htmlWhen Chen Qi, a 147-year-old female boss, was arrested by the police when she was in business in Beijing for suspected of gaining trust through false capital, defrauding her electronic bill worth 100 million yuan in Beijing Baota Company. days ago, the case was heard in Chaoyang Court. Chen Qi pleaded not guilty in court about the prosecutor's fraud charge.
htmlOn the 110th, Chen Qi was taken to court with a stack of handwritten materials in his hand. Chen Qi, a native of Jilin, was the legal representative of Tianjin Genrui Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. before the incident.The prosecution alleged that from July 12 to 13, 2017, Chen Qi used false capital display methods to defraud Baota Company of 415 electronic bank acceptance bills, worth a total of RMB 100 million.
On July 13, 2017, Baota Company discovered Chen Qi's scam and reported the case to the public security organs. Due to the timely report of the case, the cheated electronic bank acceptance bill of exchange failed to accept it, and Chen Qi was later arrested in Chaoyang District, Beijing.
The prosecutor believes that Chen Qi fabricated facts, concealed the truth, and defrauded others of money, and the amount was particularly huge, and he should be held criminally responsible for the crime of fraud.
. Faced with the prosecutor's charges, Chen Qi pleaded not guilty in court.
Chen Qi said that he was Li Gui, the head of investment promotion at Baota Company, whom he met through his friend Zhao. The other party said that there was a project that required 1 billion yuan to raise, so he showed the other party that he had an account of 100 million yuan.
So the two parties verbally agreed that whenever Baota Company issued a bill of acceptance of 100 million yuan, Chen Qi would give the other party 88 million yuan in cash. Chen Qi said that the first 88 million yuan was borrowed from a friend, "If the transaction is completed, I can earn 7 or 8 million yuan."
Chen Qi said in court that on July 9, 2017, under the witness of Zhao, she gave Li Gui 1 million "start-up capital" to facilitate the transaction. The next day, Chen Qi entrusted Zhao to hand over the U-shield used for transferring the bill of exchange to Li Gui.
Chen Qi argued in court that after obtaining 100 million bills of exchange, Li Gui suddenly asked him to make an 8 million turnover before he could deliver the other 100 million. Seeing that the other party had never transferred the bill of exchange again, she believed that Li Gui had breached the contract. In order to stop the loss in time, she transferred the 100 million bill of exchange she had obtained to the account of another friend's company, and cancelled the U-shield in Li Gui's hand before transferring the bill of exchange.
After that, Chen Qi found that his company's account was blocked, so he surrendered to the police.
Chen Qi also argued that she did not have the subjective intention of fraud, "Otherwise, after transferring that 100 million yuan, I would have exchanged it for cash."
The evidence provided by the prosecutor shows that Chen Qi's statement in court is not completely consistent with his confession in the public security organs.
According to the testimony of Li Gui and others, during the transaction, Chen Qi delayed the remittance of 88 million yuan on the grounds that the bank was unable to remit funds, and finally cancelled the U-Shield in Li Gui's hand. "Normality, you have to transfer the bill of exchange first, and then transfer the bill of exchange. This time I found several leaders as a guarantee before agreeing to transfer the bill of exchange first." Li Gui said that he had never received a 1 million yuan benefit fee, nor had he asked for 8 million yuan.
The prosecutor stated in court that the electronic bill involved in the case was not commercial acceptance bill and could not be cashed directly in the bank. It can only be used to advance payment or contact Baota Company to exchange cash.
At this time, Chen Qi's voice began to tremble, saying that he had not known the nature of the bill of exchange before, and that he had also been deceived, and changed his words that all his operations were instructed by Li Gui.
Chen Qi's defense lawyer said that the staff of the victim company had certain faults during the bill of exchange operation and should bear part of the responsibility. It is recommended that Chen Qi be reduced in punishment.
The case was not sentenced in court. (All the parties involved in this article are pseudonyms)
Photography Report/Beijing Youth Daily reporter Wang Haoxiong
Copyright Statement: If there is any copyright issue, please contact this website with the proof of ownership
with the author's ownership proof.
