Judgment view: Although it does not comply with the tax laws, the defendant units and defendant Li Miaosheng do not have the purpose of evading state taxes and should not be treated as "false" in the crime of issuing a false value-added tax invoice. The evidence presented by the public prosecution agency is not enough to prove that the above-mentioned issuing value-added tax invoices caused national tax losses
Ι After trial, it was found that
1. In the second half of 2013, in order to obtain funds, the defendant Li Miaosheng, the legal representative of the defendant unit Fuzhou Zhucheng Company, and Wang Mousheng, chairman of Huai Mineral Logistics Company, agreed to defraud bank funds in the form of false trade. In November of the same year, with the guarantee of Huai Mineral Logistics Company, Ping An Bank’s Fuzhou Branch approved 80 million yuan in credit exposure funds for Fuzhou Zhucheng Company. On January 9, 2014, Li Miaosheng used a false procurement contract between the company and Huai Mining Logistics Company (contract number: xxx-BL20131227-1) in the name of Fuzhou Zhucheng Company, and Fuzhou Zhucheng Company paid a 30% deposit to defraud 12 bank acceptance bills of Ping An Bank Fuzhou Branch, with a total amount of 113.69 million yuan. Before the incident, Fuzhou Zhucheng Company still had 49.1006 million yuan of bank exposure funds (principal) unpaid. After
defrauding the above-mentioned bank acceptance bill, in order to cover up the source and use of funds, on January 10, 2014, Li Miaosheng and Huai Mineral Logistics Company fabricated two purchase and sales contracts (contract number: xxx-HTS20140107, HK-ZC20140107). Fuzhou Zhucheng Company paid the bank acceptance bills of 73.69 million yuan to Huai Mining Logistics Company using this false contract as a trade background, and Huai Mining Logistics Company endorsed the Fuzhou Haotianshun Company, which was actually controlled by Li Miaosheng. In this business, Fuzhou Haotianshun Company issued 498 special value-added tax invoices to Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a total price tax of 57.319 million yuan and a tax amount of 8.3284 million yuan. Fuzhou Zhucheng Company accepted 6 false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a total price tax of 59.3251 million yuan and a tax amount of 8.6199 million yuan .
2. From the end of 2012 to the beginning of 2013, in order to transfer the 187.8 million yuan debt owed by Jiangsu Dahe Energy Co., Ltd. to Huai Mining Logistics Company, Wang Mou3, chairman of Huai Mining Logistics Company, and Xie Mou and Lu, the actual controllers of Quanzhou Meiqi Company, planned that both parties determined that in the form of false trade, Huai Mining Logistics Company will provide 400 million yuan in funding to the "Quanzhou Meiqi City" project developed by Quanzhou Meiqi Company. Later, Xie specially established Fujian Zhanqi Company for this purpose, and used Fuzhou Zhucheng Company or Fuzhou Baolin Company, which was actually controlled by Li Miaosheng, to form the so-called "trading channel". In order to cover up the fact that Fuzhou Zhucheng Company or Fuzhou Baolin Company is a fund return channel, Huai Mineral Logistics Company has signed false trade contracts with the two companies many times and fabricated the purpose of funds. In the absence of real goods transactions, Fuzhou Zhucheng Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company have repeatedly accepted the special value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mineral Logistics Company. The specific facts are as follows:
1. On April 3, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Zhucheng Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-1, contract subject: 51.1994 million yuan). Fuzhou Zhucheng Company therefore accepted 7 false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 7.513 million yuan and a total price tax of 51.7054 million yuan.
2. On April 3, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-2, contract subject: 51.2139 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted 7 false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 7.4413 million yuan and a total price tax of 51.2139 million yuan.
3.On June 1, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx, contract subject: 25.5132 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted three false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 3.707 million yuan and a total price tax of 25.5132 million yuan.
4.On June 7, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Zhucheng Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx, contract subject: 52.2182 million yuan). Fuzhou Zhucheng Company therefore accepted 7 false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 7.4103 million yuan and a total price tax of 51.003 million yuan.
5.On June 25, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-BL20130625-1, contract subject: 40.8002 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted five false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 5.9282 million yuan and a total price tax of 40.8002 million yuan.
