Supreme People's Court Releases 15 Typical Cases Involving Cross-Strait Judicial Mutual Assistance
On June 19, the Supreme People's Court held a press conference and released 15 typical cases involving cross-strait judicial mutual assistance. Among them, there were 4 cases of judicial mutual assistance in service of documents, 4 cases of judicial mutual assistance in investigation and evidence collection, 3 cases of judicial mutual assistance in transfer of criminal proceeds and stolen assets, and 4 cases of judicial mutual assistance in recognition of judgments.
Case 1
Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong assists the Shilin District Court of Taiwan in serving documents.
——Fast-track processing and resolution ensure school-age children enroll on time
(I) Request Details
On February 10, 2014, the agreement liaison of the Guangdong High People's Court received a request for document service from the agreement liaison of the competent judicial authority of the Taiwan region, requesting assistance in serving the civil ruling of the Taiwan Shilin District Court, Case No. 70 of the 2013 Annual Si Yang Shen Zi, concerning the recognition of adoption, to the person to be served, Li Moumou, and his legal agent, Yang Mou, a mainland resident.
(2) Handling Status
This case involved the recognition of an adoption. Only after the biological mother of the adopted child, namely Yang, the legal representative of the person to be served, signed for the ruling of the Taiwan court and returned the proof of service to the Taiwan court could the ruling take effect. Once the ruling took effect, the adopter (a Taiwan resident) could proceed with the school enrollment procedures in Taiwan for the adopted child (a school-age child). To ensure that the adopted child could enroll on time, the Guangdong High People's Court, on the very day it received the letter of request from Taiwan, forwarded it to the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court for assistance and required it to immediately begin locating the person to be served for service. The Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court completed service on February 20, 2014, and submitted the proof of service to the Guangdong High People's Court on the same day. The Guangdong High People's Court also reviewed it and replied to Taiwan on the same day. In this case, the two levels of courts in Guangdong concerned took only 10 days from receiving the letter of request from Taiwan to issuing the reply, achieving immediate handling upon receipt and swift resolution upon handling, effectively safeguarding the timely realization of the relevant rights and interests of the parties involved.
Case 2
[3] Zhejiang Zhoushan Intermediate People's Court Assists Taiwan Pingtung District Court in Serving Documents
——Made multiple trips to remote islands and conducted extensive searches for the recipient.
(I) Request Details
On July 5, 2013, the designated liaison contact of the Zhejiang Provincial High People's Court received a request for document delivery from the designated liaison contact of the competent authority for legal affairs of the Taiwan region, requesting assistance in serving judicial documents in the case of Taiwan Pingtung District Court, Case No. 12, Jia Lu Xu Zi, 2013, to the recipient, Wang Moumou, a mainland resident.
(2) Handling Status
The service address provided by the Taiwan side was located on a remote small island in the northwest corner of the main island of the Zhoushan Archipelago in Zhejiang Province, but no contact information was provided. The Zhejiang High People's Court transferred the case to the Zhoushan Intermediate People's Court for handling. The service personnel of the Zhoushan Intermediate People's Court traveled nearly six hours by car and ferry to reach the island. After conducting visits and investigations, they found that the service address had been uninhabited for a long time. Subsequently, after inquiring about the registered residence information of the person to be served through the Zhoushan Municipal Certificate Service Center, it was confirmed that the address provided by the Taiwan side was indeed the registered residence address of the person to be served. They then went to the island again to collect relevant information about the person to be served. Through extensive visits and inquiries, they collected contact information for multiple relatives and friends of the person to be served, and then contacted them one by one to make inquiries. Finally, they obtained the contact information of the person to be served from one relative or friend. After confirming through telephone contact with the person to be served, the Zhoushan Intermediate People's Court located the current residential address of the person to be served on October 31, 2013, and successfully completed direct service.
Case 3
Case of the Wuxi Intermediate People's Court in Jiangsu Assisting the Taipei District Court in Taiwan with Service of Documents
——Address unknown, yet every effort was made to assist in the investigation and service was successfully effected
(I) Request Details
On April 2, 2014, the designated liaison contact of the Jiangsu Provincial Higher People's Court received a request for document service from the designated liaison contact of the Taiwan region's competent judicial authorities, requesting assistance in serving one copy each of the notice of oral argument and the copy of the complaint for the divorce case No. 35 of the Year 2014 (Marriage Category) of the Taiwan Taipei District Court to the person to be served, Wang Mou, a mainland resident.
