张庆方律师：重庆高院刘彬法官的司法专横让我忍无可忍 Judge Liu Bin’s Overbearing Courtroom Antics at the Chongqing High Court Push Me to the Edge

2024年4月16日，我和西南政法大学张武举教授、西南政法老校长龙宗智教授等共同代理的贵州众合天下债事服务公司、贵州中解联合债事服务公司袁山东等人集资诈骗案，在重庆高院第二审判庭二审开庭。

On April 16, 2024, along with Professor Zhang Wuju from Southwest University of Political Science and Law, former president Professor Long Zongzhi, and others, I represented Guizhou Zhonghe Global Debt Service Company and Guizhou Zhongjie United Debt Service Company, among others, in a crowdfunding fraud case involving Yuan Shandong at the second-instance trial in the High Court of Chongqing.

但是，本案审判长、重庆高院刑二庭副庭长刘彬在主持庭审过程中表现出的豪横，让我作为一个还算有涵养的老刑辩律师，都忍无可忍。

However, the presiding judge, Liu Bin, the deputy director of the Second Criminal Court of the High Court of Chongqing, conducted the trial with such arrogance that even I, as a seasoned criminal defense lawyer, found it unbearable.

袁山东等人集资诈骗案，2021年9月15日，就由重庆市检五分院起诉到了重庆五中院，五中院一审两年多，在两次开庭后，于2023年11月9日作出奇葩的判决：6名被起诉涉嫌集资诈骗罪的被告人，其中五名被告人苟玉兰、徐理苹、李强、杨淋淋、袁野被一审法院自行改变罪名，认定构成非法吸收公众存款罪，只有第一被告人袁山东构成集资诈骗罪。

In the crowdfunding fraud case of Yuan Shandong and others, the Fifth Branch of Chongqing Municipal Prosecutor's Office brought the case to the Fifth Intermediate Court of Chongqing on September 15, 2021. After more than two years and two court sessions, the court issued a bizarre ruling on November 9, 2023: among the six defendants accused of crowdfunding fraud, five—Gou Yulan, Xu Liping, Li Qiang, Yang Linlin, and Yuan Ye—had their charges changed by the court to illegally absorbing public deposits, with only the prime defendant Yuan Shandong being charged with crowdfunding fraud.

重庆五中院认定苟玉兰等五人不构成集资诈骗罪的理由如下:

The Chongqing Fifth Intermediate Court ruled that Gou Yulan and four others were not guilty of fundraising fraud for the following reason:

虽然被告人荀玉兰、杨淋淋、徐理苹、李强、袁野实施了变相吸收公众存款的犯罪行为，但现有证据尚不足以证实这五名被告人构成集资诈骗罪。

Although the defendants Xun Yulan, Yang Linlin, Xu Liping, Li Qiang, and Yuan Ye engaged in the criminal act of indirectly absorbing public deposits, the existing evidence is insufficient to prove that these five individuals committed fundraising fraud.

1. 未能证明被告人荀玉兰、徐理苹、李强、杨淋淋、袁野具有非法占有故意。指控证据显示被告人并未按合同约定对债事进行实质催收，集资参与人也并不明确知道自己获得的商品或资产包的价值。但同时在案证据也证实，此五名被告人对所吸收资金并无控制支配权；荀玉兰、徐理苹、李强、杨淋淋作为原始股东在处理自己的真实债务时真实缴纳了费用，至案发时仍有未返还的投入资金；虽确有虚假债事的存在，但同时有真实债事存在，公司有核查债事真实性的制度；集资参与人知晓获利模式。故现有证据不足以证明此五名被告人具有非法占有故意。

1. It could not be proven that the defendants Xun Yulan, Xu Liping, Li Qiang, Yang Linlin, and Yuan Ye had the intention of illegal possession. The evidence presented indicates that the defendants did not substantially pursue debt collection as stipulated by the contracts, and the fundraisers were not clearly aware of the value of the goods or asset packages they received. Moreover, the evidence also confirms that these five defendants did not control the funds absorbed; Xun Yulan, Xu Liping, Li Qiang, and Yang Linlin, as original shareholders, genuinely paid expenses when handling their real debts, and there were still unreturned funds at the time of the incident; although false debts existed, there were also genuine debts, and the company had a system to verify the authenticity of debts; the fundraisers were aware of the profit model. Therefore, the existing evidence is insufficient to prove that these five defendants had the intention of illegal possession.