6.On July 17, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-BL20130717-1, contract subject: 51.1633 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted 10 special value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 7.434 million yuan and a total price tax of 51.1632 million yuan.
7.On August 28, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Zhucheng Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-ZC2013828-2, contract subject: 52 million yuan). Fuzhou Zhucheng Company therefore accepted 8 false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 7.5556 million yuan and a total price tax of 52.0001 million yuan.
8.On September 12, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-BL2013912-1, contract subject: 52.1664 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted 7 false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 7.4413 million yuan and a total price tax of 51.2139 million yuan.
9.On September 27, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-BL2013927-1, contract subject: 52.1664 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted 6 false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 7.5797 million yuan and a total price tax of 52.1664 million yuan.
10.On November 19, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-BL20131119, contract subject: 13.5202 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted two false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 1.9645 million yuan and a total price tax of 13.5202 million yuan.
11.On November 28, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-BL20131128, contract subject: 20.8002 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted two false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 3.0222 million yuan and a total price tax of 20.8001 million yuan.
In summary, the defendant Li Miaosheng used Fuzhou Zhucheng Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company, which he actually controlled, to sign a false trade contract with Huai Mining Logistics Company, and repeatedly accepted the false VAT special invoice issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company or issued false VAT special invoice to Huai Mining Logistics Company. Among them, the tax amount of the value-added tax special invoice accepted by Fuzhou Zhucheng Company was 31.0988 million yuan, the tax amount of the value-added tax special invoice accepted by Fuzhou Baolin Company was 44.5182 million yuan, and the tax amount of the value-added tax special invoice issued by Fuzhou Haotianshun Company was 8.3284 million yuan. The above tax amount has been deducted.
Ι This court believes that
Public prosecution agency accused the defendant unit Fuzhou Zhucheng Company, Fuzhou Haotianshun Company, Fuzhou Baolin Company, and defendant Li Miaosheng of false purchase and sale contracts with Huai Mining Logistics Company in order to obtain funds from the bank, in order to achieve the use of , the sued unit Fuzhou Zhucheng Company used a false procurement contract with Huai Mining Logistics Company to defraud the bank acceptance bill from the bank. In order to cover up the source and use of the funds, Fuzhou Haotianshun Company signed false purchase and sales contracts with Huai Mining Logistics Company, and issued or accepted the value-added tax invoice issued by the other party.In order to cover up the fact that Fuzhou Zhucheng Company, Fuzhou Baolin Company is a trading channel company for Fujian Zhanqi Company and Huai Mining Logistics Company to obtain bank funds, the two companies signed false trade contracts with Huai Mining Logistics Company and accepted the special value-added tax invoice issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company. Although does not comply with the provisions of tax laws, the defendant units and defendant Li Miaosheng do not have the purpose of evading state taxes and should not be punished for the "fifth issuance" in the crime of issuing special value-added tax invoices. The evidence presented by the public prosecution agency is not enough to prove that the above-mentioned act of issuing special value-added tax invoices caused national tax losses , so the evidence accused each defendant unit and defendant Li Miaosheng of the crime of issuing special value-added tax invoices was insufficient and the evidence was not confirmed. The charge was not confirmed.
Ι This website analyzes
Value-added tax is a chain tax. Only when there is a real transaction can the country impose taxes within the scope of commodity value-added. For example, if A buys a toy from the manufacturer, the purchase price is 10 yuan (excluding tax), and then sells it to B for 20 yuan (excluding tax). The input tax of the purchase price of 10 yuan is 1.3 yuan, and the output tax of 20 yuan is 2.6 yuan, and the state can levy 1.3 yuan here.
However, as in this case, the purpose of false is to defraud the bank's loans. The state does not have any prerequisites for tax collection here, because no matter how much the false is, the state's tax will not suffer any loss.
Fuzhou Zhucheng United Pipeline Co., Ltd., Fuzhou Haotianshun Trading Co., Ltd. falsely issue special value-added tax invoices, and first instance criminal judgments for defrauding export tax rebates and tax deductions.