(2) Handling Status
After receiving the request materials transferred by the Jiangsu High People's Court from the Taiwan side, the Wuxi Intermediate People's Court in Jiangsu Province reviewed them and found that, according to the plaintiff's written statement, the plaintiff had had no contact with the person to be served, Wang, for ten years; the Taiwan side had only provided Wang's service address in the mainland (No. X, Hexinli, Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province), without providing an ID number or contact information; and because Wuxi's urban redevelopment had brought about enormous changes, the service address provided by the Taiwan side had long ceased to exist. In order to assist as successfully as possible, the Wuxi Intermediate People's Court tried every means to locate the person to be served. It first inquired through the 114 directory assistance service about the telephone number registration and other relevant retained information for the service address, but without success; afterward, it used Wuxi's electronic map to examine the map of Wuxi from ten years earlier and compare it with the current map. After identifying the approximate location of the former Hexinli, it verified with the Wuxi City Beitang District People's Court, the court with jurisdiction over that area, that the area had indeed once existed, but had been completely demolished in 2007 and no longer existed, and that the residents of the area had all moved to unknown locations. In view of this, the Wuxi Intermediate People's Court conducted inquiries through the Wuxi courts. By retrieving household registration information cards and checking and eliminating one by one among more than ten people in the city with the same name, it finally located the person to be served's current residence and obtained the home telephone number. After contacting Wang and confirming his identity, Wang went to the court in person to collect the relevant judicial documents from the Taiwan side.
Case 4
Case of the Lengshuitan District Court of Yongzhou City, Hunan Province, Requesting Assistance from a Taiwan Court in Serving Documents
——Taiwan courts make every effort to assist mainland courts with service of process
(I) Request Details
On November 21, 2013, the designated liaison officer of the Hunan Provincial High People's Court sent a request for service of documents to the designated liaison officer of the competent authority for legal affairs of the Taiwan region, requesting assistance in serving the notice of response, a copy of the complaint, the summons to the hearing, and other relevant legal documents in the divorce dispute case accepted by the Lengshuitan District People's Court of Yongzhou City, Hunan Province, in which Huang Moumou was the plaintiff and Zhang Moumou, a Taiwan resident, was the defendant.
(2) Outcome
The mainland court provided two addresses for service of the person to be served in Taichung City in its request materials. The Taiwan Taichung District Court not only effected substituted service at both of the above addresses, but also ascertained the registered domicile of the person to be served and effected substituted service there as well. The Taiwan-side liaison contacted the Hunan High People's Court liaison on March 27, 2014, and provided a complete reply regarding the service results.
Case 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
——Exhaustive investigation of the person under investigation
(I) Request Details
On June 19, 2013, the designated liaison contact of the Supreme People's Court received a letter of request for investigation and evidence collection from the designated liaison contact of the competent judicial authority of the Taiwan region, along with attached materials related to the death declaration case No. 21 of the 2013 annual death registration (2013 Nian Du Wang Zi No. 21) of the Taiwan Taichung District Court, requesting confirmation of the current location of Taiwan resident Gu Moumou and any records of relevant activities after his entry into the mainland.
(2) Handling Status
After receiving the materials transferred by the Supreme People's Court and the Yunnan Provincial High People's Court, the Kunming Intermediate People's Court in Yunnan Province, upon examination, found that the person under investigation, Gu Moumou, was a patient with moderate mental disorder who had been missing for more than seven years after entering the mainland. The only clue provided by the Taiwan side was that Gu Moumou had taken a flight to Kunming on January 11, 2006. Despite the very limited information in the case, the Kunming Intermediate People's Court still attached great importance to it and made every effort to carry out the investigation. It contacted multiple entities respectively, including the Kunming Taiwan Compatriots Association, the Taiwan Affairs Office and the Foreign and Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the Kunming Municipal Government, 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, Yunnan Airport Group, and Kunming Changshui International Airport. It queried relevant port exit-entry records from January 1, 2006 to August 8, 2013, searched hotel and inn accommodation registration information in Kunming since January 2006 and accommodation registration information for overseas persons residing in scattered locations, compared more than 3.5 million pieces of information in the real-name ticket sales system, searched 110,000 pieces of passenger identity data collected by train police officers on all trains departing from Kunming since January 2006, railway criminal suspect registration information, and railway passenger train violation and incident information, investigated the medical consultation and treatment records of the Yunnan Provincial Mental Health Center, the First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, and nearly 100 psychiatric specialist medical institutions in Kunming and nine surrounding prefectures and cities in the province, and verified the departure registration information and assisted personnel files of the Kunming Municipal Government Relief Station under the Kunming Civil Affairs Bureau. According to the query results fed back from all sides, no valid information or relevant materials concerning Gu Moumou could be found. Although the case was ultimately replied to the Taiwan side with the result that assistance could not be successfully provided, the Kunming Intermediate People's Court demonstrated through practical action the spirit of carrying out cross-strait judicial mutual assistance with the greatest sincerity and utmost effort.
