Hot on the Web

Court discovers forged verdict

(China Daily)
Updated: 2010-04-27 06:57

XINXIANG, Henan - Forgery of a verdict? Yes, and even by a local court itself.

The bizarre case happened at the Weibin District People's Court in Xinxiang of central China's Henan province, the Zhengzhou-based Dahe Daily reported on Monday.

The report said the verdict forgery was found in March this year when the Xinxiang Municipal Intermediate People's Court retried a civil case.

On Feb 11, 2009, the Xinxiang court upheld a verdict by the Weibin court in which Maofeng Company Ltd won a suit against the Pingyuan Theatre for failing to fulfill a contractual agreement, the report said.

The first verdict came on May 21, 2008.

But two months later, the defendant, the Pingyuan Theatre, appealed to the Henan Provincial Higher People's Court with another verdict issued by Weibin District People's Court on the same suit.

The second verdict, dated January 2008, ruled that the Pinyuang Theatre won the case, totally contradicting the content of the original verdict issued on May 21, 2008, the report said.

Only when the Henan Provincial Higher People's Court ordered a retrial of the case in March this year did Maofeng Company Ltd learn there are two completely different verdicts for the same case, but both having official seals, according to the report.

The newspaper said the two verdicts have the same reference number and list of judges attending the trial. The only differences between the two verdicts are the name of the court reporter and the issuance time for the verdicts.

"Only one of the two verdicts is real," Jin Shubin, vice- president of Weibin District People's Court was quoted as saying. "I have never experienced such an incident in my 30 years of work."

Jin believed the verdict which the Pingyuan Theater provided was probably forged.

He explained that any verdict issued by a court should have at least two or three original copies, but the verdict provided by the Pingyuan Theatre has only one original copy.

"It's irregular," Jin said.

Local police have launched an investigation into the forgery case.

Ren Xinhe, a discipline officer in Weibin District People's Court, confirmed that the seal on the forged verdict is real.

"Although we have yet to find out who had forged the verdict, it is surely related to someone in the court," Ren was quoted as saying.

When contacted by China Daily on Monday, officers in Weibin court declined to comment, saying that local police are investigating the case.

"No matter who was behind the forgery, the court should bear part of the responsibility, as the forgery is related to the court," said Gao Changsheng, the lawyer representing Maofeng Company Limited.

China Daily

(China Daily 04/27/2010 page5)