Anhui Province Huainan City Datong District People's Court
Criminal judgments
(2019)Anhui 0402 Criminal Instance No. 415html
Public Prosecution Organs Huainan City Datong District People's Procuratorate.
The defendant unit Fuzhou Zhucheng United Pipeline Co., Ltd., registration number 350100100064555, and the legal representative Li Miaosheng. Li Mou 2, the representative of the lawsuit in
, is an employee of Fuzhou Zhucheng United Pipeline Co., Ltd.
defendant unit Fuzhou Haotianshun Trading Co., Ltd., unified social credit code 91350105666861050Y, legal representative Xie Qiang, actual controller Li Miaosheng. Li Mou 2, the representative of the lawsuit in
, is an employee of Fuzhou Haotianshun Trading Co., Ltd.
defendant unit Fuzhou Baolin Trading Co., Ltd., unified social credit code 91350105798359732X, legal representative Li Yuexian, actual controller Li Miaosheng. Li Mou 2, the representative of the lawsuit in
, is an employee of Fuzhou Baolin Trading Co., Ltd.
defendant Li Miaosheng. He was arrested on October 9, 2014 for suspected of issuing a special value-added tax invoice. He was criminally detained by the Huainan Municipal Public Security Bureau on the 11th of the same month. He was arrested by the Huainan Municipal Public Security Bureau on November 17 of the same year for suspected of fraudulently obtaining bills and accepting . He is currently detained in Huainan City Detention Center.
defense lawyer Yu, a lawyer at Anhui Zhuzhi Law Firm.
The People's Procuratorate of Datong District, Huainan City accused the defendants Fuzhou Zhucheng United Pipeline Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Fuzhou Zhucheng Company), Fuzhou Haotianshun Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Fuzhou Haotianshun Company), Fuzhou Baolin Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Fuzhou Baolin Company), Fuzhou Baolin Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Fuzhou Baolin Company), and the defendant Li Miaosheng filed a public prosecution with this court for the crime of issuing a special value-added tax invoice. After reviewing and accepting the jurisdiction decision designated by Huainan Intermediate People's Court of Anhui Province, this court made the criminal judgment No. (2016) Anhui 0402 Criminal First Instance No. 11 on March 29, 2018. The defendant units and defendant Li Miaosheng filed an appeal. On August 22, 2019, the Huainan Intermediate People's Court issued the criminal judgment No. (2018) Anhui 04 Criminal Final 138, ruling to revoke the original judgment and send it back for retrial. After this court filed the case, it formed a separate collegial panel in accordance with the law and held a public trial on November 5, 2019. The People's Procuratorate of Datong District, Huainan City appointed prosecutor Zhang Mou 1 to appear in court to support the public prosecution. The litigation representatives of the defendant unit listed above, Li Mou 2, defendant Li Miaosheng and his defense lawyer Yu Mou appeared in court to participate in the lawsuit. The trial of this case has now ended.
The People's Procuratorate of Datong District, Huainan City accused: 1. Facts of fraud in receipt of receipts
In the second half of 2013, in order to obtain funds, the defendant Li Miaosheng and the chairman of Huai Mining Modern Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Huai Mining Modern Logistics Co., Ltd.) Wang Mou3 (handled in another case) agreed to defraud bank funds in the form of false trade. In November 2013, with the guarantee of Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company, Ping An Bank’s Fuzhou Branch approved 80 million yuan of credit exposure funds from Fuzhou Zhucheng Company. In early January 2014, the defendant Li Miaosheng signed a false procurement contract with Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company in the name of Fuzhou Zhucheng Company (Contract No.: xxx-BL20131227-1). On January 9, 2014, Li Miaosheng used this false contract to defraud 12 bank acceptance bills of Ping An Bank Fuzhou Branch (bill number 31144241-31141252), with a total amount of 113.69 million yuan. Before the incident, Fuzhou Zhucheng Company still had 49.1006 million yuan of bank exposure funds (principal) unpaid.