Case 6
Mainland Courts in Seven Provinces and Municipalities Assist Taiwan Taichung District Court in Evidence Investigation for a Fraud Case
——Multiple Courts Collaborate to Complete Evidence Collection in Telecom Fraud Case
(I) Request Details
On February 20, 2012, the designated liaison contact of the Supreme People's Court received a letter of request for evidence investigation and collection from the designated liaison contact of the competent judicial authority of the Taiwan region, along with attached materials related to a fraud case (Case No. 1965 of the 2011 Yi Zi of the Taiwan Taichung District Court), requesting assistance in examining 13 mainland resident witnesses with audio and video recording throughout the entire process, among other matters.
(2) Handling Status
After receiving the request from the Taiwan side, the Supreme People's Court found upon review that the case involved a cross-border telecom fraud case jointly investigated through cooperation among the two sides of the Taiwan Strait and a third place. According to the indictment issued by the Taiwan side, the six defendants, including Hong Moumou, are all Taiwan residents. They are accused of hiring 13 mainland residents, including Yao Moumou (the 13 witnesses whose examination the Taiwan side requested in this case), to engage in telecom fraud in Vietnam, defrauding mainland victims of a total of 225 yuan. In 2011, the fraud gang was apprehended in Vietnam. The six defendants from the Taiwan region were deported and criminally detained by Taiwan police upon their return to Taiwan; the 13 mainland residents, including Yao Moumou, were handed over to the relevant public security organ in Liaoning Province for investigation and handling after returning to the mainland. The Taichung District Prosecutors Office in Taiwan filed criminal charges against the six defendants with the Taichung District Court on suspicion of fraud.
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 the subsequent assistance of 12 mainland courts across 6 provinces and municipalities—including the People's Court of Dexing City, Jiangxi Province; the People's Court of Yiyang County; the People's Court of Duchang County; the People's Court of Tongshan County, Hubei Province; the People's Court of Nan County, Hunan Province; the Intermediate People's Court of Heyuan City, Guangdong Province; the Intermediate People's Court of Zhuhai City; the People's Court of Xinxing County; the People's Court of Yongchuan District, Chongqing Municipality; the Intermediate People's Court of Zigong City, Sichuan Province; the Intermediate People's Court of Guang'an City; and the Intermediate People's Court of Suining City—the investigation and evidence collection work for all 13 witnesses was ultimately completed. Among them, 7 individuals subject to investigation could not be located; for the 6 individuals who were located, investigative inquiries were conducted in accordance with statutory procedures, and the entire inquiry process was audio- and video-recorded and made into discs as required by the Taiwan side.
After assistance from 13 courts across 7 provinces and municipalities in Mainland China, the Supreme People's Court liaison ultimately replied to the Taiwan side on August 5, 2013, with all results, accompanied by 71 pages of written materials and 10 evidence-collection video CDs.
Case 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.
——Making every effort to assist Taiwan courts in evidence collection
(I) Request Details
On November 25, 2011, the designated liaison of the Supreme People's Court received a letter of request for investigation and evidence collection from the designated liaison of the competent judicial authority of the Taiwan region, along with attached materials related to the case of Payment of Insurance Benefits (2011 Insurance No. 22) of the Taiwan Taichung District Court, requesting the collection of relevant medical records and emergency treatment records of Taiwan resident Li Moumou during his travel 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.
