A 350 million yuan fraud case, having gone through first-instance, second-instance trials all the way to the Supreme Court, remains unresolved. Recently, China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch has once again sued five defendants, including China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch, demanding compensation totaling 489 million yuan, comprising the 350 million yuan principal and 139 million yuan in capital occupation fees.
Recently, a major banking case from a decade ago has stirred new controversy. According to a disclosure by Jinlong Co., Ltd. (000712.SZ), its controlling subsidiary, Zhongshan Securities, received a "Notice of Response to Action." In it, China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch, as the plaintiff, collectively sued five defendants: China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch, Zhongshan Securities, Ping An Bank Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch, and Shenzhen Guomin Fund. The lawsuit demands joint compensation of 350 million yuan in principal and 139.4 million yuan in capital occupation fees, bringing the total amount involved to a staggering 489 million yuan.
It is understood that the incident originated from a 350 million yuan fraud case. The plaintiff and defendants have undergone multiple court sessions, with repeated reversals, and the matter has yet to be settled. Behind this case lies a web of financial industry misconduct, including corporate legal persons defrauding 350 million yuan, bank employees accepting 20 million yuan in kickbacks, and bank staff failing to identify forged "fake seals."
**Act One: The Story of the 350 Million Yuan Fraud** The timeline goes back to 2013. Liu Xiaoyi (hereinafter referred to as Lao Liu), the owner of Jilin Tonghua City Liuhe County Juxinyuan Rice Industry Company, was in urgent need of funds to recover from massive debts and futures trading losses. Introduced by an acquaintance, he met Zhang Lei (assistant to the sub-branch president of China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch, hereinafter referred to as Lao Zhang) and attempted to apply for a 350 million yuan loan, but was rejected due to qualification issues.
In May 2014, to continue assisting Lao Liu in obtaining the loan, Lao Zhang, through an intermediary, contacted an employee named Hou from China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch. Through Hou, he learned that a loan could be issued using the "interbank entrusted directional investment" model. Thus, it was decided to use this model to grant a loan to the Liuhe Juxinyuan Rice Industry Company.
So, how was it specifically done? According to court documents, the "interbank entrusted directional investment" process involved China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch first transferring 350 million yuan to China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch under the name of an interbank deposit. The latter, based on the "Entrusted Directional Investment Agreement" and "Investment Instructions" signed with China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch, would then invest this sum into a specified product managed by Zhongshan Securities, the "Zhongshan CM Wuxi No. 1 Directional Asset Management Plan." Subsequently, Zhongshan Securities would loan the huge amount to the Liuhe Juxinyuan Rice Industry Company through the custodian bank (Ping An Bank Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch), with the funds ultimately flowing to Lao Liu.
Several crucial details are involved here: First, Lao Zhang, as the assistant to the president of the Automobile Factory Sub-branch of China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch, needed to persuade the person in charge of interbank business at China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch to place a 350 million yuan interbank deposit with China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch (which would yield an agreed annual interest of 6.2%).
Second, after China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch agreed to the interbank deposit, Hou from China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch brought the pre-drafted "Entrusted Directional Investment Agreement" and "Investment Instructions" to Changchun for Lao Zhang to stamp. Lao Zhang falsely claimed he would take the documents to the responsible person at China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch for stamping, but in reality, he never went. Instead, he used a "fake seal" he had prepared earlier to stamp the documents before handing them back to Hou. During this process, Hou noticed an issue with the seal, but Lao Zhang subsequently provided a "Situation Statement" claiming that "the financial seal of China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch was worn and was replaced by the official seal," which allowed the process to proceed.
Third, on May 30, 2014, after the 350 million yuan funds were transferred via Zhongshan Securities to Ping An Bank Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch, Lao Liu and an employee of Juxinyuan Company, Xu, carrying four forged "Grain Purchase and Sales Contracts" and company documents, signed an "Entrusted Loan Contract" with Ping An Bank Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch. Following the investment instructions from the previous steps, Ping An Bank Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch remitted the 350 million yuan into Juxinyuan Company's account.
After receiving the 350 million yuan loan, Lao Liu immediately gave a 20 million yuan kickback to Lao Zhang from China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd., an 8.5 million yuan kickback to the intermediary Liu (who helped connect Lao Liu with Hou from China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch), repaid 78 million yuan to other bank loans, and repaid over 80 million yuan in personal high-interest loans. Additionally, Lao Liu attempted to gamble again in the futures market but ultimately lost over 100 million yuan more.
In August 2014, three months after the loan was disbursed, China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch discovered abnormalities with the loan funds and reported the case to the police. Lao Liu and Lao Zhang were quickly apprehended. By the time the case was exposed, Juxinyuan Company still had approximately 345 million yuan in loans that could not be repaid.
In 2016, the Wuxi Intermediate Court sentenced Lao Liu to life imprisonment for contract fraud and confiscated all his personal property. Lao Zhang, the former assistant to the president of the Automobile Factory Sub-branch of China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch, was sentenced to six years in prison for the crime of obtaining loans by fraud, fined 1 million yuan, and had his illegal gains confiscated.
**Act Two: China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Sues China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. and Wins First Instance** The生效 of the criminal judgment marked only the beginning of civil disputes.