2. The fact that a false VAT special invoice is issued
(I) After defrauding the above-mentioned bank acceptance bills, in order to cover up the source and use of funds, Li Miaosheng and Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company fabricated two purchase and sales contracts (contract numbers: xxx-HTS20140107, HK-ZC20140107). Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company endorsed the 73.69 million yuan bank acceptance bill (bill number: 31141245-31141252) to Fuzhou Haotianshun Company, which is actually controlled by Li Miaosheng. In this business, Fuzhou Haotianshun Company issued 498 special value-added tax invoices to Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company, with filing numbers: 01110450, 01110452-01110525, 00289633-00289730, 00289631, 00294511-00294585, 00311436-00311485, 00313571-00313662, 00313664-00313720, 00315146-00315195, total price tax of RMB 57.319 million and tax amount of RMB 8.3284 million.
(II) Accept false value-added tax invoices
From the end of 2012 to the beginning of 2013, in order to transfer the 187.8 million yuan debt owed by Jiangsu Dahe Energy Co., Ltd. to Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company, Wang Mou3, chairman of Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company, and Xie Mou and Lu Mou, the actual controllers of Fujian Zhanqi Economic and Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Fujian Zhanqi Company), Quanzhou Meiqi Logistics Management Co., Ltd. (Quanzhou Meiqi Company), planned that the two parties determined that in the form of false trade, Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company will provide 400 million yuan in funding to the "Quanzhou Meiqi City" project developed by Quanzhou Meiqi Company. For this purpose, Xie specially established Fujian Zhanqi Economic and Trade Co., Ltd., and used Fuzhou Zhucheng Company or Fuzhou Baolin Company, which was actually controlled by Li Miaosheng, to form the so-called "trading channel". In order to cover up the fact that Fuzhou Zhucheng Company or Fuzhou Baolin Company is a fund return channel, Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company has signed false trade contracts with the two companies many times and fabricated the purpose of funds. In the absence of real goods transactions, Fuzhou Zhucheng Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company have repeatedly accepted the special value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company. The specific facts are as follows:
1. On April 3, 2013, Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company and Fuzhou Zhucheng Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-1, contract subject: 51.1994 million yuan). Fuzhou Zhucheng Company therefore accepted 7 special value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company, with a total of 44.1935 million yuan, a tax of 7.5130 million yuan, and a total price and tax of 51.7054 million yuan. The bill number is: 01159843-01159844, 01220876-01220877, 03710675-03710677.
2. On April 3, 2013, Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-2, contract subject: 51.2139 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted 7 special value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company, with a total of 47.7726 million yuan, a tax of 7.4413 million yuan, and a total price tax of 51.2139 million yuan. Ticket numbers: 01220872-01220875, 03710673-03710674, 01159842.
3. On June 1, 2013, Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx, contract subject: 25.5132 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted three false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company, with a total amount of 21.8061 million yuan, a tax amount of 3.707 million yuan, and a total price tax of 25.5132 million yuan, and the bill number: 03710819-03710821.
4. On June 7, 2013, Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company and Fuzhou Zhucheng Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx, contract subject: 52.2182 million yuan). Fuzhou Zhucheng Company therefore accepted 7 special value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company, with a total of 43.5899 million yuan, a tax of 7.4103 million yuan, and a total price and tax of 48.6883 million yuan. Ticket numbers: 03710740, 03710822-03710823, 03713279-03713282.
5. On June 25, 2013, Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-BL20130625-1, contract subject: 40.8002 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted 5 special value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company, with a total amount of 34.8719 million yuan, a tax amount of 5.9282 million yuan, and a total price tax of 40.8002 million yuan, and the bill number: 00135639-00135643.
6. On July 17, 2013, Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-BL20130717-1, contract subject: 51.1633 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted 10 special value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company, with a total amount of 43.7293 million yuan, a tax amount of 7.434 million yuan, and a total price tax of 51.1632 million yuan, and the bill number: 03802221, 03802223-03802231.
7. On August 28, 2013, Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company and Fuzhou Zhucheng Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-ZC2013828-1, contract subject: 52 million yuan). Fuzhou Zhucheng Company therefore accepted 8 special value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company, with a total amount of 44.44445 million yuan, a tax amount of 7.5556 million yuan, and a total price tax of 52.0001 million yuan, and the bill number: 03848004-03848011.