Case 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
——Taiwan courts earnestly assisted and successfully completed multiple evidence collection requests
(I) Request Details
On October 25, 2012, the agreed liaison of the Supreme People's Court sent a letter of request for investigation and evidence collection to the agreed liaison of the competent judicial authority of the Taiwan region, requesting assistance from the Taiwan side in conducting investigation and evidence collection regarding the following matters in a housing sales contract dispute heard by the Haicang District People's Court of Xiamen City, Fujian Province: the time of death of the person under investigation, Huang Moumou, his property and debts at the time of death, whether he left a will, his marital status during his lifetime, the circumstances of his heirs, their addresses for service and contact information, whether any heir has disclaimed the right of inheritance and whether a petition for estate liquidation proceedings has been filed in Taiwan, as well as the relevant provisions of Taiwan law on inheritance and marital property relations.
(2) Handling Status
On March 1, 2013, the designated liaison person of the Supreme People's Court received the reply materials from the Taiwan side. With the assistance of the Taiwan Tainan District Court, all requests made by the mainland court were fully completed. The Tainan District Court ascertained the time of death of the investigated person Huang Moumou, his will, and his marital status during his lifetime, set out in detail the identities of the three heirs, their registered residence addresses, and whether they had renounced their right of inheritance, as well as nearly 20 pages of relevant Taiwan regulations, prepared a summary table of the investigation results, and also attached copies of the household registration transcripts of the investigated person Huang Moumou, his spouse, and his former wife. The above evidence collection results laid the foundation for the trial court to smoothly conclude the case.
Case 9
The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court in Zhejiang Province issued a notice to 17 victims in the Taiwan region, including Wu Moumou.
Return of Property Case
——The first and largest transfer of criminal proceeds under a mutual legal assistance agreement
(I) Basic Facts of the Case
This case is the first judicial mutual assistance case involving the transfer of criminal proceeds completed in accordance with the Cross-Strait Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement signed in 2009, and it also involves the largest amount of property returned to date in judicial mutual assistance for the transfer of criminal proceeds between the relevant authorities on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
This case involves a telecommunications fraud. After the first-instance trial by the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province and the second-instance trial by the Zhejiang High People's Court, it was ascertained that: in the second half of 2008, the defendant Wei Zhongbo and 16 others (among whom 13 persons, including Wei Zhongbo, the principal element of the criminal group, and Zeng Yuchen, were Taiwan residents) set up a fraud den in Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, built a telecommunications fraud network platform, and successively recruited multiple persons in Taiwan and various parts of the mainland to form a telecommunications fraud criminal group. From November 2008 to May 2010, they posed as staff members of Taiwan household registration offices, Taiwan police authorities, and Taiwan district prosecutors' offices, made phone calls to Taiwan residents, falsely claimed that the victims were involved in cases such as money laundering and fraud, demanded that the victims provide information about their bank accounts and family members, and hand over the funds in their bank accounts to the district prosecutors' office for custody and review, thereby defrauding dozens of people in succession. The 17 defendants involved were convicted by the mainland people's court in accordance with the law and sentenced to penalties ranging from life imprisonment to fixed-term imprisonment of one year.
The 17 victims in the case, including Wu and others, are all Taiwan residents, with the oldest being 87 years old and the youngest 62 years old. During the trial, all the illicit money and goods involved in the case were transferred to the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court along with the case files. The illicit money and the proceeds from the lawful auction of the illicit goods totaled RMB 2,370,775.72. The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court decided to return the funds to the victims in proportion to the amounts they respectively lost.
(2) Handling Status
After the conclusion of the above-mentioned telecom fraud case, the relevant court in Zhejiang, in accordance with the cross-strait judicial mutual assistance agreement, requested the delivery of the criminal judgment documents involved in the case to the victimized residents in Taiwan, and requested the provision of relevant information about the victims so that their property could be returned in a timely manner. In March 2013, the liaison person of the Supreme People's Court for the agreement communicated the above information and materials to the Taiwan side and requested the Taiwan side to provide assistance as soon as possible.