2. 未能证明经营模式确定不可持续。公诉机关认为涉案经营模式系高风险，必然导致经营不可持续，但经审查，（1）案发前尚未发生拖延履行或不能履行的情况；（2）贵州中解公司从债事人处获得应收债权化解款322亿余元，虽未见有收回，但因有发催收函等，仍可能是有效债权；（3）企债部分，辩方举示的证据显示对项目有具体解债行为或详细方案，仅因处于准备或起始阶段，无法准确判断项目后期的盈利性有多大；（4）辩方所称利用批零差、时间差以及扩大盈利来源而维持企业经营具有一定合理性。故本案经营模式的高风险是否必然导致不可持续并不确定。

2. It could not be proven that the business model was definitively unsustainable. The prosecution considered the business model involved to be high-risk, inevitably leading to unsustainability, but upon examination, (1) there had been no cases of delayed or non-performance prior to the incident; (2) Guizhou Zhongjie Company obtained receivable debt resolution funds of over 32.2 billion yuan from debt resolvers, and although no recoveries were seen, the issuance of debt collection letters suggests these might still be valid debts; (3) for corporate debts, the defense's evidence showed specific debt resolution actions or detailed plans for the projects, which were in the preparatory or initial stages, making it difficult to accurately assess the future profitability of the projects; (4) the defense's claim of using differences in wholesale and retail prices, timing differences, and expanding sources of profit to maintain business operations is reasonably plausible. Therefore, whether the high risk of the business model inevitably leads to unsustainability remains uncertain.

3. 公司现有资产与未归还投资人资金的差额具有不确定性。

3. The difference between the company's current assets and the unreturned investor funds is uncertain.

集资诈骗罪系侵财类犯罪，非法占有他人财物的数额在两次庭审时均是控辩双方的争议焦点。经查，已有证据证实的公司资产包括案发时存放于兴东国际会展中心的金银珠宝等贵重物品、贵州警方负责在当地保管不宜长期保存的日用品、已发送未退还的资产包、已冻结银行账户内涉案资金、长期股权投资期末余额、向华润重庆公司购买的商铺等。虽然公诉机关举示了供货商证人证言、众合、中解及关联公司的电子财务账、银行流水，相关购销合同、销售明细、发票等书证。并由康华会计师事务所进行了审计，欲证实众合天下、中解等全商汇集团内公司及其合作公司购进黄金珠宝首饰等，进货价共计 11.88亿余元。但考虑到金银珠宝首饰的市场定价确实具有特殊性，而由于客观条件限制未能逐件鉴定，故最终证据体系并未形成闭环，在债务履行能力无法准确判断的情况下，基于“存疑有利于被告人的原则”，做出有利于被告人的认定。

Fundraising fraud is a type of property crime, and the amount of illegal possession of others' property was a focal point of dispute between the prosecution and defense in both trials. Investigations confirmed that the company's assets included precious items such as gold and jewelry stored at the Xingdong International Convention and Exhibition Center at the time of the incident, daily items not suitable for long-term storage managed by the Guizhou police, unreturned asset packages that had been sent out, funds involved in frozen bank accounts, the ending balance of long-term equity investments, and shops purchased from China Resources Chongqing Company. Although the prosecution showed testimonies from supplier witnesses, electronic financial accounts of Zhonghe, Zhongjie, and affiliated companies, bank statements, relevant purchase and sales contracts, sales details, invoices, etc., and these were audited by Kanghua Accounting Firm, aiming to verify the purchases of gold and jewelry by companies within the Quanshanghui Group and their partner companies, totaling over 1.188 billion yuan in purchase prices. However, considering the special nature of the market pricing of gold and jewelry and the inability to appraise each item due to objective conditions, the final evidence system did not form a closed loop. Thus, in the face of uncertainty regarding the company's ability to fulfill its debts, based on the principle that "doubt benefits the defendant," a ruling favorable to the defendants was made.

