Introduction
On July 31, 2021, Jin Yan, the widow of the founder of Galloping Horse, received a civil ruling from the Supreme Court, and her application for retrial was rejected. This means that after the death of founder Li Ming, Jin Yan will need to bear 200 million yuan to jointly and severally pay off debts. Li Ming, the founder of Galloping Horse, passed away unexpectedly, and his widow Jin Yan was sentenced to bear a debt of 200 million due to the failure of his bet on during his lifetime. Jin Yan claimed that she had no knowledge of the " gambling agreement " and did not sign it. She had no shares in Pony Galloping and did not participate in the company's operations. Why was it a joint debt between husband and wife?
Beijing Galloping Horse Culture Media Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Galloping Horse) was once a smash hit film and television company. At its peak, it produced many well-known film and television dramas, including "The Sky of History" and " Sweet Honey " , "Wulin Gaiden", "The Great Cause of Party Building", " will love to the end ", etc.
But on January 2, 2014, Li Ming, the founder of Galloping Horse, passed away unexpectedly. Two days before Li Ming's death, it was the day when the "gambling agreement" he signed with CCB Cultural Industry Investment Fund (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as CCB Investment Company) expired. —— Pony Galloping was not successfully launched before December 31, 2013, so the “bet” failed.
According to the "gambling agreement", the three brothers and sisters, Li Ming, Li Ping and Li Li, must jointly bear a total of .635 billion. After Li Ming passed away suddenly, according to the provisions of Article 24 of the Judicial Interpretation (2) of the " Marriage Law " (referred to as "Article 24"), 's widow Jin Yan took Li Ming's place and became the debtor.
In September 2017, Jin Yan received the first-instance judgment from the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court (hereinafter referred to as the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court): was sentenced to a debt of 200 million yuan. According to Red Star News, according to Jin Yan, she became the largest case in the history of the "24 Articles", with the legal fees alone reaching millions.
01
The widow was sentenced to bear a debt of 200 million
According to the facts ascertained by the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court, the "gambling agreement" that saddled Jin Yan with a debt of 200 million was signed on March 22, 2011, between Galloping Horse and Galloping Horse. A supplementary agreement to the "Capital Increase and Share Transfer Agreement" signed by CCB Investment Company.
On that day, Li Ming, chairman of Pony Galloping Company, Pony Galloping shareholders Pony Juanpeng Company, Li Ping, Li Li and many other original shareholders, as well as many investors (new shareholders) including CCB Investment Company They jointly signed the "Capital Increase and Share Conversion Agreement".
This "Capital Increase and Share Transfer Agreement" stipulates: In this agreement, Li Ming, Li Ping and Li Li are collectively called the actual controllers of Pony Galloping Company. The new shareholders plan to acquire the equity of Galloping Pony Company from Li Ping and Li Li and subscribe for the new registered capital of Galloping Pony Company and become shareholders of Galloping Pony Company.
According to " Democracy and Legal Times ", "At the same time, an additional 10% annual compound interest will be paid." Jin Yan explained that CCB Culture invested 450 million in Xiaoma Galloping. If the listing fails, according to the agreement, Xiaoma Pentium or any one of Li Ping, Li Li, and Li Ming not only needs to repay 450 million, but also needs to repay 10% of the "compound interest" every year. Based on this calculation, the total amount is as high as 635 million.
In the end, the court of first instance ruled in support of CCB Investment Company’s request, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 24 and Article 26 of the Judicial Interpretation (2) of the Marriage Law:
This debt was a joint debt of the husband and wife, and Jin Yan was ordered to bear the scope of 200 million. The within is jointly and severally liable for the .
Jin Yan was indignant about this:
I had absolutely no knowledge of this "gambling agreement", I didn't sign it, I had no shares in Galloping Horse, and I didn't participate in the company's management. Why would it be a joint debt between husband and wife?
Qixinbao information shows that on January 27, 2014, the legal representative of Galloping Horse was changed from Li Ming to Jin Yan, and on November 3 of that year, the legal representative was changed from Jin Yan to Li Li.
According to China Business Daily , Pony Galloping’s equity structure has not yet been made public as IPO materials have not been formally submitted. However, Jin Yan stated in a statement on October 31, 2014:
Li Ming’s estate, including the company shares he held, was not distributed among the legal heirs; Li Ming’s shares were held on behalf of others. The situation has been concealed, and some shareholders are suspected of maliciously infringing upon the legitimate rights and interests of others.
02
Many key employees have resigned
According to Daily Economic News previously reported, Pony Galloping, which started out by relying on the advertising agency rights of CCTV's " News 30 Minutes " and other columns, is well-known in the industry.
