On June 19, the Supreme People's Court held a press conference to announce 15 typical cases of cross-strait judicial assistance. Among them, there were 4 cases of judicial assistance in document service, 4 cases of judicial assistance in evidence collection, 3 cases of judicial assistance in the transfer of criminal proceeds, and 4 cases of judicial assistance in the recognition of judgments.

　　案例1

Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong assists the Shilin District Court of Taiwan in serving documents.

—Swift handling ensures timely school enrollment for school-age children.

(I) Request Details

On February 10, 2014, the liaison officer of the Guangdong Provincial High People's Court received a request for document service from the liaison officer of the competent authority of the Taiwan region, requesting assistance in serving the civil ruling on the recognition of adoption case No. 2013 Si Yang Shen Zi 70 of the Shilin District Court of Taiwan to the recipient Li Moumou and their legal guardian, mainland resident Yang Mou.

(2) Handling Status

This case involves an adoption recognition. The ruling can only take effect after the biological mother of the adoptee, Yang, who is the legal representative of the recipient, signs the ruling from the Taiwan court and returns the proof of service to the Taiwan court. Once the ruling takes effect, the adopter (a Taiwan resident) can then handle the school enrollment procedures for the adoptee (a school-age child) in Taiwan. To ensure the adoptee can enroll on time, the Guangdong High People's Court forwarded the request to the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court on the same day it was received, asking it to immediately locate and serve the recipient. The Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court completed service on February 20, 2014, and submitted the service certificate to the Guangdong High People's Court on the same day. The Guangdong High People's Court reviewed and responded to the Taiwan side on the same day. The entire process, from receiving the Taiwan court's request to issuing the response, took only 10 days for the two relevant Guangdong courts, ensuring prompt handling and timely realization of the rights and interests of the parties involved.

　　案例2

[3] Zhejiang Zhoushan Intermediate People's Court Assists Taiwan Pingtung District Court in Serving Documents

[4] —Multiple Trips to Remote Islands and Extensive Searches for the Recipient

(I) Request Details

[5] On July 5, 2013, the liaison officer of the Zhejiang Provincial High People's Court received a request for service of documents from the liaison officer of the Taiwan Department of Justice, seeking assistance in serving judicial documents from Taiwan Pingtung District Court's 2013 Family Lu Xu No. 12 case to the recipient, a mainland Chinese resident named Wang.

(2) Handling Status

The service address provided by the Taiwan side is located on a remote island at the northwest corner of the Zhoushan Islands in Zhejiang Province, but no contact information was provided. The Zhejiang High Court transferred the case to the Zhoushan Intermediate People's Court for handling. The process server from the Zhoushan Intermediate Court traveled by car and ferry for nearly six hours to reach the island. After investigation, it was found that the service address had been uninhabited for a long time. Subsequently, by querying the recipient's household registration information at the Zhoushan Certificate Center, it was confirmed that the address provided by the Taiwan side was indeed the recipient's registered address. The court then went to the island again to gather information about the recipient. Through extensive inquiries, contact information for several relatives and friends of the recipient was collected, and after contacting them one by one, the recipient's contact information was finally obtained from a relative. After confirming via phone with the recipient, the Zhoushan Intermediate Court located the recipient's current address on October 31, 2013, and successfully completed direct service.

　　案例3

Case of the Wuxi Intermediate People's Court in Jiangsu Assisting the Taipei District Court in Taiwan with Service of Documents

—Efforts to Investigate and Successfully Serve Despite Unclear Address

(I) Request Details

On April 2, 2014, the liaison officer of the Jiangsu Provincial High People's Court received a request for service of documents from the liaison officer of the Department of Justice of the Taiwan region, seeking assistance in serving a notice of oral argument and a copy of the complaint in the divorce case No. 2014 Marriage Zi 35 of the Taipei District Court in Taiwan to the mainland Chinese recipient, Wang.

(2) Handling Status

After receiving the request materials from the Jiangsu High Court, the Wuxi Intermediate People's Court in Jiangsu reviewed them and found that, according to the plaintiff's written statement, they had had no contact with the recipient, Wang, for ten years. The Taiwan side only provided Wang's service address in the mainland (No. X, Hexinli, Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province) without providing an ID number or contact information. Due to significant urban redevelopment in Wuxi, the service address provided by the Taiwan side no longer existed. To maximize the chances of successful assistance, the Wuxi Intermediate Court made every effort to locate the recipient. First, they checked the telephone number registration and other retained information for the service address through the 114 directory inquiry service, but to no avail. Then, by viewing the Wuxi map from ten years ago via the Wuxi electronic map and comparing it with the current map, they identified the general location of the former Hexinli. After verifying with the local court, the Wuxi Beitang District People's Court, it was confirmed that the area had existed but was entirely demolished in 2007, with all residents' whereabouts unknown. In light of this, the Wuxi Intermediate Court conducted a search through the Wuxi court system, retrieved resident household registration information cards, and screened over ten individuals with the same name across the city one by one. Ultimately, they located the recipient's current residence and obtained a home phone number. After contacting Wang and verifying his identity, Wang personally went to the court to collect the relevant judicial documents from the Taiwan side.