本人将重庆五中院的一审判决，发给最高法院刑二庭一位资深法官，他看后回复：“袁山东案，一审判决在说理上是自相矛盾的。一方面，该判决在论证苟玉兰等5名被告人不构成集资诈骗罪时，阐述了3个理由，其中第2个理由（未能证实经营模式确定不可持续）和第3个理由（资金缺口具有不确定性），显然同样适用于被告人袁山东。依照这种论证思路，袁山东也不可能构成集资诈骗罪了。另一方面，该判决仅用短短的一段话，论证袁山东的行为构成集资诈骗罪，却没有说清楚为什么在资金链未断裂和资金缺口数额不确定的前提下袁山东仍然构成集资诈骗罪。此时判决者似乎完全忘记了集资诈骗罪的构成要件。上述两方面的说理，明显是互相冲突的。可以看出，该判决论证袁山东构成集资诈骗罪的理由过于简单，仅仅抓住袁山东控制资金使用大权和任意处置资金去向。这是远远不够的，至少还要讲清楚袁山东具有非法占有目的。一审判决提到“故意”，规避了“目的”概念，大概是因为司法解释规定了“非法占有目的”的认定条件，文字上不好处理。这里需要注意，袁山东控制资金使用大权和把握资金去向，并不能等同于2010年最高院关于非法集资司法解释第4条所说的“肆意挥霍集资款”。因此，该判决的说理，远远没有达到讲清楚袁山东具有“非法占有目的”和构成集资诈骗罪的要求。这是一审判决的重大软肋，二审辩护中可以牢牢抓住。我猜测，执笔写判决书的法官不认为袁山东构成集资诈骗罪。二审如果能够把袁山东辩成非吸罪，也是个不小的胜利。当然，二审辩护人应当作无罪辩护。”

The Chongqing Fifth Intermediate Court justified that Gou Yulan and others did not commit crowdfunding fraud as follows: I sent the first-instance judgment of the Chongqing Fifth Intermediate Court to a senior judge at the Second Criminal Court of the Supreme Court, who replied, "In Yuan Shandong's case, the first-instance judgment is self-contradictory. On one hand, when arguing that Gou Yulan and other five defendants did not commit crowdfunding fraud, it stated three reasons, with the second (unconfirmed unsustainable business model) and third reasons (uncertainty in the financial gap) evidently applicable to defendant Yuan Shandong as well. Following this line of reasoning, Yuan Shandong could not possibly be guilty of crowdfunding fraud either. On the other hand, the judgment briefly argued that Yuan Shandong's actions constituted crowdfunding fraud without clarifying why, under the conditions of an unbroken funding chain and uncertain financial gap, Yuan Shandong still qualified for crowdfunding fraud. At this point, the judge seemed to completely forget the elements required to constitute crowdfunding fraud. The reasoning clearly contradicts itself. It is evident that the reasons provided for Yuan Shandong's guilt are overly simplistic, focusing only on his control over the use of funds and arbitrary disposition of fund directions. This is far from sufficient; it must be clarified that Yuan Shandong had the intent of illegal possession. The first-instance judgment mentioned 'intentional' but skirted around the concept of 'purpose,' likely because the judicial interpretation sets conditions for recognizing 'intent of illegal possession,' which are difficult to articulate in text. Note that Yuan Shandong's control over the use of funds and the direction of funds cannot be equated with the 'arbitrary squandering of fundraising money' as described in the 2010 Supreme Court's judicial interpretation on illegal fundraising. Thus, the judgment's reasoning does not meet the requirements to clearly state that Yuan Shandong had an 'intent of illegal possession' and constituted crowdfunding fraud. This is a major flaw in the first-instance judgment, which can be firmly grasped in the second-instance defense. I suspect the judge who wrote the judgment does not believe Yuan Shandong committed crowdfunding fraud. If the second-instance can defend Yuan Shandong as not guilty of illegal absorption, it would be a significant victory. Of course, the second-instance defense lawyer should argue for acquittal."