8. On September 12, 2013, Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-BL2013912-1, contract subject: 52.1664) million yuan. Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted 7 special value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company, with a total of 43.7726 million yuan, a tax of 7.4413 million yuan, and a total price and tax of 51.2139 million yuan. Ticket numbers: 01220872-01220875, 03710673-03710674, 01159842.
9. On September 27, 2013, Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-BL2013927-1, contract subject: 52.1664 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted 6 false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company, with a total amount of 44.5867 million yuan, a tax amount of 7.5797 million yuan, and a total price tax of 52.1664 million yuan, and the bill number: 03848231-03848236.
10. On November 19, 2013, Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-BL20131119, contract subject: 13.5202 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted two false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company, with a total amount of 11.5557 million yuan, a tax amount of 1.9645 million yuan, a total price tax of 13.5202 million yuan, and a ticket number: 03854436-03854437.
11. On November 28, 2013, Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-BL20131128-1, contract subject: 20.8002 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted two false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company, with a total amount of 17.777785921 million yuan, a tax amount of 3.0222 million yuan, a total price and tax of 20.8001 million yuan, and a ticket number: 03854438-03854439.
defendant Li Miaosheng used the Fuzhou Zhucheng and Baolin companies he actually controlled to sign false trade contracts with Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company, and accepted multiple false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company. The amount was huge, with a total price tax of 458.785 million yuan and a tax of 66.9971 million yuan.
(III) In early January 2014, the defendant Li Miaosheng signed a false procurement contract with Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company in the name of Fuzhou Zhucheng Company (Contract No.: xxx-BL20131227-1). On January 9, 2014, Li Miaosheng used this false contract to defraud 12 bank acceptance bills of Ping An Bank Fuzhou Branch (bill number 31144241-31141252), with a total amount of 113.69 million yuan. During this process, Fuzhou Zhucheng Company accepted 6 false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company (No.: 00135679-00135681, 03854540-03854542), with a total price tax of 59.3251 million yuan and a tax amount of 8.6199 million yuan.
To prove the above facts, the prosecutor read out documentary evidence, witness testimony, confession of the co-client, and the defendant's confession and other relevant evidence in court. The public prosecution agency believes that the company actually controlled by the defendant Li Miaosheng has no real trade background with Huai Mining Modern Logistics Company. The tax amount is 75.3255 million yuan in signing false contracts and issuing special value-added tax invoices, which is huge. The amount is defrauded of the acceptance amount of the bill from banks and other financial institutions (deducting margin), and the circumstances are particularly serious. His behavior constitutes the crime of issuing a special value-added tax invoice or defrauding the acceptance of the bill. Request this court to submit a judgment in accordance with the provisions of Articles 25 and 205 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China.
The litigation representatives of the defendant units Fuzhou Zhucheng Company, Fuzhou Haotianshun Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company have no objection to the facts of the above allegations and have objections to the crime.
The defendant Li Miaosheng has no objection to the facts of the above allegations, and argues that he did not have the intention to issue falsely, and objectively did not evade taxes, which did not cause tax loss. On the contrary, it created taxes for the country, which does not constitute the crime of issuing special value-added tax invoices. The defense lawyer's defense opinion is: Li Miaosheng and his company do not have the purpose of evading taxes or criminal intentions, and objectively did not cause national tax losses. Instead, they paid more taxes due to fictitious transaction volume. His behavior does not constitute the crime of issuing a special value-added tax invoice, and should be considered as the crime of fraudulent receipt of bills; Li Miaosheng truthfully confessed all the criminal facts during the investigation stage, had a frank plot, and was subjectively malice, so he should be given a lighter punishment.
