Honest merchant suffers millions in fake bank drafts; Zhiming lawyers bravely uphold justice.
[Lead Attorney: Jia Runlian, Zhao Min, Wan Zhengyu]
In June 2008, Jinjia Coal Company reached an oral sales agreement with Niu, the legal representative of Senma Material Trade Company, stipulating that Jinjia would supply 3 tons of clean coal to Senma, with a total payment of 40 million yuan. Subsequently, Niu paid part of the amount with 3,000 yuan in cash and a 5 million yuan "draft," but when Jinjia attempted to cash the draft, the bank identified it as counterfeit. Although the police later recovered 450,000 yuan, Senma and Niu refused to pay the remaining 451 yuan, citing various reasons.
Afterward, Jinjia entrusted Jia Runlian, a founding partner of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm, to file a civil lawsuit against Senma. With the assistance of her assistant lawyer Wan Zhengyu, Jia Runlian proved the existence of the oral contract through extensive evidence from the transaction process, leading the court to accept the case. However, Niu chose to evade passively, attempting to make himself "disappear" so the court could not locate the proper legal representative and proceed with the trial. Meanwhile, Niu secretly directed Senma to transfer assets, aiming to dodge debts through covert means.
Upon learning this, Jia Runlian immediately assigned her assistant lawyer Zhao Min to investigate and successfully applied for asset preservation. After discovering that Niu and Senma had long been highly conflated in personality, Jia Runlian decisively petitioned the court to amend the claims, arguing that the transaction was Niu's personal act and that Niu should be listed as a co-defendant. The court approved the amendment and issued a summons to Niu.
Seeing no escape, Niu reluctantly hired a lawyer to appear in court. In court, Niu's lawyer argued, "Both Senma and Niu are victims of the draft forgery, and the criminal Chen was sentenced to life imprisonment in July 2010. Therefore, Senma and Niu are not obligated to pay; Jinjia should seek recovery of stolen goods from the original criminal."
In response, Jia Runlian countered: "First, since the draft paid by the defendant was counterfeit, it proves the defendant has not fully paid. Thus, Senma and Niu must still bear liability for breach of contract and cannot shirk their payment obligations by claiming victimhood. Second, the relationship between the parties is a 'sales contract relationship,' not a 'negotiable instrument relationship.' Niu's acceptance of a counterfeit draft from another party should be addressed through the 'negotiable instrument relationship' to recover losses from the criminal. However, this cannot negate the payment obligations under the sales contract. In summary, the defendant's lawyer's claim of 'recovery of stolen goods' is a pure distortion of facts and unreasonable denial; Senma and Niu must continue to fulfill their contractual payment duties."
Ultimately, the court adopted Jia Runlian's main arguments, ruling that the defendant pay Jinjia 451 yuan in goods, plus 1.2 million yuan in interest accrued over nearly four years due to delayed payment, and bear court costs and preservation fees of 5.4 yuan. The case concluded with a complete victory for Jinjia, represented by Jia Runlian. (The above surnames are randomly selected.)