　　案例4

Case of the Lengshuitan District Court of Yongzhou City, Hunan Province, Requesting Assistance from a Taiwan Court in Serving Documents

—Taiwan Court Makes Every Effort to Assist a Mainland Court in Serving Documents

(I) Request Details

On November 21, 2013, the liaison officer of the Higher People's Court of Hunan Province sent a request for service of documents to the liaison officer of the Department of Justice of the Taiwan region, seeking assistance in serving legal documents, including the response notice, copy of the complaint, and summons for trial, to a Taiwan resident surnamed Zhang in a divorce dispute case filed by plaintiff surnamed Huang against defendant surnamed Zhang, accepted by the Lengshuitan District People's Court of Yongzhou City, Hunan Province.

(2) Outcome

The mainland court provided two addresses in Taichung City for service in the request materials. The Taichung District Court of Taiwan not only deposited service at both addresses but also identified the recipient's registered domicile and made an additional deposited service. On March 27, 2014, the Taiwan liaison officer fully returned the service results to the liaison officer of the Hunan Higher People's Court.

　　案例5

The Kunming Intermediate People's Court in Yunnan assisted the Taichung District Court in Taiwan in a declaration of death case.

Case Investigation and Evidence Collection

—Carpet-style search for the person under investigation

(I) Request Details

On June 19, 2013, the liaison officer of the Supreme People's Court received a request for investigation and evidence collection from the liaison officer of the Department of Legal Affairs of the Taiwan region, along with attached materials related to the death declaration case of the Taiwan Taichung District Court's 2013 Annual Death Case No. 21. The request sought to confirm the current whereabouts of Taiwan resident Gu Moumou and any information regarding their activities after entering mainland China.

(2) Handling Status

After receiving materials forwarded by the Supreme People's Court and the Yunnan Provincial Higher People's Court, the Kunming Intermediate People's Court conducted a review and found that the subject of the investigation, Gu Moumou, was a person with moderate mental disorders. He had been missing for over seven years after entering mainland China. The only clue provided by the Taiwan side was that Gu Moumou had taken a flight to Kunming on January 11, 2006. Despite the limited case information, the Kunming Intermediate People's Court attached great importance to the case and made every effort to conduct the investigation. They contacted multiple entities, including the Kunming Association of Taiwan Compatriots, the Kunming Municipal Taiwan Affairs Office and Foreign Affairs and Overseas Chinese Affairs Office, the Exit-Entry Administration Bureau of the Yunnan Provincial Public Security Department, the Kunming Municipal Court, the Kunming Border Inspection Station, the Kunming Railway Court, the Kunming Civil Affairs Bureau, the Yunnan Provincial Health Department, the Yunnan Airport Group, and Kunming Changshui International Airport. They checked entry and exit records at relevant ports from January 1, 2006, to August 8, 2013, searched hotel accommodation registration information in Kunming since January 2006, as well as accommodation registration information for overseas individuals living scattered in the area. They cross-referenced over 3.5 million pieces of information in the real-name ticketing system, searched through 110,000 pieces of passenger identity data collected by train police on various trains departing from Kunming since January 2006, as well as records of railway criminal suspects and railway passenger-related incidents. They also investigated medical records from the Yunnan Provincial Mental Health Center, the First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, and nearly 100 psychiatric specialty medical institutions under the health bureaus of Kunming and nine surrounding prefectures and cities. Additionally, they verified the departure records and assistance files of individuals at the Kunming Municipal Government Rescue Station under the Kunming Civil Affairs Bureau. Based on feedback from all parties, no valid information or relevant data on Gu Moumou could be found. Although the case ultimately concluded with a response to the Taiwan side that assistance could not be successfully provided, the Kunming Intermediate People's Court demonstrated through its actions the spirit of conducting cross-strait judicial cooperation with the utmost sincerity and effort.

　　案例6

13 courts from 7 provinces and cities in mainland China assisted the Taichung District Court in Taiwan in investigating and collecting evidence for a fraud case.

