Circular on Issuing the 14th Set of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate Guiding Precedents (Mainland China)

Karl Zhang

On May 21, 2019, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate issued its 14th set of guiding precedents, which consist of 5 cases primarily related to false litigation supervision:

1. False litigation supervision case involving areal estate company in Guangzhou and others that fraudulently obtained enforcement of payment orders

Summary: The parties colluded to fabricate debts and defraud the courts to obtain payment orders, then conspired to reach settlement agreements in the course of enforcement so as to convert state-owned assets by paying debts in kind, thereby undermining judicial order, and such acts constitute false litigation. Procuratorial organs are to supervise such cases, fully exert their supervision authorities, safeguard judicial order and protect state-owned assets.

Point of guidance: Obtaining payment orders through fictitious debts is a form of false civil litigation and require greater monitoring. The handling of false litigation cases shall focus more on investigating the fabricated facts; and the procuratorial organs are to work together in a synergistic fashion to detect and handle false litigation cases.

2. False litigation supervision case involving an investment company in Wuhan and others

Summary: The falsification of evidence and facts to initiate litigation and fraudulently obtain settlement decisions from the people’s courts obstruct judicial order and undermine judicial authority. They not only may undermine the legitimate rights and interests of others but can also harm the public interest of the country and the society.  When handling false litigation supervision cases, procuratorial organs shall begin with unusual points in transactions and the litigation and trace the flow of benefits, ascertain the collusion between the parties, and confirm if such constitute false litigation.

Point of guidance: A civil mediation document from false litigation, Procuratorial organs are to monitor civil mediation decisions arising from false litigation, pay attention to unusual points in the matter and investigate them so as to find out the truth behind the false litigation.

3. False litigation supervision cases involving an industrial company in Shanxi and others:

Summary: the parties colluded to fabricate facts, obtained notarized documents by fraud and applied to courts for compulsory enforcement, infringed the legitimate rights and interests of others, undermined the judicial order and judicial authority. Procuratorial organs are to monitor false litigation and regulate non-litigation enforcement actions to maintain judicial order and public trust.

Point of guidance: Using false notarization to apply for court compulsory enforcement is a form of false civil litigation and require greater monitoring. The monitoring over the enforcement of notarized debt claim documents shall be strengthened to promote the orderly growth of notarization activities.

4. False litigation supervision case by individuals in Fujian over labor arbitration enforcement

Summary: To receive compensation on a prioritized basis from the enforcement payment, the parties forged evidence and misrepresented ordinary obligor-obligee relations as labor disputes to apply for labor arbitration and obtained an arbitration award or mediation decision to apply to the people’s court for compulsory enforcement. Procuratorials organs are to monitor for such false litigation activities.

Point of guidance: Enforcement Application via false labor arbitration is a form of false civil litigation and requires greater monitoring. Those handling false litigation supervision cases should be very sensitive to clues, and procuratorial organs shall commence monitoring upon detecting unlawful, arbitration activities.

5. False litigation supervision case involving traffic accident insurance claims in Jiangshi

Summary: Obtaining an effective court decision and unlawfully receiving insurance payment by impersonating a plaintiff to initiate litigation, falsifying evidence and making false testimony constitute false litigation. Procuratorial organs that find clues of false litigation cases in the course their duties shall strengthen their clue detection and investigation capabilities and correct erroneous decisions.

Point of guidance: When handling a false civil litigation supervision case, procuratorial organs are to enhance their capability to discover clues and investigate matters. False litigation has greater elusiveness and deception, which makes it difficult to find by only looking at the surface of litigation activities.  Attention should be paid to unusual points during the trial process, the case materials and evidence, as well as the results of mediation.  Prosecutors are required to have a sharp awareness in discovering clues during the performance of their duties.