事实上，这个案子，定非法吸收公众存款罪，都是个天大的冤案！重庆市公安局渝中区分局、重庆市人民检察院第五分院、重庆市第五中级人民法院在办案全程存在严重的滥用职权、徇私枉法，对本案最为重要的基本事实“受损金额是多少、计算依据是什么”、“核实涉案业务模式真实性、合法性、可持续性”、“听取受损人对案件定性、涉案财物处置意见”、“确定受损人名单及损失金额”以及“查明、追缴涉案财物并作出明确处置方案”全部不予审查、裁判，故意遗漏巨额涉案财物“解债人领取与解债货款等值的质押物资产包”、“涉案322亿元债权”，不仅仅拒绝履行法定职责，更故意隐匿巨额涉案财物，肆意剥夺几万名解债人知情权、诉权、财产权，明知日后执行程序必将因“案件事实不清”、“涉案财物不在案”根本无法开展退赔工作、必然引发大规模社会不稳定事件，仍通过违法分级、分案实质独断一审、二审审判权，俨然已作为重庆市高级人民法院的上级机构为本案盖棺定论，与民夺利！本人作为辩护人认为：重庆市高级人民法院如继续审理本案，就是一边粉饰、背书重庆市公安局渝中区分局、重庆市人民检察院第五分院、重庆市第五中级人民法院严重违法行为，一边又作为二审法院实质重新开展侦查、审查起诉、审判工作，完全背离二审法院指导、监督职责，自我矮化为重庆市公安局渝中区分局、重庆市人民检察院第五分院、重庆市第五中级人民法院的跑腿机构。（详见附文中本人向重庆高院递交的《关于袁山东涉嫌集资诈骗罪案二审不具备开庭审理条件的法律意见书》）

In fact, charging this case as illegally absorbing public deposits is a huge miscarriage of justice! Throughout the handling of this case, there was severe abuse of power and perversion of justice by the Yuzhong District Branch of the Chongqing Public Security Bureau, the Fifth Branch of the Chongqing Municipal People's Procuratorate, and the Fifth Intermediate People's Court of Chongqing. They failed to review or adjudicate the most crucial basic facts of the case, such as "the amount of damages, the basis for calculation," "verification of the authenticity, legality, and sustainability of the business model involved in the case," "hearing the opinions of the injured parties on the nature of the case and the disposal of the involved property," "determining the list of injured parties and the amount of losses," and "clarifying and recovering the involved property and making a clear disposal plan." They deliberately omitted a huge amount of involved property, such as "debt resolution people receiving asset packages pledged equal to the debt resolution payments" and "involved debt claims amounting to 32.2 billion yuan." They not only refused to fulfill their legal duties but also intentionally hid a vast amount of involved property, arbitrarily depriving tens of thousands of debt resolvers of their rights to information, litigation, and property, knowing full well that future enforcement procedures would be impossible to carry out due to "unclear case facts" and "involved property not in the case records," inevitably leading to large-scale social instability. They still unlawfully exercised sole discretion in both the first and second instance trials, effectively acting as a superior institution to the High Court of Chongqing and concluding the case against the interests of the people! As the defense lawyer, I believe that if the High Court of Chongqing continues to handle this case, it would be both endorsing and whitewashing the severe illegal actions of the Yuzhong District Branch of the Chongqing Public Security Bureau, the Fifth Branch of the Chongqing Municipal People's Procuratorate, and the Fifth Intermediate People's Court of Chongqing, and at the same time, it would be essentially restarting the investigation, prosecution, and trial as a second-instance court, completely deviating from the guidance and supervisory duties of a second-instance court, and reducing itself to a mere subordinate of these institutions. (See the attached document I submitted to the High Court of Chongqing, "Legal Opinion on the Inappropriateness of Holding a Court Session for the Second-instance Trial of Yuan Shandong's Alleged Crowdfunding Fraud Case")