Through the concerted efforts of the Supreme People's Court, the Zhejiang High People's Court, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court, the Taiwan region's competent judicial authorities, and the prosecutorial offices of 10 district courts in Taiwan under the framework of the agreement, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court, on June 7, 2013, remitted the full amount of property totaling RMB 2,370,775.72 (approximately NT$11 million) that was due to be returned to 17 victim residents of Taiwan to the bank accounts opened by each victim at relevant banks in Taiwan. The largest single remittance was approximately RMB 1.94 million (approximately NT$9.45 million).
To minimize the losses suffered by the victims and ensure the timely, lawful, and convenient return of property to the victimized Taiwan residents, the relevant parties on both sides of the Taiwan Strait maintained close communication and strengthened coordination with banks and other relevant parties on both sides. As a currency clearing mechanism had just been established between the two sides, it was ultimately decided that this case would adopt direct bank remittance across the Strait, the most convenient and least costly method of property return. After receiving complete information from the Taiwan side, including the victims’ bank account details, the three levels of mainland courts took only five working days in total to complete the transfer of materials and the remittance procedures.
Case 10
Case of the Fujian Zhangzhou Intermediate People's Court Returning Property to Taiwanese Victim Li
——Full restitution of the victim’s defrauded property
(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. Upon trial by the Xiangcheng District People's Court of Zhangzhou City, Fujian Province at first instance and the Zhangzhou Intermediate People's Court at second instance, it was ascertained that: between October 2011 and July 2012, the defendants Chen Yizhen, Zhang Qianlin, and others, hired by others, respectively impersonated single Taiwanese women, made calls through virtual network phones to gain the trust of Taiwanese men, pretended to engage in romantic relationships with them, and extracted the victims' personal identity information. Subsequently, defendant Li Bin handed over the fraudulently obtained personal information to a Taiwanese boss to carry out the next step of the fraudulent scheme, thereby defrauding the victims of their money. The aforementioned defendants made fraudulent calls to a total of 2,182 person-times, among which the completed fraud in this case involved the victim Mr. Li in the amount of RMB 8,264 (equivalent to approximately NT$40,000). The relevant defendants were convicted and sentenced respectively by the mainland people's court in accordance with the law.
(2) Handling Status
When hearing this telecom fraud case, the Zhangzhou Intermediate People's Court actively facilitated the defendants' restitution. Since only one victim, Li, a Taiwan resident, had reported the case, the full amount defrauded from him was recovered. To promptly return the defrauded property to the victim, under the guidance of the Supreme People's Court, and upon the request submitted by the Zhangzhou Intermediate People's Court through the Fujian Provincial High People's Court, the designated liaison of the Supreme People's Court sent a notification to the designated liaison of the Taiwan region's competent judicial authorities on November 26, 2013, and made requests for relevant investigation, evidence collection, and transfer of criminal proceeds. After the Taoyuan District Prosecutors Office in Taiwan assisted in confirming the relevant information of the victim Li, and after Li signed the relevant documents and provided feedback to the mainland, the Zhangzhou Intermediate People's Court, on April 3, 2014, transferred the full amount of RMB 8,264 defrauded from the victim Li into his account opened in Taiwan. Although the amount returned in this case was not very large, for the victim who had reported the case, a full restitution was achieved, and his actual losses were fully recovered.
Case 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
——A Mainland Resident Obtains Victim's Survivor Compensation 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, in a fit of rage after his wife Fang Moumou filed for divorce, strangled her to death at their residence in Yilan County, Taiwan. After criminal proceedings were initiated in Taiwan, the victim Fang Moumou's mother Chen Moumou and Fang Moumou's son from a previous marriage, Chen Mou (both residents of Minhou County, Fujian Province), filed applications with the Taiwan Yilan District Prosecutors Office pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Taiwan region, seeking compensation for the deceased Fang Moumou's failure to fulfill her statutory support obligations and for emotional distress. Chen Mou additionally filed an application for compensation for funeral expenses incurred as a result of the victim's death.