——Multiple courts collaborated to complete evidence collection for a telecommunications fraud case.

(I) Request Details

On February 20, 2012, the liaison officer of the Supreme People's Court received a request for investigation and evidence collection from the liaison officer of the Ministry of Justice in the Taiwan region, along with materials related to the 2011 Yi Zi No. 1965 fraud case being tried by the Taichung District Court in Taiwan, requesting assistance in questioning 13 mainland Chinese witnesses and recording the entire process with audio and video.

(2) Handling Status

After receiving the request from the Taiwan side, the Supreme People's Court reviewed it and found that the case involved a cross-strait and third-party collaborative effort to combat a cross-border telecommunications fraud scheme. According to the indictment from the Taiwan side, six defendants, including a certain Hong, all residents of Taiwan, were accused of hiring 13 mainland Chinese individuals, including a certain Yao (the 13 witnesses the Taiwan side requested to question), to engage in telecommunications fraud in Vietnam, defrauding mainland victims of a total of 225 yuan. In 2011, the fraud group was arrested in Vietnam, and the six Taiwanese defendants were deported and criminally detained by Taiwanese police upon their return to Taiwan. The 13 mainland Chinese individuals, including Yao, were handed over to the relevant public security authorities in Liaoning Province for review and handling. The Taichung District Court Prosecutors Office in Taiwan filed a criminal indictment against the six defendants for fraud with the Taichung District Court.

Based on the case information provided by the Taiwan side, the Supreme People's Court immediately forwarded the request to the Liaoning Provincial Higher People's Court for assistance. The Liaoning Higher Court found that the relevant individuals involved had been released from residential surveillance, and their registered residences were in Guangdong, Jiangxi, Sichuan, Hunan, Hubei, Chongqing, and other locations.

Due to the large number of individuals involved in this investigation and evidence collection case, difficulties in locating them, and the complexity of the content and procedures, it was challenging to complete the investigation and evidence collection within a short period. The liaison officer of the Supreme People's Court promptly informed the Taiwan side of the phased progress and simultaneously sent letters to the Higher People's Courts of Guangdong, Jiangxi, Sichuan, Hunan, Hubei, and Chongqing, requesting their assistance in the investigation and evidence collection.

With subsequent assistance from 12 mainland courts across 6 provinces and municipalities, including the Dexing City People's Court, Geyang County People's Court, and Duchang County People's Court in Jiangxi Province; the Tongshan County People's Court in Hubei Province; the Nan County People's Court in Hunan Province; the Heyuan City Intermediate People's Court, Zhuhai City Intermediate People's Court, and Xinxing County People's Court in Guangdong Province; the Yongchuan District People's Court in Chongqing; and the Zigong City Intermediate People's Court, Guang'an City Intermediate People's Court, and Suining City Intermediate People's Court in Sichuan Province, the investigation and evidence collection for all 13 witnesses was ultimately completed. Among them, 7 subjects could not be located; for the 6 subjects who were found, investigations and interviews were conducted in accordance with legal procedures, and the entire process was audio and video recorded and made into CDs as requested by the Taiwan side.

This case involved specific assistance from 13 courts across 7 provinces and municipalities in mainland China. Ultimately, on August 5, 2013, the liaison officer of the Supreme People's Court replied to the Taiwan side with all results, including 71 pages of written materials and 10 discs of evidence collection videos.

　　案例7

The Higher People's Court of Tibet assisted the Taichung District Court in Taiwan in a case concerning the payment of insurance benefits.

Investigation and evidence collection case.

——Doing their utmost to assist the Taiwan court in gathering evidence.

(I) Request Details

On November 25, 2011, the liaison officer of the Supreme People's Court received a request for investigation and evidence collection from the liaison officer of the Department of Justice of the Taiwan region, along with attached materials related to the insurance payment case of the Taiwan Taichung District Court's 2011 Insurance Case No. 22. The request sought to obtain medical records and emergency treatment records of Li, a Taiwan resident, during his travels in Tibet.