最让本人不能容忍的是，重庆市公安局渝中分局，重庆市检五分院和重庆五中院打着打击非法集资，保护集资人权利的幌子，在涉案公司一没出现经营困难，二没出现兑付不能，三没出现集体上访，四没举报人的前提下，强行介入抓人，把一个好端端的企业人为地停止经营，全部企业资产查封扣押，十几名高管身陷囹圄，数万债事人的合法权益被强行剥夺。办案机关的司马昭之心在于：本案挂名是非法集资案，不管是定非吸还是集资诈骗，依法都要将涉案财产发还集资参与人。办案的渝中分局却不统计集资参与人名单和受损金额，重庆市检五分院不通知广大债事人参与诉讼，重庆五中院在上万名债事人联名要求参与庭审的情况下，对他们合理合法的诉求置之不理，在不听取几万名债事人代表意见的情况下，一审强行宣判。这明显就是要对价值上百亿的涉案资产，将来在无人监督的情况下，上下其手，中饱私囊。

What I cannot tolerate the most is the guise under which the Yuzhong District Branch of the Chongqing Public Security Bureau, the Fifth Branch of the Chongqing Municipal People's Procuratorate, and the Fifth Intermediate Court of Chongqing operate, claiming to combat illegal fundraising and protect the rights of fundraisers, while intervening forcefully to arrest individuals and halt the operations of a perfectly functioning company, without any operational difficulties, payment failures, collective petitions, or whistleblowers. They seized all corporate assets and imprisoned several senior managers, stripping tens of thousands of debt resolvers of their legal rights. The investigative agency's intentions are clear: this case is nominally about illegal fundraising, and legally, the involved property must be returned to the fundraisers, regardless of whether the charges are illegal absorption or crowdfunding fraud. However, the Yuzhong District Branch did not tally the list of fundraisers or the amount of damages, the Fifth Branch of the Chongqing Municipal People's Procuratorate did not notify the broad group of debt resolvers to participate in the lawsuit, and the Fifth Intermediate Court of Chongqing ignored the legitimate and legal demands of tens of thousands of debt resolvers who jointly requested to participate in the trial, forcefully issuing a ruling without hearing the opinions of the representatives of the debt resolvers. This is clearly a scheme to embezzle billions of yuan worth of involved assets under unsupervised conditions in the future.

为此，本案二审出现了中国刑辩史上罕见的一幕：本应是对立的辩护人和被害人联起手来，共同向二审法院呼吁：本案一审已经剥夺了作为被害人的广大债事人的诉讼参与权，二审是最后防线，必须接受数万债事人推举诉讼代表人，当庭把他们的诉求讲清楚。

As a result, a rare scene in the history of criminal defense in China occurred during the second-instance trial of this case: defense lawyers and victims, who should be on opposing sides, joined hands to appeal to the second-instance court, stating that the first-instance had already deprived the large group of debt resolvers, who are the victims, of their right to participate in the lawsuit. The second-instance is the last line of defense, and it must accept the litigation representatives elected by tens of thousands of debt resolvers to clearly state their demands in court.