In February 2013, the Yilan District Prosecutors Office of Taiwan submitted a request for assistance in investigation and evidence collection to the designated liaison of the Supreme People's Court through the designated liaison of the Taiwan region's competent authority for judicial affairs, seeking an investigation into the property and income of Chen Moumou and Chen Mou. With the assistance of the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court of Fujian Province, it was ascertained that both individuals under investigation were from impoverished households and had no real estate, savings, or other property. In August of the same year, the Victim Compensation Review Committee of the Yilan District Prosecutors Office of Taiwan, based on the results of the investigation and evidence collection assisted by the mainland court, issued a written decision determining that Chen Moumou and Chen Mou lacked the financial means to maintain their livelihood and were entitled to support, thereby meeting the conditions for receiving compensation for surviving victims. Accordingly, it was decided to award Chen Moumou statutory support payments and emotional consolation money totaling NT$673,447 (approximately RMB 138,580), and to award Chen Mou funeral expenses, statutory support payments, and emotional consolation money totaling NT$498,623 (approximately RMB 102,605).
(2) Handling Status
On November 22, 2013, the designated liaison contact of the Supreme People's Court received a letter of request from the designated liaison contact of the competent authority for legal affairs of the Taiwan region, requesting assistance in matters relating to the service of documents, the taking of evidence, and the return of compensation funds to the surviving family members in the aforementioned case handled by the Yilan District Prosecutors Office in Taiwan.
After receiving the aforementioned second request from the Taiwan side, the Supreme People's Court decided to provide assistance again as an individual case. Through communication and liaison between the agreed liaison person of the Supreme People's Court and the agreed liaison person of the competent judicial authority of the Taiwan region, the formats of the Crime Victim Compensation Application Form and the Receipt were ultimately determined, as well as the method of payment of the compensation and the financial institutions that could be used for transferring the compensation funds. Thereafter, upon transfer by the Fujian Provincial High People's Court, the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court served the Taiwan side's ruling on the two victims' surviving family members, conducted investigative inquiries, required the two victims' surviving family members to open accounts within the designated range of financial institutions and provided photocopies of the covers of their bank passbooks and photocopies of their identity documents, and also required the two victims' surviving family members to fill out the Crime Victim Compensation Application Form, the Receipt, and other documents. In March 2014, after the agreed liaison person of the Supreme People's Court replied to the Taiwan side with the aforementioned materials, the surviving family members of the victims, Chen Moumou and Chen Mou, successfully received the full amount of compensation on April 13 and 14, 2014, respectively.
Case 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, Meiya Trading Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Meiya Company) filed a lawsuit with the Taiwan Taichung District Court against Chen Moumou, Xie Moumou, British Virgin Islands Shang Ying Xu Company (hereinafter referred to as Shang Ying Xu Company), and Shanghai Ying Xu Metal Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Ying Xu Company) as co-defendants on grounds of joint tort. Chen Moumou participated in the litigation and presented defenses as the investor of Shang Ying Xu Company and the legal representative of Ying Xu Company. On June 12, 2009, the Taiwan Taichung District Court issued Civil Judgment No. 306 of Chong Su Zi of 2007, dismissing Meiya Company’s claims. Dissatisfied with the judgment, Meiya Company appealed to the Taiwan High Court Taichung Branch. On November 10, 2010, the Taiwan High Court Taichung Branch issued Civil Judgment No. 120 of Chong Shang Zi of 2009, ordering Ying Xu Company to pay Meiya Company USD 761,603.96 plus interest from February 10, 2008, until the date of full payment (calculated at an annual rate of 5%). Ying Xu Company was dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed to the Taiwan Supreme Court, but did not raise the argument that the dispute should be resolved by arbitration in its grounds of appeal. On October 27, 2011, the Taiwan Supreme Court issued Civil Ruling No. 1856 of Tai Shang Zi of 2011, dismissing Ying Xu Company’s appeal. On March 16, 2012, the Taiwan High Court Taichung Branch issued the Certificate of Final Civil Judgment of the Taiwan High Court Taichung Branch, certifying that the second-instance judgment No. 120 of Chong Shang Zi of 2009 rendered by the said court had become final and effective.
On January 19, 2012, Meiya Company applied to the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court for recognition of the aforementioned civil judgment rendered by the Taiwan High Court Taichung Branch.
