，既不合理，也绝不能服从。

在出让飞龙高速75%股权的过程中，飞龙集团及上诉人不仅没有实施任何欺诈，还将旗下优质资产飞龙高速的75%股权，价值7400万元资产实际注入成都联益股份，并为成都联益于1997年实现利润3200万元，1998年实现利润2300万元，实施了10送3红股，令到全部股东获益，创造了骄人的业绩，其中也包括徐怀忠、周光军等人均收获颇丰。这也是现实中的事实。

3、在成都联益催收股权转让款的过程中，飞龙集团及上诉人没有实施欺诈行为。

一审判决以徐怀忠、周光军、张朝晖等人的证言认定上诉人指使张朝晖伪造存款凭证及电汇凭证，显然证据不足。徐怀忠、周光军是本案的举报人，与本案有着重大的利害关系，作为举报人，其对飞龙集团及上诉人的不利言辞，本身就缺乏可信性。张朝晖作为一名造假行为的实施者，其为了推脱责任而嫁祸上诉人的可能完全存在，且无法排除。何况，张朝晖等三人的证言相互矛盾，在庭审质证下，公诉人在庭审期间都承认张朝晖等三人的证言严重失实，更重要的是，其关于上诉人指使造假的说法是孤证，不具有证明力。因此，在没有实质证据下，不能认定是上诉人指使张朝晖制造了虚假的凭证。即使张朝晖个人制造了虚假的凭证，这是之后发生的推搪行为，属民事行为，公诉人在庭审期间也承认这是推搪行为。

二、     飞龙集团及上诉人没有非法占有成都联益股权的目的。

    一审判决认为飞龙集团及上诉人在没有履行合同能力的情况下收购成都联益的股权，是欺诈。如前所述，在收购股权时，飞龙集团除了拥有5000万余元的船舶以外，还拥有价值5000万元的在建工程、建筑物、囤船及船坞、机器设备、土地使用权，旗下还拥有几家实力雄厚的附属子公司，其中包括在1997年期间，为成都联益提供680万利润，在广东省赫赫有名的广东亚洲日用化工厂；更重要的是，在这次资产重组的相连交易中，成都联益收购飞龙高速的75%股权，价值7400万元，一直未履行付款给飞龙集团。事实不能否认的是，飞龙集团拥有这应收款和其他的实质资产，事实证明飞龙集团是绝对具有支付股权收购价款的能力。以这样的理据否定飞龙集团具有支付能力，这对飞龙集团绝对不公平，因为作为收购方，成都联益应付给飞龙集团是7400万。鉴于这样的情况，应该以公平的审核角度看待两家分别位于广东省与四川省的公司。而不能以一句单方的陈述就否定现实中的真实情况，这样的判决，绝对是缺乏法律依据，绝不能服众。

   飞龙集团及上诉人以股权质押获得贷款后，在偿还给出让方部分股权收购款后，余款全部用于企业经营，没有一分钱用于挥霍。要明确一点，在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的股份转让协议书上第六条6.2项明确规定，广东高速客轮公司1996年以后的债权债务由成都联益实业股份有限公司承担。两年多的时间里，上诉人始终与企业同在，为成都联益创造丰厚利润，10送3股向全体股东股份分红，并与债权人同在，始终以积极的态度面对债权人，并与债权人共谋发展，积极履行职责。从未有过任何的躲避行为。上诉人是在被公安机关通缉，无力澄清是非的情况下无奈出逃，绝非因欠债无力偿还而出逃。这些事实都表明，飞龙集团及上诉人没有非法占有对方财产的目的。

三、   曾汉林及其家属认为成都中级人民法院的判决不公，严重缺乏客观及公平性。要求将案件申请调到最高人民法院公开审理。理由如下：

1、案件据争议性，广东省与四川省法院判决各异，法律观点不同。

广东和四川两地所做的法律（裁定）判决各自依据的是民事经济法律关系和刑事法律关系，并且都是依法作出的。两者在执行时就遇到矛盾。对于飞龙集团在1998年在交通银行所贷的3500万元，两省法院结论完全不同。广东省法院认定，股权交易协议以及交通银行贷款属合法合规，并不涉及刑事犯罪；四川省终审判决则认定，该笔贷款是合同诈骗的赃款。由于两省人民法院做出了性质截然相反的判决，使两个判决都无法执行。