(2) Handling Status

After receiving the request for judicial assistance from the Taiwan side, forwarded by the Supreme People's Court, the High People's Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region immediately opened a case and assigned Judges Dawa Tsering and Tsering Wangdan from the Second Civil Trial Division to handle the matter. Despite the severe winter cold, the two presiding judges promptly traveled to Gongbo'gyamda County in Nyingchi Prefecture to conduct investigations and gather evidence. Upon learning that, due to the limitations of conditions and management standards at the time, the Gongbo'gyamda County Health Service Center had not created medical records when treating patient Li, the two judges requested the attending physician and nurse from the center to provide written explanations regarding the treatment process. They also contacted the police officer from the Gongbo'gyamda County Cuogao Township Police Station, who had initially notified the center to dispatch medical personnel for the patient's treatment, to come and explain the situation. Based on the officer's account, the two judges traveled overnight to Bahe Town in Gongbo'gyamda County to find the two physicians from the Yulan Clinic and Shengkui Clinic in Bahe Town, who had jointly treated the patient at the police's request. These physicians each provided written explanations of the emergency treatment. Since the Basong Tso Lake Medical Station mentioned in the Taiwan side's request for judicial assistance did not exist, the two judges further investigated and gathered evidence at two medical institutions—the Cuogao Township Central Health Center and the Bahe Town Central Health Center—along the route the patient took from Basong Tso Lake to the Gongbo'gyamda County Traffic Inspection Station. They confirmed that neither facility had treated the patient at the time. After completing the above investigation and evidence collection, the High People's Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region systematically categorized the obtained evidence, transcribed and printed some hard-to-read handwritten witness statements, verified each copy of the documentary evidence against the originals, affixed seals for confirmation, and provided a detailed explanation of the investigation process. The materials were then submitted to the Supreme People's Court within the specified processing time. The liaison officer of the Supreme People's Court promptly responded to the Taiwan side upon receiving the evidence results.

　　案例8

The Haicang District Court in Xiamen, Fujian, has requested assistance from a Taiwan court regarding a housing matter.

Sales Contract Dispute Investigation and Evidence Collection Case

——The Taiwan court has diligently assisted and successfully completed multiple evidence collection requests.

(I) Request Details

On October 25, 2012, the liaison officer of the Supreme People's Court sent a request for investigation and evidence collection to the liaison officer of the Department of Justice of the Taiwan region, seeking assistance in investigating and gathering evidence regarding a housing sales contract dispute being heard by the Haicang District People's Court of Xiamen City, Fujian Province. The request pertained to the time of death of the subject, Huang Moumou, the status of their property and liabilities at the time of death, whether a will was made, their marital status during their lifetime, the situation of their heirs, service addresses and contact information, whether any heirs had renounced their inheritance rights, whether a declaration of estate liquidation proceedings had been filed in Taiwan, as well as relevant provisions of Taiwan's laws on inheritance and marital property relations.

(2) Handling Status

The Supreme People's Court's liaison received the reply materials from the Taiwan side on March 1, 2013. With the assistance of the Tainan District Court in Taiwan, all requests from the mainland court were fully completed. The Tainan District Court ascertained the time of death, will, and marital status during the lifetime of the investigated individual, Huang XX. It detailed the identities, registered household addresses, and whether the three heirs had renounced their inheritance rights, along with nearly 20 pages of relevant Taiwan regulations. A summary table of the investigation results was also prepared, and copies of the household registration transcripts of Huang XX, his spouse, and his ex-wife were attached. These findings laid the foundation for the trial court to successfully conclude the case.

　　案例9

The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province issued a ruling to the victims in the Taiwan region, including Wu Moumou and 16 others.

Return of Property Case

— The first and largest transfer of illicit proceeds under the Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement

(I) Basic Facts of the Case

This case is the first instance of transferring illicit proceeds under the Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement signed between the two sides in 2009, and it is also the largest in terms of the amount of property returned in such cooperation between the relevant authorities across the strait.

The case involves a telecommunications fraud. According to the first-instance trial by the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province and the second-instance trial by the Zhejiang Provincial Higher People's Court, from the second half of 2008, the defendant Wei Zhongbo and 17 others (including the principal ringleader Wei Zhongbo and 13 others, such as Zeng Yuchen, who are residents of Taiwan) set up a fraud base in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, established a telecommunications fraud network platform, and recruited multiple individuals across Taiwan and mainland China to form a fraud criminal group. From November 2008 to May 2010, they impersonated staff of Taiwan's Household Registration Office, Police Department, and District Court Prosecutors Office, called Taiwanese residents, falsely claimed the victims were involved in money laundering or fraud cases, demanded the victims provide bank account details and family information, and instructed them to transfer funds from their bank accounts to the prosecutors office for safekeeping and review, thereby defrauding dozens of individuals. The 17 defendants were convicted by mainland Chinese courts and sentenced to terms ranging from life imprisonment to one year of fixed-term imprisonment.

The 17 victims in the case, including Wu Moumou, are all residents of Taiwan, with the oldest being 87 and the youngest 62. During the trial, the involved illicit money and property were transferred to the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court. The total amount of illicit money and the proceeds from legally auctioned property amounted to RMB 2,370,775.72. The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court decided to return the property proportionally based on the amount each victim lost.