After trial, it was found that: 1. In the second half of 2013, in order to obtain funds, the defendant Li Miaosheng, the legal representative of the defendant unit Fuzhou Zhucheng Company, and Wang Mou3, chairman of Huai Mineral Logistics Company (handled in another case), agreed to defraud bank funds in the form of false trade. In November of the same year, with the guarantee of Huai Mineral Logistics Company, Ping An Bank’s Fuzhou Branch approved 80 million yuan in credit exposure funds for Fuzhou Zhucheng Company. On January 9, 2014, Li Miaosheng used a false procurement contract between the company and Huai Mining Logistics Company (contract number: xxx-BL20131227-1) in the name of Fuzhou Zhucheng Company, and Fuzhou Zhucheng Company paid a 30% deposit to defraud 12 bank acceptance bills of Ping An Bank Fuzhou Branch, with a total amount of 113.69 million yuan. Before the incident, Fuzhou Zhucheng Company still had 49.1006 million yuan of bank exposure funds (principal) unpaid. After
defrauding the above-mentioned bank acceptance bill, in order to cover up the source and use of funds, on January 10, 2014, Li Miaosheng and Huai Mineral Logistics Company fabricated two purchase and sales contracts (contract number: xxx-HTS20140107, HK-ZC20140107). Fuzhou Zhucheng Company paid the bank acceptance bills of 73.69 million yuan to Huai Mining Logistics Company using this false contract as a trade background, and Huai Mining Logistics Company endorsed the Fuzhou Haotianshun Company, which was actually controlled by Li Miaosheng. In this business, Fuzhou Haotianshun Company issued 498 special value-added tax invoices to Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a total price tax of 57.319 million yuan and a tax amount of 8.3284 million yuan. Fuzhou Zhucheng Company accepted 6 false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a total price tax of 59.3251 million yuan and a tax amount of 8.6199 million yuan.
2. From the end of 2012 to the beginning of 2013, in order to transfer the 187.8 million yuan debt owed by Jiangsu Dahe Energy Co., Ltd. to Huai Mining Logistics Company, Wang Mou 3, chairman of Huai Mining Logistics Company and Xie Mou and Lu, the actual controllers of Quanzhou Meiqi Company, planned that the two parties determined that Huai Mining Logistics Company would provide 400 million yuan in funding to the "Quanzhou Meiqi City" project developed by Quanzhou Meiqi Company in the form of false trade. Later, Xie specially established Fujian Zhanqi Company for this purpose, and used Fuzhou Zhucheng Company or Fuzhou Baolin Company, which was actually controlled by Li Miaosheng, to form the so-called "trading channel". In order to cover up the fact that Fuzhou Zhucheng Company or Fuzhou Baolin Company is a fund return channel, Huai Mineral Logistics Company has signed false trade contracts with the two companies many times and fabricated the purpose of funds. In the absence of real goods transactions, Fuzhou Zhucheng Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company have repeatedly accepted the special value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mineral Logistics Company. The specific facts are as follows:
1. On April 3, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Zhucheng Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-1, contract subject: 51.1994 million yuan).Fuzhou Zhucheng Company therefore accepted 7 false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 7.513 million yuan and a total price tax of 51.7054 million yuan.
2. On April 3, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-2, contract subject: 51.2139 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted 7 false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 7.4413 million yuan and a total price tax of 51.2139 million yuan.
3. On June 1, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx, contract subject: 25.5132 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted three false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 3.707 million yuan and a total price tax of 25.5132 million yuan.
4. On June 7, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Zhucheng Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx, contract subject: 52.2182 million yuan). Fuzhou Zhucheng Company therefore accepted 7 false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 7.4103 million yuan and a total price tax of 51.003 million yuan.
5. On June 25, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-BL20130625-1, contract subject: 40.8002 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted five false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 5.9282 million yuan and a total price tax of 40.8002 million yuan.
6. On July 17, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-BL20130717-1, contract subject: 51.1633 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted 10 special value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 7.434 million yuan and a total price tax of 51.1632 million yuan.
7. On August 28, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Zhucheng Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-ZC2013828-2, contract subject: 52 million yuan). Fuzhou Zhucheng Company therefore accepted 8 false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 7.5556 million yuan and a total price tax of 52.0001 million yuan.
8. On September 12, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-BL2013912-1, contract subject: 52.1664 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted 7 false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 7.4413 million yuan and a total price tax of 51.2139 million yuan.
9. On September 27, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-BL2013927-1, contract subject: 52.1664 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted 6 false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 7.5797 million yuan and a total price tax of 52.1664 million yuan.