2、案件涉及地方保护主义

成都联益集团是成都市的集体乡镇企业，广东飞龙属于广东省内企业。地方法院不能客观公平判决。故此当年导致此前的两省的判决完全相反，导致不合理的判决。根据相关的司法解释，应由作出判决的两个法院的上级法院裁决。此案终审判决应由最高人民法院定案。

3、案件最终结果与地方法院存在重大利害关系

在中级人民法院的判决中我们可以明确看出其判决缺乏客观与公平性。因为此案由此至终都极具争议性。如果在法律观点上被推翻判决，这将对成都地方法院先前的判决造成冲击，其要负担相关的失职责任。鉴于此等利害关系，成都地方法院的对案件的公平性与独立性都必然受影响，无法客观公平断案。

综上，飞龙集团及上诉人的行为不构成合同诈骗罪。请二审法院明鉴。

此致

四川省高级人民法院

（北京市京都律师事务所律师杨照东、朱娅琳，经上诉人曾汉林同意代为上诉）

                                           

                                         二〇一二年一月二十一日

Awaking the conscience of the two governments in China and Canada, a friendly economic cooperation should not be at the expense of human rights and human life!

< Zeng Hanlin miscarriage of justice has been globally reported in 30 over countries now >

Awaking the conscience of the two governments in China and Canada, a friendly economic cooperation should not be at the expense of human rights and human life!

China and Canada together had created China's No. 1 case of miscarriage of injustice, urging the immediate attention of both China and Canadian Prime Ministers on the historical forced deportation of an experimented product in Canada - the "Zeng Hanlin" tragedy

Event Description:

Zeng Hanlin is a businessman in China. Ten years ago, his business partner in China collaborated with corrupt 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's Top 10 wanted fugitive for criminal fraud. He was accused of absconding with 35 million yuan bank loan and fled to Canada (after his repatriation, it was confirmed that he did not steal a penny!). In 2004, due to fear of not being able to get a fair trial in China, he seeks political asylum in Canada. In February 2011, behind the friendly economic cooperation between China and Canada, Zeng Hanlin was made the experimental product of historical 1st fugitive to be forcedly deported back to China for trial. After the repatriation, Chengdu Court had already confirmed that Zeng Hanlin was a case of miscarriage of justice. Even after knowing the facts, Chengdu Court not only fails to promise a fair trial, but ignore human rights to cover up their mistakes. On the 17 November 2011 trial, Chengdu Court had only provided Zeng Hanlin's lawyer a few days time to collect evidence to get prepared for the court hearing. Chengdu Court even conducted a closed-door trial to cover up their mistakes. They had refused family members access to the information on the case, they refused entry to media as well. Chengdu Court had even deliberately moved the court verdict of Zeng Hanlin to 20 January 2012 (a day before China long holidays for Chinese New Year), pass on callous sentence of 15 years in prison for Zeng Hanlin, cruelly concluded a nearly 70-year-old chronically ill elderly person in the "Black Jail" of China to suffer throughout the rest of his life. Chengdu Court deliberately chose the day before the Chinese biggest event - the Chinese New Year holidays - to release the verdict, their purpose is to prevent Zeng Hanlin from being able to submit Appeal within the statutory 10 days appeal submission timeframe. To clarify this shady intention, Associated Press (international media) call up Chengdu Court on the day of verdict to closely follow up on this but was completely ignored and did not received any response. Zeng Hanlin's tragic story has been reported by many international media authorities, the evidence of this case have also been spreading like wildfire on the internet.

