According to China Youth Online, late at night on December 26, 2018 and at 13:32 on December 29, Cui Yongyuan posted on Weibo saying that the "Northern Shaanxi Hundred Billion Mining Rights Case" file had been stolen for two years and has not been found, and @ The Supreme People's Court has attracted attention.
Late at night on December 29, the Supreme People's Court issued a "Situation Report", stating that it had launched an investigation process. "If any staff of our court are found to have violated trial discipline, they will be dealt with seriously in accordance with disciplines and laws."
Regarding Cui Yongyuan's "Northern Shaanxi case" "100 Billion Mining Rights Case" was reported in the "Special Report" of China Youth Daily on August 2, 2010.
Author | Wang Guoqiang
Editor | Liu Wanyong
In 2010, China Youth Daily received reports from readers that a lawsuit regarding a mining rights dispute in Hengshan County, Shaanxi Province was not accepted during the hearing of the Supreme People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the "Supreme Law"). I received a letter from " Shaanxi Provincial Government Office ".
In this letter, regarding the "opinions and requests of our province", there is this statement: "The first-instance judgment of the Provincial High Court incorrectly understood the basis of the cited documents", "If the judgment of the Provincial High People's Court is upheld, there will be consequences A series of serious consequences" and "a greater negative impact on the overall stability and development of Shaanxi."
In response to this letter, Professor Hou Xinyi, Vice Dean of Nankai University School of Law and other domestic legal experts believe that the letter abandons the fair and neutral position that the government should have in market competition and uses state assets to serve private interests. Suspicion.
"Politicizing ordinary civil cases, elevating economic cases into political events, and exerting huge political pressure on the Supreme People's Court under the pretext of 'affecting the social stability of Shaanxi Province.'" The above-mentioned legal experts called for "resisting illegal letters Interference with the administration of justice."
According to people familiar with the matter, although the letter was sent in the name of the Shaanxi Provincial Government Office, it was actually drafted by Shaanxi Provincial Department of Land and Resources.
Collaborative exploration found high-quality coal reserves
In early 2003, the portal website of the Xi'an Geological and Mineral Exploration and Development Institute (hereinafter referred to as the "Xi'an Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration") of the Shaanxi Provincial Bureau of Geology and Mineral Exploration posted an article about "joint exploration of Hengshan County, Shaanxi Province" Polo - Hongshiqiao area coal mine resources" investment promotion information.
This information revealed that the "Polo-Hongshiqiao Mining Area" that the Western Exploration Institute has obtained exploration rights covers a total area of 279.24 square kilometers, and the exploration work has invested up to 10 million yuan.
After seeing this information, Yulin Keqilai Energy Investment Company (hereinafter referred to as "Kechlai Company") contacted the Western Survey Institute. On August 25, 2003, Keqilai Company and the Western Exploration Institute signed a "Cooperative Exploration Contract."
This contract stipulates that both parties will jointly invest in a detailed and precise investigation of the coal resources in the Polo-Hongshiqiao exploration area. The exploration rights of the mining area were evaluated by the statutory evaluation agency and reported to the Ministry of Land and Resources for filing. The two parties negotiated and determined that its value was 15 million yuan.
The contract stipulates that Kaiqilai Company will pay 12 million yuan to the Western Exploration Institute and own 80% of the equity in the exploration project. After the agreement takes effect, the benefits generated from the exploration area, whether it is exploration appreciation, joint development, or mineral rights transfer, will be shared by Keqilai Company and the Western Exploration Institute at a ratio of 8:2. The
contract states: "This agreement will take effect from the date of signature by both parties."
On July 30, 2010, Zhao Faqi, the legal representative of Keqilai Company, told reporters that this contract is risky. “Exploration investment is like gambling. Before, no one could be sure whether there were mines underground. If there is no mine, the investment will be wasted.”
At the end of 2004, preliminary data obtained by Zhao Faqi showed that there were nearly 2 billion tons of high-quality thermal coal in the 279.24 square kilometers of mining area. Based on estimates of domestic raw coal prices in 2004, Zhao Faqi will be worth an astonishing amount.
However, next, a series of things that made Zhao Faqi feel incredible happened.
"Polo-Hongshiqiao Mining Area" is located in Mu Us Desert .Information picture
After coordination, the cooperation was re-agreed
On March 22, 2005, Keqilai Company transferred 12 million yuan to the Western Survey Institute, but the Western Survey Institute refused to accept it, and wrote to Keqilai Company on March 25 stating that : "According to the relevant provisions of the Mineral Resources Law of the People's Republic of China, our institute signed a cooperative exploration project with your company: 'Coal Resources Cooperative Exploration Contract in the Boluo-Hongshiqiao Area, Hengshan County, Yulin City, Shaanxi Province', due to the The relevant policies in the minutes of the 21st meeting held by Shaanxi Provincial People's Government on October 22, 2003 were inconsistent and could not be implemented as agreed in the contract, so the payment from your company could not be collected."