10. On November 19, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-BL20131119, contract subject: 13.5202 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted two false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 1.9645 million yuan and a total price tax of 13.5202 million yuan.
11. On November 28, 2013, Huai Mineral Logistics Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company fabricated the purpose of funds and signed a false purchase and sales contract (contract number: xxx-BL20131128, contract subject: 20.8002 million yuan). Fuzhou Baolin Company therefore accepted two false value-added tax invoices issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company, with a tax amount of 3.0222 million yuan and a total price tax of 20.8001 million yuan.
In summary, the defendant Li Miaosheng used Fuzhou Zhucheng Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company, which he actually controlled, to sign a false trade contract with Huai Mining Logistics Company, and repeatedly accepted the false VAT special invoice issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company or issued false VAT special invoice to Huai Mining Logistics Company. Among them, the tax amount of the value-added tax special invoice accepted by Fuzhou Zhucheng Company was 31.0988 million yuan, the tax amount of the value-added tax special invoice accepted by Fuzhou Baolin Company was 44.5182 million yuan, and the tax amount of the value-added tax special invoice issued by Fuzhou Haotianshun Company was 8.3284 million yuan. The above tax amount has been deducted.
The above facts of the defendant unit, Li Miaosheng, had no objection during the trial, and had Fuzhou Zhucheng Company, Haotianshun Company, Baolin Company's business license, organizational code certificate, tax registration certificate, defendant Li Miaosheng's household registration certificate, arrest process, Ping An Bank Fuzhou Branch approved the credit exposure funds of 80 million yuan, comprehensive credit line contract, bill acceptance contract, cooperation agreement, credit information list, Fuzhou Zhucheng Company issued a bank acceptance bill of 113.69 million yuan, contract signing meeting form, business path approval form, purchase and sales contract involved in the case, bank acceptance bill, VAT special invoice, invoice details, receipt, situation description, Fuzhou Zhucheng's exposure funds owed by Fuzhou Zhucheng, flow chart of 113.69 million yuan in funds involved in the case, and account flow, Ping An Bank Fuzhou Branch has obtained a purchase and sale contract, bank acceptance bill, VAT special invoice, invoice details, receipt, situation description, Fuzhou Zhucheng's exposure funds owed by Fuzhou Zhucheng, flow chart of 113.69 million yuan in funds involved in the case, and account flow chart and account flow, Ping An Bank Fuzhou Branch has obtained a The funds and materials involved in the case, list of evidence collection, Huai Mineral Logistics Company, Fujian Zhucheng Company, Fuzhou Baolin Company, Fuzhou Haotianshun Company tax return, Huainan Municipal Public Security Bureau's "Letter on Tax-related Issuance of Cases of False Value-added Tax Special Invoices in Huainan Municipal Public Security Bureau", the reply letter of the Huainan Municipal State Taxation Bureau's "Letter on Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax Special Invoices in Huainan Municipal State Taxation Bureau's "Letter on Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax Special Invoices in Huainan Municipal State Taxation Bureau's "Letter on Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax-related Issuance of False Value-added Tax-related Issuance of False Value-add Wang 3, Liu 2, Wang 2, Xie 2, Lu's confession, witnesses Zang 2, Gu 1, He 2, Zhu 2, Liu 2, Yu 2, Zhang 2, Shao 2, Gu 2, Song 2, Zhuang 2, Zhai 2, Lin 2, Zhang 2, Zhou 2, Wang 2, Lin 2, Huang 1, Lu 2, Chen 2, Ye 2, Li's testimony, defendant Li Miaosheng's confession, etc. are confirmed, which is sufficient to determine.