The unfair treatment encounter by Zeng Hanlin after the forced deportation was confirmed as follows:

(1) A nearly 70-year-old patients with severe diabetes and heart disease, was not given appropriate medical attention during the detention period. When he was given the one & only approval on 24 February 2011 to send one letter to his family, the content was to ask his family to obtain medicine from doctor to control his medical condition and to send clothing and blanket to him in the prison.

(2) Ten years ago, the alleged charges on Zeng Hanlin was that he had fled to Canada with 35 million yuan of bank loans. Ten years later, police verification and bank records confirmation shows that all the bank loan was meant for company's legitimate business operations. Zeng Hanlin did not even seize a single penny! This overturns the former accusation on him.

(3) Ten years ago, the alleged charges on Zeng Hanlin was that he had produced fabricated financial report in the fraud. The so called fabricated financial report was originally the audited financial report issued by one of the world's four largest public accounting firms, KPMG Canada. After the court's cross-examination and confirmed that it is not a fabricated financial report as previously alleged. Ten years later, Chengdu Court in order to continue to cover up their mistakes and concealing their pathetic ignorance of the existence of professional accounting bodies in this world, Chengdu Court prosecutor amended their statement as "The audited financial report of Foreign accounting firms are all not recognize by our country." We consulted KPMG in China, they also have clients using KPMG audited financial report whether issued in China or in overseas and are all allowed to be used as evidence in China’s court. They are puzzled as to why the Chengdu Court is contrary to the other Courts in China upon hearing the denial of authenticity of KPMG audited financial report. In view of this, does it mean that the current KPMG Certified Public Accounting firm with 9000 employees working in 13 different cities in China, servicing customers such as China Top enterprises China Mobile, China CITIC Bank, China Sinopec and many other companies are all adopting fabricated financial report? They had all become fraudster as well? Isn't it ridiculous?

(4) Ten years ago, in order to convict Zeng Hanlin, Chengdu court exaggerated his company's debt to a total of 120 million yuan. Ten years later, Chengdu Court admitted their error in double counting of Flying Dragon's debt and eventually made significant changes in court statement by reducing Flying Dragon's debt to only 30 million yuan. With Chengdu Court making such grave mistakes, can people continue to have faith in their verdict?

(5) Zeng Hanlin as a victim, was not able to produce sufficient evidence to prove his innocence when applying for refugee status. After he was being treated as guinea pigs for forced deportation, although all evidence exhibiting his innocence had surfaced, he was still being subjected to inhumane treatment, not only that the wrongs done on him were not redressed, local district court even resorted to closed-door trial in order to force conviction on Zeng Hanlin. Chengdu Court allegations on Zeng Hanlin and the so-called "evidence" are riddled with mistakes! In line with the spirit of the law, the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the defendant itself. Chengdu Court is in serious contempt of the national spirit of the law set by the country, a very shameful act and dishonourable!

(6) Zeng Hanlin in this incident resulted in the annexation of its business and companies amounting to a loss of 74 million yuan, the Chengdu Court shy away from mentioning it.

(7) Not only that all evidence of fact proving the innocence of Zeng Hanlin was not accepted, Chengdu Court had deliberately withheld that evidence. Chengdu Court will never admit to their mistakes and has no intention of doing it. Instead, they choose to cover a wrong with another wrong, intending to bury the truth alive. A disregard of human life, treating it as worthless, allowing and encouraging miscarriage of justice to continue to happen.

Does your country's court of justice allow such injustices to occur?

Is a fair trial really such a challenging demand?

Redressing the grievances of an innocent person, wasn't that something worthy of honour and able to reflect the national judicial independence and evidence of fair justice?

Have you ever seen a fraudster in this world who swindle at their own losses? Where is legal justice?

According to some of the prison staff, they have been arranged by Chengdu Court as audience on the 17 November 2011 court hearing. After the trial, Zeng Hanlin case was the talk of the town in prison by those prison staff who attended the hearing. They describe the performance of lawyer Yang Zhaodong as extremely outstanding in court. They said they had never seen a defendant lawyer able to rebut the government's prosecutorial staff in court to dumb silent. Therefore, the public security staff in prison told Zeng Hanling that even if he is innocence, even if it is a miscarriage of justice, the court will never admit their mistakes; the court will never redress his grievances. The public security staff had also said that in Chengdu, this is a common practice.