(II) Adjudication Result
The Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court, upon examination, held that: the respondent Yingxu Company's domicile is within the jurisdiction of the said court, and therefore the said court has jurisdiction over this application. During the proceedings before the relevant court in the Taiwan region, Chen Moumou, as the legal representative of Yingxu Company, presented defenses, and Yingxu Company entrusted lawyers to participate in the litigation and express opinions in both the second instance and third instance proceedings. Yingxu Company failed to provide evidence proving that the Civil Judgment No. 120 of Chong Shang Zi of 2009 rendered by the Taiwan High Court Taichung Branch was made in its absence and without lawful summons. During the proceedings before the relevant court in the Taiwan region, Yingxu Company never raised a defense on the ground that the parties had agreed upon an arbitration clause, but instead participated in the litigation and presented both procedural and substantive defenses regarding the dispute at issue. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment of the relevant court in the Taiwan region does not have the circumstance where the court's jurisdiction is affected by the parties' agreement to arbitrate. In summary, in accordance with relevant laws and the relevant provisions of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Recognition of Civil Judgments of Relevant Courts in the Taiwan Region by People's Courts, the said court, on June 19, 2012, rendered the Civil Ruling No. 1 of Hu Er Zhong Min Ren (Tai) Zi of 2012, recognizing the legal effect of the Civil Judgment No. 120 of Chong Shang Zi of 2009 rendered by the Taiwan High Court Taichung Branch.
Case 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, a Taiwan resident, filed an application with the Taiwan Shilin District Court for the issuance of a payment order against Xia, also a Taiwan resident, on the grounds that Xia had failed to repay a loan of HKD 120,100 despite multiple demands. On March 17, 2009, the Taiwan Shilin District Court issued Payment Order No. 4560 of 2009, which stated: 1. The debtor, Xia, shall repay the creditor, Wang, HKD 120,100 plus interest and compensate the costs of the supervisory procedure; otherwise, within an unchangeable period of twenty days after service of the payment order, an objection shall be filed with the Taiwan Shilin District Court. 2. If the debtor fails to file an objection within the period specified in paragraph 1, this order shall have the same effect as a final judgment. On May 20, 2009, the Taiwan Shilin District Court issued a certificate of finality of the payment order, certifying that the aforesaid payment order was served on March 24, 2009, and became final on April 13, 2009.
In July 2010, Wang filed an application with the Intermediate People's Court of Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province, for recognition of the aforementioned payment order issued by the Taiwan Shilin District Court.
(II) Adjudication Result
The Zhongshan Intermediate People's Court, upon examination, ascertained the following: 1. The applicant, Wang Moumou, purchased a house located in Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province, in February 2008 and resided in that house. 2. The respondent, Xia Moumou, did not raise any objection to the authenticity of the Payment Order No. 4560 of the 2009 Du Cu Zi of the Taiwan Shilin District Court. 3. Both parties explicitly confirmed that, with respect to the matters involved in the application in this case for recognition of the Payment Order, neither party had entered into an arbitration agreement, nor had either party initiated identical litigation or arbitration before a mainland people's court or arbitration institution.
The Zhongshan Intermediate People's Court held that the applicant Wang Moumou's habitual residence is Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province. In accordance with Article 3 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the People's Courts' Recognition of Civil Judgments of the Relevant Courts of the Taiwan Region, the Zhongshan Intermediate People's Court has jurisdiction over this application. The effect of the Payment Order No. 4560 of the Summary Division in the Year 2009 of the Taiwan Shilin District Court was confirmed on April 13, 2009. The matters confirmed by the said Payment Order do not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the people's courts of the Mainland, and the contents confirmed by the Payment Order for which recognition is sought do not violate the basic principles of the laws of the State, nor do they harm the public interests of society, and there are no circumstances listed in Article 9 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the People's Courts' Recognition of Civil Judgments of the Relevant Courts of the Taiwan Region under which recognition shall not be granted. In summary, in accordance with the relevant laws and the Civil Procedure Law, the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the People's Courts' Recognition of Civil Judgments of the Relevant Courts of the Taiwan Region, and the Supplementary Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the People's Courts' Recognition of Civil Judgments of the Relevant Courts of the Taiwan Region, the said court, on April 25, 2011, issued the Civil Ruling No. 12 of the Fourth Civil Division of the Zhongshan Intermediate People's Court in the Year 2010, recognizing the legal effect of the Payment Order No. 4560 of the Summary Division in the Year 2009 of the Taiwan Shilin District Court.