但是，本案承办人徐文转法官4月9日在与本人的电话沟通中，明确说二审开庭，不会让债事人作为诉讼代表人出庭，理由是：最高法院有司法解释，集资参与人不是袁山东，只能旁听，不能参与庭审。

However, on April 9, the case officer, Judge Xu Wenturn, clearly stated in a phone conversation with me that during the second-instance trial, the debt resolvers would not be allowed to appear in court as litigation representatives. The reason given was that according to a judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court, the fundraisers are not considered victims like Yuan Shandong and can only observe the trial, not participate.

对于徐法官给出的理由，熟知最高法院关于审理非法集资案件司法解释的本人在电话中，竟然无语：没有被害人，集资诈骗罪骗了谁？难不成，最高法院还有本人不知道的非法集资案件的司法解释？于是，我马上又请教了最高法院刑二庭那位资深法官，他很快回复：“庆方兄，关于你今天傍晚提出的问题，所涉司法解释性文件，就是“两高一部”于2019年1月下发的《关于办理非法集资刑事案件若干问题的意见》。该意见第十条，就是关于集资参与人权利保障问题的规定，具体内容是：“集资参与人，是指向非法集资活动投入资金的单位和个人，为非法集资活动提供帮助并获取经济利益的单位和个人除外。人民法院、人民检察院、公安机关应当通过及时公布案件进展、涉案资产处置情况等方式，依法保障集资参与人的合法权利。集资参与人可以推选代表人向人民法院提出相关意见和建议；推选不出代表人的，人民法院可以指定代表人。人民法院可以视案件情况决定集资参与人代表人参加或者旁听庭审，对集资参与人提起附带民事诉讼等请求不予受理。”我对这个条文的理解：1、集资参与人的概念外延比“被害人”广，集资参与人包括被害人，但在非法吸收公众存款案中，一般不认定为被害人。在集资诈骗案件中，集资参与人通常被认定为被害人。2、集资参与人（包括被害人）的代表可以申请参加非吸案件、集资诈骗案件的庭审（以被害人身份参加）或者旁听。但不可以提起附带民事诉讼。3、袁山东案，一审判决以集资诈骗罪对袁山东定罪量刑，涉案“债事人”属于被害人范畴，人民法院应当准许被害人代表参加庭审或者旁听庭审。二审某法官以最高司法机关有司法解释为由拒绝被害人选出代表参加庭审或者旁听庭审，可能是对上述“意见”的误解。以上，供参考。”

In response to Judge Xu's reasoning, as someone well-acquainted with the Supreme Court's judicial interpretations on handling illegal fundraising cases, I was at a loss for words during our phone call: without victims, who was defrauded by the crowdfunding fraud? Could it be that the Supreme Court has a judicial interpretation on illegal fundraising cases that I am unaware of? Therefore, I immediately consulted the senior judge at the Second Criminal Court of the Supreme Court, who quickly replied, "Qing Fang brother, regarding the issue you raised this evening, the judicial interpretive document in question is the 'Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Illegal Fundraising Criminal Cases' issued by the 'Two Highs and One Department' in January 2019. Article 10 of these opinions concerns the protection of rights for fundraisers, specifically stating: 'Fundraisers refer to units and individuals who invest money into illegal fundraising activities, excluding those who assist and profit from such activities. People's courts, people's procuratorates, and public security organs should protect the legal rights of fundraisers by timely publishing case progress and asset disposition, among other methods. Fundraisers can elect representatives to present their views and suggestions to the people's court; if no representatives are elected, the court can appoint one. Depending on the case, the people's court can decide whether fundraiser representatives can attend or observe the trial, but requests for joining civil lawsuits by fundraisers will not be accepted.' My understanding of this clause is as follows: 1. The concept of 'fundraiser' is broader than 'victim,' including victims, but in cases of illegal absorption of public deposits, they are generally not recognized as victims. In crowdfunding fraud cases, fundraisers are usually recognized as victims. 2. Representatives of fundraisers (including victims) can apply to participate in the trials of illegal absorption or crowdfunding fraud cases (as victims) or observe them. However, they cannot initiate civil lawsuits. 3. In Yuan Shandong's case, the first-instance judgment convicted and sentenced him for crowdfunding fraud, and the involved 'debt resolvers' are considered victims. The people's court should allow representatives of the victims to participate in or observe the trial. The second-instance judge's refusal to allow victim representatives to participate in or observe the trial based on a judicial interpretation by the highest judicial authority may be a misunderstanding of the above 'opinions.' The above is for your reference."