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.

Email: hanyzeng@gmail.com

Website：http://zenghanlin.blogspot.com

http://facebook.com/zenghanlin         

http://weibo.com/hanlinzeng

http://bbs.ifeng.com/viewthread.php?tid=11381121&page=1

http://blog.sina.com.cn/hanlinzeng

唤醒中加两国政府的良心，友好经济合作背后不应该牺牲人权与人命！

< 曾汉林的误判，现在已经在30多个国家，全球报道着 〉

唤醒中加两国政府的良心，友好经济合作背后不应该牺牲人权与人命！

中加两国合力缔造中国第一冤案，促请中加两国总理关注史上第一个被加拿大强制遣返的试验品“曾汉林”的悲惨遭遇

事件介绍：

曾汉林是个中国商人。十年前，他在中国遭生意伙伴和腐败官员合力设局陷害惹上官司。不仅家产被剥夺，更因此被列为中国十大诈骗通缉犯。他被诬赖诈骗3500万人民币贷款出逃加拿大 (遣返后获证实他没有盗取一分钱)。因害怕在中国遭到不公平审判，2004年在加拿大申请政治难民庇护。2011年2月成为加拿大与中国友好合作关系背后，历史上第一个被强制遣返回中国受审的试验品。遣返回国后，成都法院确认其为冤案。知道事实后，不但未按承诺公平审讯，反而漠视人权掩盖事实，在2011年11月17日的审讯，成都法庭只提供了数天时间让曾汉林律师作搜证准备。成都法院更进行闭门审讯掩饰错误。拒绝家人接触案件资料，拒绝媒体入内报道。成都法院故意挪后曾汉林的判决日到2012年1月20日 (即中国新年长假前一天)，硬判曾汉林15年有期徒刑，就此断定一个将近70岁的长期病患老人家在黑狱中痛苦度过余生。成都法院故意选择在华人最盛大的新年假期前一天宣读判决，其目的是要阻止曾汉林没法在法定期10天内筹备上诉。为了这一黑幕，美联社（国际媒体）在宣判当日追访成都法院跟进了解事件，但被拒绝并无法得到回复。曾汉林的悲惨故事已被国际权威媒体报道，案件证据也在网络流传。

曾汉林被遣返后遭遇的不公平对待获证实如下：

（一）一个年近70岁的严重糖尿病与心脏病患者，在扣留期间缺乏应有的药物治疗。他获批准在2011年2月24日向家人发出唯一的信件，内容是要求家人从医生处索取药物控制病情以及送衣物和被铺到狱内。

（二） 十年前，指控曾汉林携带诈骗所得的3500万元人民币贷款逃到加拿大。十年后，经公安查证和银行提供的记录证实所有款项只用于公司的合法经营运作。曾汉林个人并没占有一分钱啊！否定了以往对他错误的指控。

（三） 十年前指控曾汉林利用虚假财务报告诈骗股权。被指的虚假报告原来是世界4大会计师事务所之一，加拿大毕马威(KPMG)会计师事务所发出的审计报告。经过法庭的质证后，证实其为无证据指控。十年后为了继续掩盖错误，成都法院公诉人修改为“中国境外会计事务所审核的财务报表我们国家一律不予承认”。我们咨询过中国的毕马威，他们也有客户运用毕马威发出的审计报告在中国的法院里获准当作陈堂证据，所以毕马威不了解为何成都法院与其它的法院背道而驰。那么目前在中国13个城市拥有9000员工的毕马威(KPMG)会计师事务，服务的客户群包括了中国的十大企业：中国移动通信，中信银行，中国石化等公司，岂不都采用虚假财务报表吗？他们也成了一个诈骗集团了吗？这是否非常可笑？