This court believes that the defendant unit Fuzhou Zhucheng Company and Huai Mineral Logistics Company used deceptive means to obtain a total of 113.69 million yuan in bank notes, of which 80 million yuan of bank exposure funds were 49.100647.67 million yuan of bank exposure funds were not repaid by the incident. Their behavior constituted the crime of defrauding bill acceptance, and the circumstances were particularly serious. The defendant Li Miaosheng is the legal representative of Fuzhou Zhucheng Company and is the directly responsible supervisor in the crime of fraudulent acceptance of bills by Fuzhou Zhucheng Company. His behavior also constitutes the crime of fraudulent acceptance of bills by Fuzhou Zhucheng Company. This case is a joint crime. The criminal facts accused by the public prosecution agency about Fuzhou Zhucheng Company's fraud of acceptance of bills is established and will be confirmed in accordance with the law. The public prosecution agency accused the defendants Fuzhou Zhucheng Company, Fuzhou Haotianshun Company, Fuzhou Baolin Company, and the defendant Li Miaosheng of false purchase and sale contracts with Huai Mining Logistics Company in order to obtain funds from the bank, in order to achieve the use of funds from the bank, the defendants Fuzhou Zhucheng Company used a false procurement contract with Huai Mining Logistics Company to defraud the bank acceptance bill from the bank. In order to cover up the source and use of funds, they signed false purchase and sales contracts with Huai Mining Logistics Company respectively, and issued or accepted the value-added tax invoice issued by the other party. In order to cover up the fact that Fuzhou Zhucheng Company, Fuzhou Baolin Company is a trading channel company for Fujian Zhanqi Company and Huai Mining Logistics Company to obtain bank funds, the two companies signed false trade contracts with Huai Mining Logistics Company and accepted the special value-added tax invoice issued by Huai Mining Logistics Company. Although it does not comply with the tax laws, the defendant units and defendant Li Miaosheng do not have the purpose of evading state taxes and should not be treated as "false issuing" in the crime of issuing special value-added tax invoices. The evidence presented by the public prosecution agency is not enough to prove that the above-mentioned act of issuing special value-added tax invoices caused national tax losses. Therefore, the evidence accused each defendant unit and defendant Li Miaosheng of the crime of issuing special value-added tax invoices was insufficient and the evidence was not confirmed. The charge was not confirmed. The defendant and defense counsel’s defense opinions on the crime of not constituting a false VAT special invoice will be adopted. The defendants' units Fuzhou Haotianshun Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company did not participate in the crime of defrauding bank acceptance. Therefore, the defendants Fuzhou Haotianshun Company and Fuzhou Baolin Company do not constitute the crime of defrauding the acceptance of bills.
The defendant Li Miaosheng was able to truthfully confess the crime after being arrested, and had a confession, and could be given a lighter punishment according to law.The defense lawyer's case should be considered as the crime of fraudulent receipt of bills, and Li Miaosheng truthfully confessed all the criminal facts during the investigation stage, and had a frank case, and should be adopted for the defense opinion that the punishment should be lighter.
Based on the facts, nature, circumstances, and degree of social harm committed by the defendant unit Fuzhou Zhucheng Company and the defendant Li Miaosheng, after discussion and decision by the trial committee of this court, in accordance with Article 175, Article 25, Paragraph 1, Article 52, Article 53, Article 67, Paragraph 3 and Article 241, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4 of Paragraph 2, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4 of Paragraph 2, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 1, Paragraph United Pipeline Co., Ltd. was sentenced to a fine of RMB 1 million (the fine is limited to one-time payment within ten days from the date of the legal effect of the judgment);
2. The defendant Li Miaosheng was sentenced to five years and two months in prison and a fine of RMB 20,000 (the fine is limited to one-time payment within ten days from the date of the legal effect of the judgment);
(the sentence is calculated from the date of the execution of the judgment. If the sentence is detained before the execution of the judgment, one day of detention will be deducted from one day of the sentence, that is, from October 9, 2014 to December 8, 2019.)
3. The defendant unit Fuzhou Haotianshun Trading Co., Ltd. is not guilty;
4. The defendant unit Fuzhou Baolin Trading Co., Ltd. is not guilty.
If you are dissatisfied with this judgment, you may appeal through this court or directly to the Huainan Intermediate People's Court of Anhui Province within ten days from the second day of receiving the judgment. If you appeal in writing, you shall submit one original copy and three copies of the appeal.
trial judge Chang Bin
trial judge Li Xiufeng
people's juror Wu Xuejun
November 19, 2019
clerk Chen Ge