(2) Handling Status

After the conclusion of the telecommunications fraud case, the relevant courts in Zhejiang, in accordance with the Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement between the two sides, requested to serve the criminal judgment documents to the Taiwanese victims and sought information about the victims to facilitate the timely return of property. In March 2013, the liaison officer of the Supreme People's Court communicated this information and materials to the Taiwanese side and requested prompt assistance.

After the concerted efforts of the Supreme People's Court, the Zhejiang High People's Court, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court, the competent authorities of the judicial affairs department in the Taiwan region, and the prosecutor's offices of 10 district courts in Taiwan under the framework of the agreement, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court, on June 7, 2013, remitted a total of RMB 2,370,775.72 (approximately NT$11 million) in property to be returned to 17 Taiwanese victims, directly depositing it into their accounts at relevant banks in Taiwan. The largest single amount was approximately RMB 1.94 million (approximately NT$9.45 million).

To minimize losses to the victims and ensure the timely and convenient return of property to Taiwanese victims, relevant authorities on both sides of the strait maintained close contact and strengthened communication and coordination with banks and other relevant parties. Just as a currency clearing mechanism was newly established between the two sides, it was ultimately decided that this case would adopt the most convenient and lowest-cost method of property return—direct bank remittance between the two sides. After receiving complete information such as the victims' bank accounts from the Taiwanese side, the three levels of courts on the mainland completed the document transfer and remittance procedures in just five working days.

　　案例10

Case of the Fujian Zhangzhou Intermediate People's Court Returning Property to Taiwanese Victim Li

—Full restitution of the defrauded property to the victim

(I) Basic Facts of the Case

This case is currently the only one in cross-strait judicial mutual assistance in the transfer of criminal proceeds where the victim's property was fully returned.

This case involves a telecommunications fraud crime. After a first-instance trial by the Xiangcheng District People's Court of Zhangzhou City, Fujian Province, and a second-instance trial by the Zhangzhou Intermediate People's Court, it was found that between October 2011 and July 2012, defendants Chen Yizhen, Zhang Qianlin, and others, hired by others, impersonated single Taiwanese women, used internet virtual phone calls to gain the trust of Taiwanese men, pretended to have romantic relationships with them, obtained their personal identification information, and then defendant Li Bin handed over the obtained personal information to a Taiwanese boss for further fraudulent actions, thereby defrauding the victims of their money. The aforementioned defendants made a total of 2,182 fraudulent phone calls, including a successful fraud of 8,264 RMB (approximately 40,000 New Taiwan Dollars) from the victim, Mr. Li. The relevant defendants were convicted and sentenced by the mainland Chinese people's court according to law.

(2) Handling Status

During the trial of this telecommunications fraud case, the Zhangzhou Intermediate People's Court actively facilitated the defendants' restitution. Since only one victim, Mr. Li, a Taiwanese resident, reported the case, all defrauded funds were recovered. To promptly return the defrauded property to the victim, under the guidance of the Supreme People's Court, the Zhangzhou Intermediate People's Court, through the Fujian Provincial Higher People's Court, submitted a request, and on November 26, 2013, the Supreme People's Court's protocol liaison notified the protocol liaison of the Ministry of Justice of the Taiwan region, making a request for investigation, evidence collection, and return of the criminal proceeds. With the assistance of the Taoyuan District Prosecutors Office in Taiwan to confirm the victim Mr. Li's relevant information and after Mr. Li signed relevant documents and provided feedback to the mainland, the Zhangzhou Intermediate People's Court on April 3, 2014, fully remitted the defrauded property of 8,264 RMB to Mr. Li's account opened in Taiwan. Although the amount returned in this case was not large, for the victim who reported the case, it achieved full restitution, and his actual losses were fully recovered.

　　案例11

Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court of Fujian assisted the Yilan District Prosecutors Office of Taiwan in sending the victim

Compensation for bereaved family members case

— Mainland resident receives compensation for bereaved family members from Taiwan for the first time

(I) Basic Facts of the Case

This is the first case where a mainland Chinese resident has received compensation as a victim's family member from Taiwan.

In July 2012, Taiwan resident Xie Xiande, agitated by his wife Fang's proposal for divorce, strangled her to death at their residence in Yilan County, Taiwan. After the criminal case was prosecuted in Taiwan, the victim Fang's mother, Chen, and Fang's son from a previous marriage, Chen (both residents of Minhou County, Fujian), filed applications with the Taiwan Yilan District Prosecutors Office under relevant Taiwan regulations for compensation due to the victim's death, which prevented her from fulfilling legal support obligations, and for mental distress damages. Chen (the son) also filed an application for funeral expenses caused by the victim's death.