Since then, the two parties have coordinated. On May 26, 2005, Keqilai Company paid 9 million yuan for preliminary exploration work to the Western Survey Institute, and the Western Survey Institute issued a receipt.
At this time, the Shaanxi Provincial Geology and Mineral Exploration and Development Bureau proposed to terminate the cooperative exploration contract on the grounds that the cooperative exploration contract was inconsistent with the spirit of the 21st meeting minutes of the provincial government in 2003 and that the country had not yet formulated a development plan for the cooperative exploration area. Keqilai Company reported this to the Shaanxi Provincial Government Office, and the provincial government instructed the Provincial Department of Land and Resources to coordinate.
After investigation and coordination, the Shaanxi Provincial Department of Land and Resources issued Shaanxi Land and Resources Office [2005] No. 65 on November 8, 2005, "On the Coordination and Resolution of Cooperative Exploration Disputes over Coal Resources in the Boluo-Hongshiqiao Area of Hengshan County, Yulin City" "Report on the Situation" to the Provincial Government Office.
A reporter from China Youth Daily saw this report. The report said: "In March 2004, the Western Exploration Institute and Keqilai Company submitted the cooperative exploration contract signed and the summary of the exploration rights evaluation report for the Polo-Hongshiqiao exploration area in Hengshan County, Shaanxi Province to our department for record. After review "Our office believes that both parties are willing to take risks and are willing to conduct cooperative exploration in accordance with the relevant regulations of the Shaanxi Provincial Government and comply with national laws and regulations."
The report said: "Our office has called representatives from both parties on many occasions. After coordination, the following opinions were finally reached: Both parties agreed to continue to conduct cooperative exploration under the cooperative exploration contract signed on August 25, 2003, and agreed that after the exploration work was completed, the exploration rights would be transferred to a new company jointly established by the two parties or to Kaiqi. Lai Company, for later development. "
This report indicates that Keqilai Company and the Western Survey Institute have reached an agreement again and are ready to fulfill the contract. Then, however, things changed again.
Same mining area, two filings
On December 8, 2005, Keqilai Company sent a letter to the Western Survey Institute, hoping that the Western Survey Institute would immediately fulfill its contractual obligations, provide detailed investigation designs and budgets as soon as possible, and clarify what Kaiqilai Company should still pay Amount of payment.
On December 14, 2005, the Western Survey Institute said in its reply: "As for the issue of immediate performance of the contract, because within the validity period of the contract, we did not obtain the approval for the downstream industry project and lost the opportunity to start the contract performance. Now the contract has been fulfilled. There is no way to talk about it. Recently, I received a letter from the relevant provincial department that the Polo Mine Field has been planned by the province as a key chemical project allocation resource for Hong Kong Yiye. As a provincial geological exploration unit, we must obey." "Our cooperation with the Polo Mine Field, We are unable to start the project with our own strength."
After that, the Shaanxi Provincial Department of Land and Resources, which had just made a report not long ago to coordinate the continued performance of the contract between Keqilai Company and the Western Prospecting Institute, announced on January 13, 2006 that Shaanxi Provincial Department of Land and Resources Document No. 1 of Land Resources Development [2006] was submitted to the Shaanxi Provincial People's Government for "Request for Instructions on the Coordination Opinions of China National Chemical Engineering Corporation Hong Kong Yiye Investment Co., Ltd. on its participation in the coal resource exploration work in the Boluo Mine Field".
The "Request for Instructions" in this document contains the following statement: "According to the instructions from the provincial government leaders, the Western Survey Institute should actively coordinate with China National Chemical Engineering Corporation and Hong Kong Yiye Investment (Group) Co., Ltd. to sign the 'Polo Well Field Exploration (Precision Survey) Cooperation Exploration Agreement ""According to the principle that China National Chemical Engineering Corporation and Hong Kong Yiye Investment (Group) Co., Ltd. are responsible for the exploration work, and the exploration results belong to the investors. After the MTO project is approved by the competent department, the Western Exploration Institute will transfer the exploration rights of the mine field to the project development owner in accordance with the law."
It is understood that the area of the above-mentioned "Bolo Mine Field" is about 340 square kilometers. The "Polo-Hongshiqiao Area Coal Mine Survey" exploration right held by the Western Exploration Institute has an area of approximately 258 square kilometers. In other words, most of the two areas overlap.
On April 14, 2006, the Western Survey Institute and Hong Kong Yiye Investment (Group) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Hong Kong Yiye") signed an agreement on " "Bolo Mine Field" cooperative exploration contract.