Case 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, a native of 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 a divorce action with the Family Division of the Changhua District Court in Taiwan. The Changhua District Court served the complaint and summons on Liang Shu. Liang Shu entrusted a litigation agent to appear in court, and the parties reached a settlement during the proceedings. On September 2, 2009, the Changhua District Court issued the 2009 No. 203 Civil Settlement Record, confirming that “both parties are willing to divorce.”
On August 24, 2011, Liang Shu filed an application with the Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court of Fujian Province for recognition of the aforementioned civil settlement record made by the Changhua District Court.
(II) Adjudication Result
The Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court, upon review, held that: during the trial of the case, the Taiwan Changhua District Court had lawfully summoned the applicant Liang Shumou, and Liang Shumou's entrusted litigation agent appeared in court to participate in the proceedings; Liang Shumou filed the application for recognition within two years after the aforementioned civil settlement record took legal effect, and the settlement record conformed to the provisions of Article 9 of the Supplementary Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Recognition of Civil Judgments of Relevant Courts in the Taiwan Region by People's Courts, and there were no circumstances under which recognition should not be granted. In summary, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Recognition of Civil Judgments of Relevant Courts in the Taiwan Region by People's Courts, the court issued the Civil Ruling (2011) Quan Min Ren Zi No. 16 on October 16, 2011, recognizing the legal effect of the Civil Settlement Record No. 203 of 2009 of the Taiwan Changhua District Court.
Case 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
On June 8, 1998, Hewa (Overseas) Land Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hewa Company) and Kaige (Xiamen) Golf Club Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Kaige Company) entered into a Golf Course Entrusted Operation Contract and a Golf Membership Certificate Entrusted Sales Contract. Article 8, Paragraph 4 of the Golf Course Entrusted Operation Contract provided that Hewa Company would provide a loan of USD 10 million to Kaige Company, secured by 500 golf membership certificates owned by Kaige Company. Both contracts stipulated that disputes arising from the performance of the contracts shall be submitted to arbitration, and both specified the governing law applicable to the contracts. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the parties over the aforementioned loan relationship, and Hewa Company applied to the Chinese Arbitration Association, Taipei (CAA) for arbitration in accordance with the contractual provisions. On November 4, 2003, the CAA rendered Arbitration Award No. 135 of 2002 (Zhong Sheng Ren Zi): (1) Kaige Company shall pay Hewa Company USD 3,900,000 plus interest calculated at an annual rate of 5% from November 29, 1999 until the date of full payment; (2) the remaining claims of Hewa Company are dismissed; and (3) 65% of the arbitration fees shall be borne by Kaige Company and 35% by Hewa Company.
On March 5, 2004, Hewa Company applied to the Xiamen Intermediate People's Court of Fujian Province for recognition of the aforementioned arbitral award rendered by the Chinese Arbitration Association of Taiwan.
(II) Adjudication Result
The Xiamen Intermediate People's Court, upon review, held that: the applicant, Hehua Company, had submitted an arbitral award certified by notarization, and Kaige Company had property available for enforcement in Xiamen, so the Xiamen Intermediate People's Court had the authority to accept this case. Although the dispute between Hehua Company and Kaige Company arose from the entrusted operation of a golf course, the dispute between the parties in this case constituted a monetary loan dispute rather than a real estate dispute, and the parties had agreed in writing in advance to submit the dispute to the Chinese Arbitration Association, Taipei for arbitration. In summary, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Recognition of Civil Judgments of Relevant Courts in the Taiwan Region by People's Courts, the court issued the Civil Ruling (2004) Xia Min Ren Zi No. 20 on June 13, 2004, recognizing the legal effect of the arbitral award Zhong Sheng Ren Zi No. 135 of 2002 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 proceedings, the parties reached a settlement, which was fully performed in March 2007.
This was the first case in which a mainland people's court accepted an application for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award rendered in the Taiwan region. Before the 2009 cross-strait mutual legal assistance agreement explicitly provided for the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil judgments and arbitral awards, mainland people's courts had already begun recognizing and enforcing civil judgments of Taiwan courts and awards of Taiwan arbitration institutions in accordance with the 1998 Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Recognition of Civil Judgments of Relevant Courts in the Taiwan Region. This case was accepted, ruled upon, and enforced on that basis. Since the signing and entry into force of the 2009 cross-strait mutual legal assistance agreement, no case has been found involving an application for the recognition and enforcement of a Taiwan arbitral award.
