[1] Zhiming Commentary: Man fined 50,000 yuan for assaulting lawyer in court, threatened to kill him
A country governed by the rule of law
In Guangzhou, a couple bought a house in Panyu for their wedding but later broke up, leading to a five-year legal battle over the property. During a recent court hearing, the man, who had previously failed to appear at multiple hearings, threw a power bank at the woman’s lawyer and punched him. Yesterday, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court announced a fine of 50,000 yuan against the man, Xiao Qiu, for disrupting court order.
起因：
After breaking up, the young couple fought over a wedding home valued at 2.48 million yuan
Ms. Xu claimed that on February 5, 2009, she and her ex-boyfriend Xiao Qiu jointly purchased a commercial apartment in Nancun, Panyu District, Guangzhou, during their relationship, and obtained the property ownership certificate on July 29 of the same year. Later, their relationship soured, and Xiao Qiu refused to divide the property, attempting to keep it for himself, leading to multiple court appearances. It is reported that the property was purchased for 1.55 million yuan at the time and is now estimated to be worth 2.48 million yuan.
In previous litigation, the court found that the property ownership certificate listed Xiao Qiu as the owner and Ms. Xu as a co-owner. Transaction records showed that the 20,000 yuan deposit and the 450,000 yuan down payment were solely paid by Xiao Qiu, while the second-phase payment of 1.08 million yuan was transferred from Ms. Xu’s account to the developer. Xiao Qiu’s representative argued that this 1.08 million yuan was actually paid by Xiao Qiu, who deposited it into a new bank account opened under Ms. Xu’s name, but no evidence was provided.
一审：
The man's passive response led to the rejection of his retrial request.
In the first instance, the court found that Xiao Qiu and Miss Xu were originally in a romantic relationship and purchased the property in question for marriage purposes during their courtship, but there were no clear agreements on capital contribution responsibilities or ownership shares. Due to a relationship breakdown, they failed to register for marriage, leading to a dispute. Xiao Qiu's defense lacked strong evidence, so the court determined the property was jointly owned, with each party entitled to a 50% share in the division of assets. Both parties appealed, and the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court upheld the original verdict in 2013.
Miss Xu stated that after the court's ruling, Xiao Qiu still refused to divide the property, so she filed another lawsuit, requesting the court to sell or auction the property and split the proceeds equally at 50% each. On August 6, 2014, the Panyu District Court, unable to serve litigation documents to Xiao Qiu through other legal methods, issued a summons by public notice, which would be deemed served 60 days after publication.
Since Miss Xu requested the court to commission an appraisal and auction of the property during the hearing, the court again notified Xiao Qiu via a notice to attend a second trial, but it could not be served. Consequently, another summons by public notice was issued in January 2015. During this period, court staff contacted Xiao Qiu multiple times by phone, clearly informing him of the specific trial time, location, and legal consequences of failing to appear, but Xiao Qiu did not attend the trial without valid reason and did not provide a specific contact address.
Xiao Qiu, dissatisfied with the previous court ruling that the property was jointly owned, applied for a retrial to the Provincial High Court, which rejected the application. The Panyu District Court ruled in favor of Miss Xu's claim last May. Xiao Qiu appealed to the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court.
二审：
A man caused a disturbance in court and assaulted someone; the court fined him 50,000 yuan.
On April 7 this year, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court held the first session of the second-instance hearing for this case. During the hearing, the appellant Xiao Qiu severely disrupted court order, openly threw a power bank at the opposing party, punched the opposing party's attorney, causing head injuries, and even threatened to kill the other party. The presiding judge Li Huan immediately notified court police to maintain order on site. Despite this, Xiao Qiu remained agitated and noisy, so Li Huan ordered him to be removed from the courtroom.
The opposing party's attorney requested in court that the court punish Xiao Qiu for assaulting others and severely disrupting court order, and later submitted a written application for punishment.
Given the severity of Xiao Qiu's disruption of court proceedings, the collegial panel decided to fine him 50,000 yuan. Yesterday afternoon, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court served the punishment decision to Xiao Qiu's attorney, requiring payment by June 5, 2016. (All names are pseudonyms.)
– From Sohu News
Zhiming Jianping: A lawyer was brutally beaten by the opposing party during the first trial of a civil case of property division dispute, resulting in head injuries and even being threatened with murder. For this incident, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court imposed a fine of 50000 yuan on Qiu Mouwen. Our lawyer believes that Qiu Mouwen not only engaged in aggressive behavior, but also made personal threats to others. According to the Ninth Amendment to the Criminal Law, in addition to the punishment of 50000 yuan, he should also be appropriately detained by the judiciary. Not long ago, there were incidents of lawyers being beaten and law firms being vandalized in Sichuan. If such incidents only involve fines, then the personal safety of lawyers cannot be guaranteed. How can we talk about protecting the rights and interests of lawyers in practice? Will everyone also have a skeptical attitude towards the court in the future? At the same time, it is also recommended that the lawyer should be good at creating innovative strategies, dare to take advantage of court errors, boldly play games, and restore order, so as to respect and protect their own rights, and truly respect and protect the rights of lawyers.