In February 2013, the Taiwan Yilan District Prosecutors Office, through the liaison officer of the Taiwan Ministry of Justice, submitted a request to the Supreme People's Court liaison officer for assistance in investigation and evidence collection, seeking to investigate the property and income of Chen (the mother) and Chen (the son). With the assistance of the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court in Fujian Province, it was determined that the two subjects were impoverished households with no property, such as real estate or savings. In August of the same year, the Victim Compensation Review Committee of the Taiwan Yilan District Prosecutors Office, based on the results of the investigation and evidence collection assisted by the mainland court, issued a decision confirming that Chen (the mother) and Chen (the son) lacked the financial means to sustain their lives and had the right to support, thus meeting the conditions for receiving victim's family compensation. The committee decided to award Chen (the mother) a total of NT$673,447 (approximately RMB 138,580) for legal support and mental distress damages, and Chen (the son) NT$498,623 (approximately RMB 102,605) for funeral expenses, legal support, and mental distress damages.

(2) Handling Status

On November 22, 2013, the Supreme People's Court liaison officer received a request from the Taiwan Ministry of Justice liaison officer for assistance in serving documents, investigating and collecting evidence, and distributing the family compensation in the aforementioned case from the Taiwan Yilan District Prosecutors Office.

After receiving this second request from the Taiwan side, the Supreme People's Court decided to provide further assistance on a case-by-case basis. Through communication and coordination between the Supreme People's Court liaison officer and the Taiwan Ministry of Justice liaison officer, the formats of the "Application for Crime Victim Compensation" and "Receipt," the method of compensation payment, and the financial institutions available for fund transfers were finalized. Subsequently, via the Fujian Provincial High People's Court, the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court served the Taiwan decision to the two victim's family members, conducted investigative interviews, required the two family members to open accounts within the designated financial institutions, and provided copies of bank passbook covers and identity documents. They also required the two family members to fill out the "Application for Crime Victim Compensation" and "Receipt." After the Supreme People's Court liaison officer returned these materials to the Taiwan side in March 2014, the victim's family members, Chen (the mother) and Chen (the son), successfully received all compensation on April 13 and 14, 2014, respectively.

　　案例12

Case Concerning Application by Mei Ya Company for Recognition of a Civil Judgment of a Relevant Court in the Taiwan Region

(I) Basic Facts of the Case

On July 6, 2007, Mei Ya Trade Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Mei Ya Company) filed a lawsuit in the Taichung District Court of Taiwan against Chen XX, Xie XX, Yingxu Company of the British Virgin Islands (hereinafter referred to as Yingxu Company), and Shanghai Yingxu Metal Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yingxu Company) as co-defendants on the grounds of joint infringement. Chen XX participated in the proceedings and defended as an investor of Yingxu Company and the legal representative of Yingxu Company. On June 12, 2009, the Taichung District Court of Taiwan rendered Civil Judgment No. 306 of 2007 (Chung Su Zi), dismissing Mei Ya Company's claims. Dissatisfied with the judgment, Mei Ya Company appealed to the Taichung Branch of the Taiwan High Court. On November 10, 2010, the Taichung Branch of the Taiwan High Court rendered Civil Judgment No. 120 of 2009 (Chung Shang Zi), ordering Yingxu Company to pay Mei Ya Company USD 761,603.96 plus interest from February 10, 2008, until the date of full payment (calculated at an annual rate of 5%). Yingxu Company appealed this judgment to the competent adjudicative authority of the Taiwan Region, but did not raise the argument in its appeal that the dispute should be resolved through arbitration. On October 27, 2011, the competent adjudicative authority of the Taiwan Region rendered Civil Ruling No. 1856 of 2011 (Tai Shang Zi), dismissing Yingxu Company's appeal. On March 16, 2012, the Taichung Branch of the Taiwan High Court issued a Certificate of Finality of Civil Judgment, confirming that the second-instance judgment in Case No. 120 of 2009 (Chung Shang Zi) had become final and effective.

On January 19, 2012, Mei Ya Company applied to the Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court for recognition of the aforementioned civil judgment of the Taichung Branch of the Taiwan High Court.