At the end of 2007, Baring Asia invested US$40 million in Galloping Pony, becoming the largest single financing in the industry at that time. After Barings Asia withdrew, in March 2011, the company's last round of financing attracted more than 40 institutions to participate in the bidding. This round of financing of up to 750 million yuan also became the largest financing in the Chinese film and television industry at that time.
However, Li Ming's death made Pony Galloping's listing journey "bleak" and also paved the way for the resignation of core backbones.
In May 2014, Kong Ergou (real name Kong Xiangzhao) publicly stated on Weibo that he had left Galloping Pony. Zeng Pengyu, general manager of Pony Galloping Group Entertainment Agency and New Media Company, also announced his resignation information on his personal certification Weibo in early June. For Galloping Horse, the biggest loss is the departure of the famous director Ning Hao. Ning Hao is not included in the list of contracted directors displayed on the official website of Galloping Horse.
Film critic Zhao Kejia once said:
If Ning Hao had not left Galloping Horse, Galloping Horse might have participated in "心花路release" from production to promotion, and it would have been a lot of money; in China In the film and television industry, individual directors, screenwriters and stars can often determine the box office of a movie, or even the performance of a company. The departure of the core backbone of has greatly damaged Galloping Horses' vitality.
At present, the new CEO has fully taken charge of the company. According to Red Star News, Pony Galloping’s product promotion director said that Li Li and Li Ping are no longer the company’s controlling shareholders. Regarding the financial disputes between Jin Yan, the widow of the former company chairman, he said:
The debt dispute has nothing to do with the company. In fact, the company cannot be the object of commercial gambling, and the entire gambling incident has nothing to do with Galloping Horse.
03
"Article 24" of the "Marriage Law" has been revised and improved.
The reason behind Jin Yan's encounter stems from "Article 24" of the "Marriage Law":
If a creditor claims rights with respect to debts borne by one spouse in his or her personal name during the marriage, the creditor should Treated as joint debts of husband and wife. However, this is except where one spouse can prove that the creditor and debtor have clearly agreed that the debt is a personal debt, or can prove that it falls under the circumstances specified in paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Marriage Law.
However, when the above regulations were issued, there were no financial methods such as 'gambling agreements', hedge funds , or even small loans on the market.
According to Southern Metropolis Daily, data from the China Judgment Document Network as of December 2017 shows that with the increasing number of cases of private loan disputes year by year, the number of joint debt cases of husband and wife that were tried under Article 24 increased sharply in 2014 and 2015, reaching as high as 80,000 each. There were more than 90,000 cases and more than 90,000 cases. In 2016, the crime rate increased to more than 160,000 cases. In 2017, there are now more than 100,000 cases online.
After appeals from all parties, the Supreme Court also made two amendments to this judicial interpretation in 2017:
Once in February 2017, it made supplementary provisions on this article, One spouse colluded with others to fabricate debts and Debts arising from illegal and criminal activities such as gambling and drug abuse are excluded.
The second time was on August 24, 2017. The General Office of the Supreme People's Court pointed out in the "Reply to Recommendation No. XX of the Fifth Session of the Twelfth National People's Congress" (hereinafter referred to as the reply) that according to the provisions of Article 41 of the Marriage Law , It is clear that debts used for the husband and wife to live together are joint debts of the husband and wife, and debts not used for the husband and wife to live together are individual debts.
The "Reply" also made it clear that the scope of a couple's life together should take into account not only daily family life, but also the family's production and business activities. If one spouse borrows debt for production and business activities, whether it is a joint debt between husband and wife shall be determined based on specific circumstances such as the nature of the production and business activities, the status and role of both spouses in it, and whether the third party is bona fide.
On January 17, 2018, The Supreme People's Court issued the "Interpretation on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Debt Disputes between Spouses", and the following major changes were made to the standards for the identification of joint debts between spouses.
In order to correctly hear cases involving marital debt disputes and equally protect the legitimate rights and interests of all parties, in accordance with the " General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China ", "Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China", " Contract Law of the People's Republic of China " and " Civil Procedure of the People's Republic of China" This interpretation is formulated in accordance with legal provisions such as "Law ".
Article 1 Debts borne by both spouses who sign jointly or one spouse ratifies it later or other joint expressions of intention shall be deemed as joint debts of the spouses.
Article 2 If a creditor claims the rights of a creditor on the grounds that it is a joint debt of the husband and wife, the people's court shall support the debts borne by one spouse in his own name for the daily needs of the family during the marriage.
Article 3 If a creditor claims a debt that exceeds the daily needs of the family in his or her own name during the marriage, the People's Court will not support it on the grounds that it is a joint debt of the couple, but the creditor can prove that the debt is for Exceptions are made where the husband and wife live together, produce and operate together, or are based on the common intention of the husband and wife.
