Chen Liting, a stock market socialite with the title of "Wall Street Goddess", and her mother Hu Qingqing used forged seals four years ago to sign five promissory notes with a total denomination of more than 880 million yuan in the names of three sisters-in-law, and applied to the court for compulsory execution. Four of the cases were approved by the court. The sisters-in-law were baffled by the court ruling and reported the case, and the Beijing Prosecutor's Office prosecuted. The Supreme Court upheld the second-instance judgment and sentenced Hu Qingqing to 5 years in prison for five crimes of counterfeiting securities, and he was sentenced to prison for the entire case.
In the first instance, the Taipei District Court sentenced Hu Qingqing to 3 to 5 years in prison for each of the five crimes of counterfeiting securities, with a combined sentence of 6 years. In March this year, the High Court of the second instance still found that five crimes were committed, but commuted one of the crimes from 5 years to 4 years in prison, while the other four cases upheld the original sentence, and the combined sentences were also reduced from 6 years to 5 years. Hu appealed, and the Supreme Court held that the second-instance judgment did not violate the law and rejected the appeal.
Please read on...
Mother and daughter Hu Qingqing and Chen Liting once ambushed their sister-in-law surnamed Chen on the head with a hammer in order to fight for family property. In February last year, the High Court sentenced mother and daughter to eight years in prison for attempted domestic violence and murder. The Supreme Court revoked the sentence in September last year and sent it back to the High Court for further trial. The first trial of the High Court is ongoing.
The verdict pointed out that Hu Qingqing knew that the three sisters-in-law (sisters of her late husband) had no financial dealings with Hongzhao Technology Company and relevant shareholders, and had no creditor or debt relationships. However, without the consent or authorization of the three women, she forged their seals and executed five promissory notes with a face value of 49 million to 589 million yuan each. The total face value was 882.8 million yuan, one of which had a face value as high as 589 million yuan.
Hu Qingqing then filed 5 civil claims in the name of Hongzhao Company between August and October 2022, attaching her forged cashier's checks to the Taipei District Court for enforcement. Four of them were filed by an unsuspecting judicial affairs officer. After a formal examination, they mistakenly believed it to be true, and the ruling was approved and enforced. After receiving the ruling one after another, the sisters-in-law felt puzzled and protested to the court, claiming that "the creditor's rights on the promissory note did not exist." The judgment confirmed that the sister-in-law won the case, and Hu's attempt to swindle money failed.
Three sisters-in-law filed a criminal complaint with the Beijing Prosecutor's Office. After investigation, the Beijing Prosecutor's Office determined that Hu Qingqing forged a promissory note with a forged seal, which caused the court to misunderstand and make an erroneous ruling. It found that she had the criminal intent to forge the promissory note, and Hu Qingqing was prosecuted in June 2024.
During the trial in the North Court, Hu Qingqing admitted to forging the promissory note, but did not reconcile with the victim. The judge believed that she caused the three sisters-in-law to go through legal procedures such as protesting, applying to stop enforcement, and confirming the promissory note litigation for no reason. She spent additional attorney fees, litigation fees, procedural fees, etc. that were not required. She inexplicably expended the labor, time, and money of the lawsuit. Therefore, each of the five crimes was sentenced to 3.5 to 5 years in prison, and the combined sentence should be 6 years.
Hu Qingqing appealed, arguing that she had pleaded guilty and requested a lighter sentence. The High Court still found that the crime was clear, but although the amount of the forged promissory note of 589 million yuan was high, Hu did not continue to fabricate falsehoods in subsequent protests and lawsuits. The enforcement was ultimately unsuccessful and no profit was made. The harm caused was not significantly different from the other four cases. The sentence was changed from 5 years to 4 years, and the original sentence was upheld in the remaining 4 cases. The execution sentence was also changed from 6 years to 5 years. The Supreme Court agreed with the opinion of the second instance and rejected Hu's appeal.