(II) Adjudication Result

Upon review, the Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court held that the domicile of the respondent, Yingxu Company, was within its jurisdiction, and thus the court had jurisdiction over this application. During the proceedings in the relevant court of the Taiwan Region, Chen XX, as the legal representative of Yingxu Company, presented a defense, and Yingxu Company retained lawyers to participate in the proceedings and express opinions in both the second and third instances. Yingxu Company failed to provide evidence to prove that Civil Judgment No. 120 of 2009 (Chung Shang Zi) of the Taichung Branch of the Taiwan High Court was rendered in its absence without lawful summons. Throughout the proceedings in the relevant court of the Taiwan Region, Yingxu Company never raised a defense based on an arbitration clause agreed upon by the parties but instead participated in the proceedings and presented procedural and substantive defenses regarding the dispute. Therefore, the aforementioned judgment of the relevant court in the Taiwan Region did not involve circumstances where an arbitration agreement between the parties affected the court's jurisdiction. In summary, in accordance with relevant laws and the provisions of the Supreme People's Court's Regulations on the Recognition by People's Courts of Civil Judgments of Relevant Courts in the Taiwan Region, the court rendered Civil Ruling No. 1 of 2012 (Hu Er Zhong Min Ren (Tai) Zi) on June 19, 2012, recognizing the legal effect of Civil Judgment No. 120 of 2009 (Chung Shang Zi) rendered by the Taichung Branch of the Taiwan High Court.

　　案例13

Wang XX's Application for Recognition of a Payment Order Issued by a Relevant Court in the Taiwan Region

(I) Basic Facts of the Case

On March 11, 2009, Wang XX, a resident of Taiwan, applied to the Shilin District Court in Taiwan for a payment order against Xia XX, also a Taiwan resident, on the grounds that Xia XX owed him HK$120,100 in loans and had failed to repay despite multiple demands. On March 17, 2009, the Shilin District Court issued Payment Order No. 4560 of 2009, which stated: 1. Debtor Xia XX shall pay creditor Wang XX HK$120,100 plus interest and compensate for the costs of the督促程序, or otherwise file an objection with the Shilin District Court within a non-extendable period of twenty days after service of the payment order. 2. If the debtor fails to file an objection within the period specified in item 1, this order shall have the same effect as a final judgment. On May 20, 2009, the Shilin District Court issued a certificate of finality for the payment order, confirming that the aforementioned payment order was served on March 24, 2009, and became final on April 13, 2009.

In July 2010, Wang XX applied to the Zhongshan Intermediate People's Court in Guangdong Province for recognition of the aforementioned payment order from the Shilin District Court in Taiwan.

(II) Adjudication Result

The Zhongshan Intermediate People's Court, upon review, found: 1. Applicant Wang XX purchased a house in Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province in February 2008 and resides there. 2. Respondent Xia XX raised no objection to the authenticity of Payment Order No. 4560 of 2009 from the Shilin District Court in Taiwan. 3. Both parties explicitly confirmed that, regarding the matters involved in this application for recognition of the payment order, they had neither entered into an arbitration agreement nor initiated identical litigation or arbitration before a People's Court or arbitration institution in Mainland China.

The Zhongshan Intermediate People's Court held that: Applicant Wang XX's habitual residence is Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province. Pursuant to Article 3 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Recognition of Civil Judgments Rendered by Relevant Courts in the Taiwan Region, the Zhongshan Intermediate People's Court has jurisdiction over this application. The effect of Payment Order No. 4560 of 2009 from the Shilin District Court in Taiwan was finalized on April 13, 2009. The matters confirmed by this payment order are not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of a People's Court in Mainland China, and the content confirmed by the payment order sought to be recognized does not violate the fundamental principles of national law or harm public interests. It does not fall under any of the circumstances listed in Article 9 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Recognition of Civil Judgments Rendered by Relevant Courts in the Taiwan Region that would preclude recognition. In summary, in accordance with relevant laws, the Civil Procedure Law, the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Recognition of Civil Judgments Rendered by Relevant Courts in the Taiwan Region, and the Supplementary Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Recognition of Civil Judgments Rendered by Relevant Courts in the Taiwan Region, the court rendered Civil Ruling No. 12 (2010) Zhong Zhong Fa Min Si Chu Zi on April 25, 2011, recognizing the legal effect of Payment Order No. 4560 of 2009 from the Shilin District Court in Taiwan.

　　案例14

Case of Liang Shu's Application for Recognition of a Civil Mediation Record from a Relevant Court in the Taiwan Region

(I) Basic Facts of the Case

Liang Shu (female, from Nan'an City, Fujian Province) registered her marriage with Liang Hua (male, a resident of the Taiwan Region) in Quanzhou City, Fujian Province in January 2009. On April 30, 2009, Liang Hua filed for divorce with the Family Court of the Changhua District Court in Taiwan. The Changhua District Court served the complaint and summons to Liang Shu, who authorized a litigation representative to appear in court. The parties reached a mediation during the proceedings, and the Changhua District Court issued Civil Mediation Record No. 203 of 2009 on September 2, 2009, confirming that "both parties agree to divorce."