Article 4 This interpretation will come into effect on January 18, 2018.
After the implementation of this Interpretation, if the relevant judicial interpretations previously issued by the Supreme People's Court conflict with this Interpretation, this Interpretation shall prevail.
The " Civil Code " that was implemented on January 1, 2021 stipulates that the joint debts of husband and wife
1. Debts borne by both spouses jointly sign or later ratified by one spouse and other common expressions of intention are joint debts of spouses.
According to the provisions of Article 1064 of the Civil Code, debts borne by both spouses who jointly sign or one spouse later ratifies the joint intention are joint debts of the spouses, which is what we usually call "co-signed and joint debts". calls "both husband and wife jointly sign", in other words, they jointly borrow money and jointly sign their names. The core essence of this regulation is to guide creditors to proactively standardize their trading behavior and strengthen their awareness of risk prevention when raising large amounts of debt.
This is obviously different from the provisions of Article 24 of the "Judicial Interpretation of the Marriage Law (II)", because Article 24 of the "Judicial Interpretation of the Marriage Law (II)" breaks the long-term insistence in my country's marriage legislation on the use of land "for the common life of husband and wife". The identification standard is only “during the marriage relationship” as the only condition for identifying joint debts between husband and wife.. Although later amendments were made, it was determined that the "fictitious debts" and "illegal debts" borne by one spouse during the marriage were not within the scope of the joint debts of the spouses.
The provisions of Article 24 of the "Judicial Interpretation of Marriage Law (2)" will obviously bring trial difficulties to judicial practice. For example: A and B registered their marriage in 2012. A wanted to invest in a certain project, but was stuck with no funds, so he borrowed 5 million yuan from his wife B without the consent of his wife B. If according to the provisions of the above judicial interpretation, then Wife B should be held responsible for A’s debt.
The above provisions will also cause one spouse to maliciously fabricate debts after divorce. For example: after A and B registered their marriage, in the third year they went through divorce registration procedures due to emotional discord. Later, A and C colluded, and A wrote a letter to C. The IOU states that A owes C 200,000 yuan. The date of the loan was signed during the marriage between A and B. This makes it easy for B to be in debt because according to the above judicial interpretation, B will most likely bear the responsibility because it is difficult for B to prove the debt. It's forged.
2. Debts borne by one spouse in his own name for the daily needs of the family during the marriage are joint debts of the couple.
According to the provisions of Article 1064 of the Civil Code, the debts borne by one spouse in his own name for the daily needs of the family during the marriage relationship are joint debts of the couple. This is what we usually call " family agency" "". The so-called "daily needs" refers to the small daily expenses of family life, such as borrowing money to buy daily necessities, paying water and electricity bills, children's tuition fees and other daily expenses.
This provision is in line with our common sense, because it is impossible for one spouse to report to the other party without borrowing a sum of money and obtaining the other party's consent. Therefore, the law also pays attention to human nature. It is based on this consideration that gives couples "family agency rights" .
As for what are the needs of daily life, this can only be viewed from the perspective of ordinary people and judged based on our living customs, but cannot be viewed from the perspective of God. For example, Jack Ma borrowed 1 million yuan from the bank to buy a Mercedes-Benz car. This may be his daily needs, but as an ordinary person, borrowing 1 million yuan to buy a Mercedes-Benz cannot be regarded as a daily need, so , whether it belongs to daily life needs, the judge can exercise discretion based on the actual situation.
3. Debts borne by one spouse in his or her own name beyond daily needs during the marriage are not joint debts in principle, but the creditor can prove that the debts are used for the couple's common life, joint production and operation, or based on the common intention of both spouses. Except as indicated.
According to the provisions of Article 1064 of the Civil Code, Debts borne by one spouse in his or her own name during the marriage that exceed daily needs are not in principle joint debts of the couple, but the creditor can prove that the debts are used for the couple's joint life. , joint production and operation or based on the common intention of both spouses.
This provision actually prevents one spouse from maliciously colluding with the creditor to fabricate a debt. At the same time, this provision strengthens the creditor's burden of proof. That is to say, if the creditor can provide evidence to prove that the debt is a joint debt of the couple, the court will support its lawsuit. If the request cannot be proved, adverse legal consequences will be incurred.
Give an example: A and B are husband and wife. A borrows 50,000 yuan from C in his own name for daily living expenses. Later, because A cannot pay back the money and A and B have divorced, C can sue B and demand repayment from B. Debt? According to Article 1064 of the Civil Code, in principle the court will not support C’s claim, but if B can provide evidence that the 50,000 yuan borrowed by A was used for A’s and B’s common living expenses, the court should determine that it belongs to the couple. For joint debts, B needs to bear the obligation to repay them. But how should C provide evidence? This is difficult in judicial practice.