（四） 十年前为了令曾汉林入罪，成都法院庭上夸大他旗下公司飞龙债务达1.2亿元人民币。十年后，成都法院庭上承认当年将飞龙债务错误重复计算，最后在庭上即时大幅度修改仅为3000万元。这样错漏百出的成都法院还能让人民对法院的判决有信心吗？

（五） 曾汉林作为一个受害者，在申请难民时未能提供足够证据证明其清白。但在被当作试验品强制遣返后，证据虽然获取，但依然被不人道对待，不但不获平反，地方法院更为掩饰当年错判，闭门审讯强行定罪。成都法院对曾汉林的指控和所提供的所谓“证据”错漏百出！本着法律的精神，疑点的利益应该归于被告的。成都法院却严重的藐视了国家定下的法律精神，行为极为可耻！

（六） 曾汉林在这次事件中，被吞并其属下企业公司，损失7400万元人民币，法院避而不提。

（七） 所有对曾汉林有利的证据一律不被采纳，甚至被成都法院隐藏。成都法院对犯下的错误永不承认。反而选择一个错盖住另外一个错的（做法，意图），永远活埋真相。视人权人命如草芥，让冤案继续发生。

你们国家的法院允许有这种不公平的事出现吗？

一场公平的审讯真的那么难吗？

为一个受冤者平反不是一件可令国民值得光荣而又能够体现国家司法独立公平的的实证吗？

你见过这个世界有自己亏本倒贴的诈骗犯？天理法理何在？

在管理监狱里面的工作人员透露，他们有一些是当日被成都法院安排参与2011年11月17日的开庭听审的人。审讯过后，监狱里面的工作人员对曾汉林的案件都议论纷纷。他们形容杨照东律师当日在庭内的表现非常出众。他们表示从未见过一个律师可以在庭内把政府的公诉人员以法理辩驳到哑口无语。故此，监狱里的公安向曾汉林说，即使他是被冤枉，法院也决不会承认错误，不会为他平反。监狱里的公安更说在成都这里算是常事。

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。

联系电邮: hanyzeng@gmail.com

网站：http://zenghanlin.blogspot.com

http://facebook.com/zenghanlin     

http://weibo.com/hanlinzeng
http://bbs.ifeng.com/viewthread.php?tid=11381121&page=1    

http://blog.sina.com.cn/hanlinzeng

Zeng Hanlin’s verdict will be announced on 20 Jan 2012!

Zeng Hanlin’s verdict will be announced on 20 Jan 2012!

Beseech all media attention and scrutiny, to ensure a fair and just verdict for Zeng Hanlin!

The details of the trial are as follows:

Date: Friday, January 20, 2012, at 8:30am

Location: Sichuan Province Chengdu city Intermediate People’s Court, No 5. Court Room

109 Fu Qin Xi Road. Jin Niu Area

Chengdu City. Sichuan Province

People’s Republic of China

Tel: +(86) 28-8778-0837

For further information and confirmation of court location, please contact:

Yang Zhaodong (Zeng Hanlin’s China Lawyer) Tel: +(86) 10-5709-6000 Mobile: +(86) 138-0102-1110 Email: yzd@king-capital.com

Sam Zeng (Son of Zeng Hanlin) Mobile: +(86) 131-4398-8343

曾汉林审判结果将在2012年1月20日宣布！

曾汉林审判结果将在2012年1月20日宣布！

请各界媒体多关注，确保曾汉林得到一个公平公正的审判！

审讯的详情如下：

日期：周五，2012年1月20日，上午8时30分

地点：四川省成都市中级人民法院。第5法庭

109扶琴西路。金牛区。成都市。四川省

中华人民共和国中国

电话：+（86）28-8778-0837

如需进一步信息或确认法院地点，请联系：

杨照东（中国代表律师） 电话：+（86）10-5709-6000 手机：+（86）138-0102-1110 电邮：yzd@king-capital.com

山姆（曾汉林的儿子） 手机：+（86）131-4398-8343