After confirming that the Western Exploration Institute signed a cooperation agreement with other companies in the mining area originally shared by the Western Exploration Institute and Keqilai Company, Zhao Faqi was very angry. In May 2006, Keqilai The company filed a lawsuit against the Xi'an Provincial High People's Court.
On October 19, 2006, the Shaanxi Provincial Higher People's Court ruled in favor of the Shaanxi Provincial Higher People's Court. The cooperative exploration contract signed by the two parties on August 25, 2003 is the true expression of intention of both parties. The content does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and regulations, and the contract should be deemed valid. "
" Document No. 90 of the Shaanxi Provincial Department of Land and Resources (2005) can confirm that the plaintiff and the defendant had filed the contract on August 25, 2003, and at that time the department also agreed that both parties would continue to perform the contract. Therefore, the defendant's agreement that the contract did not take effect The reason cannot be established. ”
The court held that the Western Exploration Institute terminated the performance of the contract for various reasons. When the contractual relationship with Keqilai Company was not terminated in accordance with the law, the area signed with other units included the area of the cooperative exploration area between the Western Exploration Institute and Keqilai Company. The cooperative exploration contract constitutes a breach of contract.
The court ruled that the cooperative exploration contract between Keqilai Company and the Western Prospecting Institute on August 25, 2003 was valid, and both parties should continue to perform it within 10 days after the judgment came into effect. , paid liquidated damages of 27.6 million yuan to Kaiqilai Company; within one month of the judgment taking effect, the exploration rights were transferred to Kaiqilai Company. In November 2006, the Western Exploration Institute appealed to the highest court. People's Court.
Zhao Faqi believed that after the Shaanxi Provincial Department of Land and Resources registered the cooperation contract between Kaiqilai Company and the Western Survey Institute in accordance with the law, it also filed the contract between the Western Survey Institute and other enterprises.
This is the source of the contradiction. What is the origin of "Sinochem Yiye"
Why are there two filings for the same mining area?
The reporter obtained a report from Keqilai's attorney to the cadres of the Exploration Division of the Shaanxi Provincial Department of Land and Resources on December 17, 2007. The investigation transcript made by Wang Fenglin during the investigation. When asked "Why are there two filings for the same project?" Wang Fenglin's answer was "You can ask the relevant departments and leaders about this question."
Then, China Chemical Engineering Group. How did the company (hereinafter referred to as "China National Chemical Corporation") and Hong Kong Yiye appear?
reporter's investigation found that on August 18, 2005, a document "About China National Chemical Corporation Hong Kong" was issued by the Shaanxi Provincial Development and Reform Commission. "Responses to Issues Related to the Construction of Coal Chemical Projects by Yiye Investment Company" contains the following statement: "According to the MTO project cooperation agreement signed by our committee with China National Chemical Engineering Corporation and Hong Kong Yiye Investment (Group) Co., Ltd., Sinochem As the owner of the 2.4 million tons methanol-to-olefins (MTO) project in Yuheng Coal Chemical Industry Park, Yiye Energy Co., Ltd. should start the preliminary work of the project as soon as possible."
On October 10, 2005, the Shaanxi Provincial Development and Reform Commission issued the "Shaanxi Development and Reform Energy (2005) No. 932" document clarified that the supporting coal resources of the "Yuheng 2.4 million tons methanol MTO project" are "Bolo Mine Field".
On July 7, 2006, the Shaanxi Provincial Development and Reform Commission issued "About Shaanxi Sinochem Yiye Energy Investment Co., Ltd. 240 "Notice on the Registration of the 600,000-ton Methanol MTO Phase I 600,000-ton Methanol Project", agreeing to register the project.
reporters found that it was precisely because China National Chemical Group and Hong Kong Yiye applied for the "Yuheng 2.4 million-ton methanol MTO project" that the project was registered. Later, there was a cooperative exploration contract between the Western Exploration Institute and Hong Kong Yiye regarding the "Polo Mine Field".However, is Shaanxi Sinochem Yiye Energy Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Sinochem Yiye") really established by China National Chemical Corporation and Hong Kong Yiye?
reporter's investigation found that Sinochem Yiye was jointly funded by Shaanxi Yiye Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Shaanxi Yiye") and China National Chemical Corporation, and was established on June 16, 2006. Among them, Shaanxi Yiye accounts for 90% of the registered capital and China National Chemical Group accounts for 10%.
Information from the industrial and commercial department shows that Shaanxi Yiye was established on April 14, 2006. Its legal person shareholders are Shaanxi Taixing Real Estate Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Shaanxi Taixing Real Estate") and natural person Liu Feng. Among them, Liu Feng accounts for 95% of the registered capital and Shaanxi Taixing Real Estate Co., Ltd. accounts for 5%.