我的团队也认真研究了集资诈骗参与人是不是被害人的问题。结果是：在集资诈骗案件中，集资参与人通常被认定为被害人。一审判决以集资诈骗罪对袁山东定罪量刑，涉案“债事人”属于被害人范畴。

My team also carefully studied the issue of whether fundraisers are considered victims. The result is: in crowdfunding fraud cases, fundraisers are typically recognized as victims. The first-instance judgment convicted and sentenced Yuan Shandong for crowdfunding fraud, with the involved 'debt resolvers' classified as victims.

法律依据：最高人民法院《关于依法严厉打击集资诈骗和非法吸收公众存款犯罪活动的通知》法〔2004〕240号指出“要妥善处理涉及众多被害人的犯罪案件，注意追缴犯罪分子的违法所得，及时将被骗的集资款返还被害人，配合地方党委和政府做好案件的善后工作，尽量将犯罪造成的不良后果降到最低限度，确保社会稳定”。

Legal Basis: The Supreme People's Court's "Notice on Strictly Cracking Down on Crimes of Crowdfunding Fraud and Illegal Absorption of Public Deposits" (Law [2004] No. 240) states, "Properly handle cases involving many victims, pay attention to recovering the illegal gains of criminals, promptly return the defrauded funds to the victims, cooperate with local party committees and governments in the aftermath of cases, minimize the adverse consequences caused by crimes, and ensure social stability."

司法实践：2010年6月18日 最高人民法院发布四起集资诈骗犯罪典型案例，其中，被告人孙小明集资诈骗案案情介绍为，“浙江省杭州市中级人民法院经审理查明，孙小明在杭州市先后骗取刘大龙等28名被害人集资款共计人民币1466万元”。 被告人张元蕾集资诈骗案案情介绍为“广东省广州市中级人民法院经审理查明，张元蕾欺骗被害人胡卫东等多人投保”。

Judicial Practice: On June 18, 2010, the Supreme People's Court published four typical cases of crowdfunding fraud, among which the case of defendant Sun Xiaoming was introduced as, "The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province determined through trial that Sun Xiaoming defrauded Liu Dalong and 28 other victims of a total of 14.66 million yuan." The case of defendant Zhang Yuanlei was introduced as, "The Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province determined through trial that Zhang Yuanlei deceived many victims including Hu Weidong to invest."

兄弟法院：2021年11月17日，上海市第一中级人民法院发布《关于启用“62701234”集资诈骗案件被害人热线的公告》，内容：为多途径切实解决广大集资诈骗案件被害人了解案件进展情况的需求，经前期试运行，上海一中院将于2021年11月18日正式启用 “62701234” 集资诈骗案件被害人热线。

Fellow Courts: On November 17, 2021, the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court issued an announcement on the "62701234" hotline for victims of crowdfunding fraud cases, stating: "In order to effectively meet the needs of a wide range of victims of crowdfunding fraud cases to understand the progress of their cases, after an initial trial period, the Shanghai First Intermediate Court will officially launch the '62701234' hotline for victims of crowdfunding fraud cases on November 18, 2021."

尤其滑稽的是：2023年12月20日，同为重庆法域的重庆万州检察院发布李某某等5人涉嫌集资诈骗案被害人刑事诉讼权利义务告知公告，明确告知尚未联系到的部分集资参与人有权委托诉讼代理人参与诉讼。

Particularly ironic is that on December 20, 2023, the Wanzhou Procuratorate of Chongqing, within the same jurisdiction, issued a criminal litigation rights and obligations notification for the victims of the crowdfunding fraud case involving Li and four others, clearly informing the yet-to-be-contacted participants that they have the right to appoint a litigation representative to participate in the lawsuit.