On August 24, 2011, Liang Shu applied to the Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court in Fujian Province for recognition of the aforementioned civil mediation record issued by the Changhua District Court.

(II) Adjudication Result

The Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court, upon review, found that the Changhua District Court had lawfully summoned the applicant Liang Shu during the proceedings, and Liang Shu had authorized a litigation representative to appear in court. Liang Shu filed the application for recognition within two years after the civil mediation record took legal effect. The mediation record complied with Article 9 of the Supreme People's Court's Supplementary Provisions on the Recognition of Civil Judgments from Relevant Courts in the Taiwan Region by People's Courts, and there were no circumstances warranting non-recognition. Accordingly, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Supreme People's Court's Regulations on the Recognition of Civil Judgments from Relevant Courts in the Taiwan Region by People's Courts, the court issued Civil Ruling (2011) Quan Min Ren Zi No. 16 on October 16, 2011, recognizing the legal effect of Civil Mediation Record No. 203 of 2009 from the Changhua District Court in Taiwan.

　　案例15

Case of Hehua Company's Application for Recognition of an Award from a Relevant Arbitration Institution in the Taiwan Region

(I) Basic Facts of the Case

Hehua (Overseas) Land Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hehua Company) and Kaige (Xiamen) Golf Club Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Kaige Company) signed the "Golf Course Management Entrustment Contract" and the "Golf Membership Certificate Sales Entrustment Contract" on June 8, 1998. Article 8, Paragraph 4 of the "Golf Course Management Entrustment Contract" stipulated that Hehua Company would provide a loan of USD 10 million to Kaige Company, with Kaige Company using its 500 golf course membership certificates as collateral. Both contracts stipulated that disputes arising from the performance of the contracts would be submitted to arbitration, and specified the governing law for the contracts. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the parties over the aforementioned loan relationship, and Hehua Company applied for arbitration to the Chinese Arbitration Association, Taipei in accordance with the contract. On November 4, 2003, the Chinese Arbitration Association, Taipei issued the 2002 Zhong Sheng Ren Zi No. 135 arbitration award: (1) Kaige Company shall pay Hehua Company USD 3,900,000 plus interest at an annual rate of 5% from November 29, 1999 until the date of full payment; (2) Hehua Company's remaining claims were dismissed; (3) Arbitration costs were to be borne 65% by Kaige Company and 35% by Hehua Company.

On March 5, 2004, Hehua Company applied to the Xiamen Intermediate People's Court of Fujian Province for recognition of the aforementioned arbitration award made by the Chinese Arbitration Association, Taipei.

(II) Adjudication Result

Upon review, the Xiamen Intermediate People's Court held that: The applicant, Hehua Company, submitted a notarized arbitration award; Kaige Company had executable property in Xiamen, so the Xiamen Intermediate People's Court had jurisdiction over this case. Although the dispute between Hehua Company and Kaige Company arose from the entrusted management of a golf course, the dispute in this case was a monetary loan dispute rather than a real estate dispute, and the parties had previously agreed in writing to submit the dispute to the Chinese Arbitration Association, Taipei for arbitration. In summary, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the "Supreme People's Court's Provisions on the People's Courts' Recognition of Civil Judgments of Relevant Courts in the Taiwan Region," the court issued the (2004) Xia Min Ren Zi No. 20 civil ruling on June 13, 2004, recognizing the legal effect of the 2002 Zhong Sheng Ren Zi No. 135 arbitration award made by the Chinese Arbitration Association, Taipei. On July 30 of the same year, the applicant applied to the Xiamen Intermediate People's Court for compulsory enforcement. During the enforcement process, the parties reached a settlement, which was fully performed in March 2007.

This was the first case accepted by a mainland People's Court for the application of recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award from the Taiwan region. Before the 2009 Cross-Strait Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement explicitly stipulated that both sides would mutually recognize and enforce civil final judgments and arbitration awards, based on the "Supreme People's Court's Provisions on the People's Courts' Recognition of Civil Judgments of Relevant Courts in the Taiwan Region" issued in 1998, mainland People's Courts had already begun to recognize and enforce civil judgments and arbitration awards from Taiwan courts and arbitration institutions. This case was accepted, ruled upon, and enforced accordingly. Since the signing and entry into force of the 2009 Cross-Strait Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement, no cases of applications for recognition and enforcement of Taiwan arbitration awards have been found.