In 2015, China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch sued China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch in court, demanding the bank pay the deposit principal of 350 million yuan, interest of 21.9411 million yuan, and违约金 of 4.8352 million yuan.
The first instance trial was held at the Jilin Provincial High Court. The core dispute was whether Zhang Lei's actions constituted apparent agency.
The first-instance court held that, first, the official seal and legal representative's seal affixed to the "Entrusted Directional Investment Agreement" were forged by Zhang Lei, rendering the contract illegitimate and thus void and ineffective.
Second, China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch failed to provide evidence that Zhang Lei had the authority to sign the "Entrusted Directional Investment Agreement." The bank could only prove they had reason to believe Zhang Lei could facilitate the signing of the agreement, but not that he could actually sign it as an agent.
Third, although employee Hou from China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch traveled to Changchun, he merely handed the "Entrusted Directional Investment Agreement" to Zhang Lei for stamping based on trust, rather than personally witnessing the president of China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch affix the seal. This provided Zhang Lei the opportunity to use his pre-forged seals.
Fourth, regarding seal verification, Hou, the face-to-face verification personnel from China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch, committed gross negligence. Specifically, when Hou discovered that the official seal and legal representative's seal on the "Entrusted Directional Investment Agreement" did not match the pre-registered seals of China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch, he did not verify with the bank's interbank bill department. Instead, he assisted Zhang Lei in drafting a false "Situation Statement" fabricating the reason of seal wear. Furthermore, even though the "Situation Statement" did not mention replacing the legal representative's seal, Hou accepted the "Entrusted Directional Investment Agreement" and "Investment Instructions" stamped with a fake legal representative's seal that did not match the pre-registered imprint, leading to the transfer of funds.
In summary, the first-instance court determined that Zhang's actions did not constitute apparent agency, the "Entrusted Directional Investment Agreement" was not established, and it had no legal effect on China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch. Conversely, the "Interbank Deposit Agreement" was legally valid, and China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. was required to pay the full principal and interest to China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Additionally, China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch had fulfilled its obligation by depositing the 350 million yuan as agreed, while China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch's refusal to provide the original "Deposit Confirmation Certificate" and its refusal to pay the deposit principal and interest after maturity constituted a breach of contract.
Ultimately, the first-instance court ruled that China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch must, upon the judgment taking legal effect, immediately pay China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch the deposit principal of 350 million yuan and deposit interest of 21.9411 million yuan.
**Overtime: New Turmoil After China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Loses Second Instance** China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd., dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, appealed to the Supreme Court.
In April 2017, the Supreme Court issued its second-instance judgment. The Supreme Court also found that Zhang Lei's actions did not constitute apparent agency and that China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch's claim of an entrusted directional investment relationship with China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch lacked factual and legal basis, and thus was not supported.
Regarding the "Interbank Deposit Agreement," the Supreme Court determined that it served as a means or channel for Zhang and Liu to illegally misappropriate the 350 million yuan in funds from China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch for criminal purposes. The signing of the "Interbank Deposit Agreement" constituted part of the legal facts of the criminal case, for which Zhang and Liu were convicted under criminal law.
Simultaneously, the court pointed out that although China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch and China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch subjectively did not intend to use the agreement for illegal activities, objectively the agreement was utilized by Zhang and Liu to commit crimes and formed an inseparable part of their criminal chain. Accordingly, the signing purpose of the "Interbank Deposit Agreement" was deemed illegal, constituting a legal form掩盖ing an illegal purpose, and thus the "Interbank Deposit Agreement" should be considered invalid.
Therefore, China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch's lawsuit, based on the "Interbank Deposit Agreement," demanding that China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch pay the 350 million yuan principal and interest according to the agreement and bear违约责任 lacked a foundation of legitimate claim rights. Its诉讼请求 could not be established and should be dismissed.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided to revoke the first-instance judgment and dismiss China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch's claim for the 350 million yuan principal and interest against China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch.
Unwilling to accept the second-instance judgment, China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. did not stop there.
In January 2026, China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch filed a new lawsuit in the Changchun Intermediate People's Court of Jilin Province. This time, the list of defendants expanded from China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch to include Zhongshan Securities, Ping An Bank Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch (the channel), Shenzhen Guomin Fund, and an individual named Zhu.
China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch claims in its lawsuit that Zhang and Liu, impersonating the branch, signed false documents including the "Entrusted Directional Investment Agreement" and "Investment Instructions" with China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch in May 2014. Relying on these documents, China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Wuxi Branch withdrew the 350 million yuan deposited by China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch, and used the "entrusted directional investment" business model to disburse loans to Juxinyuan Company through the related defendants, resulting in the bank's financial loss.
China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Changchun Branch is demanding that the five defendants compensate for the 350 million yuan principal and 139 million yuan in capital occupation fees (after deducting the already recovered 24.8494 million yuan in illicit funds), totaling a claim of 489 million yuan.
It is worth noting that the newly added defendants, Shenzhen Guomin Fund and Zhu, did not appear in the original case chain. Furthermore, this time, China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. has chosen to start from the lower-level Changchun Intermediate Court, clearly reserving the option for a protracted legal battle.
As of now, this case has not yet gone to trial. Subsequent developments regarding the court hearing will be closely monitored.
Comments