Relevant information shows that Liu Feng was born in 1979 in Xi'an. But there is no further public information.
Shaanxi Taixing Real Estate was established on June 10, 2003. Its business scope is: real estate development, operation and supporting services; comprehensive tourism development and supporting services; cultivation and sales of Xilin flowers; sales of building decoration materials and local products .
The shareholders of Shaanxi Taixing Real Estate are natural persons Liu Hao and Liu Liang.
reporter found that Shaanxi Yiye had made an investor (equity) change on February 3, 2008, and the legal person shareholders were changed from Shaanxi Taixing Real Estate and Liu Feng to Liu Feng. In other words, Shaanxi Yiye became Liu Feng’s sole proprietorship.
In addition, on July 25, 2008, Sinochem Yiye made an investor (equity) change. The legal person shareholders were changed from Shaanxi Yiye and China National Chemical Corporation to Shaanxi Yiye and Shaanxi Taixing Real Estate, and China National Chemical Corporation. The group withdrew completely.
In this way, Sinochem Yiye is owned by Liu Feng, Liu Hao and Liu Liang.
The letter sent to the Supreme Court was drafted by the Shaanxi Land and Resources Department?
An even more bizarre thing happened during the second instance of the Supreme People's Court in the lawsuit between Keqilai Company and the Western Prospecting Institute.
Insiders revealed that on May 4, 2008, the Shaanxi Provincial Government Office issued a "Report on the Exploration Rights Dispute between the Western Exploration Institute and Keqilai Company" to the Supreme People's Court.
According to reports, this "report" made several opinions and requests to the Supreme People's Court, including "the exploration contract between the Western Survey Institute and Keqilai Company has not been completed and recorded, and has not been implemented, so it should be an invalid contract"; " The Provincial High Court’s first-instance judgment did not correctly understand the basis of the cited documents” and “implementation of the first-instance judgment will cause a serious loss of state-owned assets.”
At the same time, the report also stated that "if the judgment of the Provincial High People's Court is upheld, a series of serious consequences will occur" and "it will have a greater negative impact on the overall stability and development of Shaanxi."
It is understood that in response to this letter, in February 2009, several domestic legal experts, including Professor Hou Xinyi, Vice Dean of Nankai University School of Law, jointly sent a letter to the Supreme Court titled "Recommendations on Calling on the Supreme People's Court to Resist Illegal Letters Interfering with Judicial Affairs". Book".
In this proposal, legal experts expressed the following opinion: "The confidential letter violated the relevant provisions of the "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information of the People's Republic of China" and illegally encrypted government information that should be disclosed voluntarily, causing problems for the parties during the litigation process. The serious imbalance in the litigation status of the two parties has seriously affected the vital interests of one of the parties. "
" The secret letter abandoned the fair and neutral position that the government should have in market competition, and was suspected of using state organs to serve private interests. The secret letter politicized ordinary civil cases, elevated economic cases to political events, and exerted tremendous political pressure on the Supreme People's Court under the pretext of 'affecting the social stability of Shaanxi Province', challenging the judicial authority of the Supreme People's Court. "
However. , Professor Hou Xinyi told a China Youth Daily reporter on August 1 that he only listened to the parties involved introduce the contents of the letter and did not see the letter with his own eyes.
It is understood that the mining rights dispute case was appealed to the Supreme Court in November 2006. It was not until November 4, 2009 that the Supreme Court ruled to revoke the judgment of the Shaanxi Provincial High Court and remand the case for retrial. Regarding the case itself, the ruling contained only the statement “This court believes after trial that the facts established in the original judgment were unclear.”
According to Zhao Faqi, he learned from some insiders that the real drafter of this letter submitted in the name of the Shaanxi Provincial Government Office was the Shaanxi Provincial Department of Land and Resources.
A staff member of the Shaanxi Provincial Government Office who handled the matter told reporters that this is an internal document that is very old and needs to be checked to see if it has been filed. When asked about the unit that drafted the document, he said, " It should have been drafted by the Shaanxi Provincial Department of Land and Resources."
However, later that day, when the staff member was asked about the file check again, he said that "the file is not in his hand, and he can't remember who drafted it." The staff member finally suggested that he could directly ask Shaanxi Provincial Department of Land and Resources.
However, a staff member of the Shaanxi Provincial Department of Land and Resources who handled the case told reporters that the case has been sent back to the Shaanxi Provincial High Court for retrial by the Supreme People's Court and denied the drafting of the "report".
Zhao Faqi said that what he hopes for is "just openness and transparency." "If the law says I am wrong, then I think all I want is a fair result."
Produced by China Youth Daily
WeChat Editor | Zhang Guo