有了如此明确的依据，开庭前一天的下午，几十名债事人代表到重庆高院面见徐文转法官，要求作为诉讼代表人出庭，他们代表的，是出具了有效授权的7247名债事人，这七千多人，全部签署了授权书，并录制了视频，将参与诉讼表达意见的权利，委托给了9名债事人代表。在债事人代表提供了有力的法律理由的情况下，徐文转法官表示：他只是承办人，这事，还要请求审判长。

With such clear bases, on the afternoon before the court session, dozens of debt resolvers' representatives met with Judge Xu Wenzhuan at the High Court of Chongqing to request to appear in court as litigation representatives. They represented 7,247 debt resolvers who had provided valid authorization; all these individuals had signed authorization forms and recorded videos entrusting their right to participate in the lawsuit and express their opinions to nine representatives. Despite the strong legal reasons provided by the representatives, Judge Xu Wenzhuan stated that he was merely the case officer and that this matter would need to be referred to the presiding judge.

但是，2024年4月16日开庭过程中，对本人提出本案必须有作为被害人的债事人代表出庭，才是合法审判的理由，审判长刘彬法官还是强硬地拒绝已经在现场的债事人代表出庭，理由仍然是所谓的“最高法院有司法解释，集资参与人不是袁山东，只能旁听”。气得本人当庭称呼刘审判长为法盲。

However, during the court session on April 16, 2024, despite my arguments that the trial must include representatives of the debt resolvers as victims for it to be legitimate, Presiding Judge Liu Bin still adamantly refused to allow the present representatives of the debt resolvers to appear, citing the so-called "judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court that the fundraisers are not Yuan Shandong, and can only observe." This prompted me to call Judge Liu a "legal illiterate" during the session.

昨天的庭审，历经10个小时，终于在晚上9点开完了。可是，一起一审判决书中都公开承认的经营模式是否可持续没查清，公司资产是否足以偿还集资参与人没查清，被害人有多少没查清，甚至很多涉案资产下落亦未查清，数万债事人不认为自己被骗，强烈呼吁两级法院让他们出庭表达诉求被粗暴拒绝的所谓的集资诈骗案，如果就此维持，法治还要不要，重庆司法的脸面还要不要？

Yesterday's trial session, which lasted 10 hours and concluded at 9 PM, failed to clarify whether the business model publicly admitted in the first-instance judgment was sustainable, whether the company's assets were sufficient to repay the fundraisers, how many victims there were, or even the whereabouts of many of the involved assets. Tens of thousands of debt resolvers do not believe they were deceived and have strongly called for both levels of courts to allow them to appear in court to express their demands—a request brutally denied in this so-called crowdfunding fraud case. If this is upheld, what becomes of the rule of law, and what becomes of the face of Chongqing's judiciary?

此案，我就坐看重庆高院的领导如何处理，坐看广大债事人如何维权。如果需要，我也会毫不犹豫地与高度团结的债事人代表一起维权，还袁山东以清白，还众合公司和中解公司以清白！

In this case, I will watch how the leaders of the High Court of Chongqing handle it and how the vast number of debt resolvers assert their rights. If necessary, I will not hesitate to join with the highly unified representatives of the debt resolvers to defend their rights, to vindicate Yuan Shandong, and to clear the names of Zhonghe Company and Zhongjie Company!

附：本人向重庆高院递交的《关于袁山东涉嫌集资诈骗罪案二审不具备开庭审理条件的法律意见书》

Attached: The legal opinion I submitted to the High Court of Chongqing, "On the Inappropriateness of Holding a Court Session for the Second-instance Trial of Yuan Shandong's Alleged Crowdfunding Fraud Case."