The Highest Law Issued Guidance Cases, Clear "Chase Race" And Other Issues.

The Supreme People's Court issued eighth batch of guiding cases on the 18 day, in order to unify the yardstick and the applicable standards of law, ensure fair justice, enhance judicial pparency and enhance judicial credibility.

There are six guiding cases, including one criminal case and five civil cases.

The criminal case involves the chase race in the crime of dangerous driving. The five civil cases mainly involve the identification and return of property by the debtor and his associated company, and the issue of the enforcement of the foreign arbitral award.

In the guidance case No. 32, on the night of February 3, 2012, the defendant Zhang Jiwei drove the unlicensed modification of the Honda high power two wheel motorcycle. The defendant Jin Xin changed his driving deck to the YAMAHA high power two wheeled motorcycle, and two people met in Shanghai Pudong New Area road to "enjoy the excitement of the high-powered motorized vehicle".

On the way, the two people repeatedly crossed the line, twists and turns in the dense traffic flow, ran red lights many times, and exceeded the speed limit.

Zhang Jiwei's maximum speed is 115 kilometers per hour, and Jin Xin's maximum speed is 108 kilometers per hour.

The court held that the "chase race" stipulated in the criminal law generally refers to the behavior of a driver who drives a motor vehicle two or more than two persons for violating the road traffic safety regulations and pursuing fast driving on the road.

In this case, judging from the subjective driving attitude, objective behavior and driving route, we can conclude that the behavior of the two defendants belongs to the "chase race" in the crime of dangerous driving.

The two motorists who drive unlicensed and deck high speed motorcycles are very fast, repeatedly connect, plug in front cars, run red lights many times, drive away from the police when checking, and pass through the main roads of the city, which can easily lead to major vicious traffic accidents. They can be identified as "bad circumstances" in the crime of dangerous driving.

The court decided that Zhang Ji Wei was guilty of dangerous driving. He was sentenced to detention for four months, suspended for four months, and fined four thousand yuan. Jin Xin committed a crime of dangerous driving and sentenced him to detention for three months, suspended for three months, and a fine of RMB three thousand yuan.

The guidance case can unify the referee yardstick of similar cases, advocate the good custom of consciously observing traffic order in the public, and warn people not to take the public road as a racing ground or arena, and break through any legal bottom line that endangers public safety.

In addition, guidance case No. 33, Swiss Cargill International Inc. v. Fujian Jinshi Oil Co., Ltd. affirmed the contract invalidation dispute. The purpose is to make clear that the debtor and his associated company colluded in debt collusion. The creditor can request the court to confirm that the debtor's property pfer contract is invalid. At the same time, the division of the fifty-eighth and fifty-ninth articles of the contract law after the invalidity of the contract is divided.

This not only clarifies the specific criteria for "malicious collusion", but also solves the problem of how to return property after the contract is invalid, and is also conducive to effective punishment against integrity and malice.

Safeguarding creditors

And fair and safe market economic order.

The guidance case No. 34 Li Xiaoling and Li Peng Yu applied for the implementation of the reconsideration case of the Xiamen Haiyang industrial Limited by Share Ltd and Xiamen Marine Industrial Corporation. The purpose is to make clear that the pferee can directly apply for execution before the case goes into the execution procedure, without requiring court ruling to change the application holder.

This unifies the way of referee, and resolves the change of the subject of application.

No. 35 Guangdong Long Zheng investment and Development Co., Ltd. and Guangdong Jing Mao auctioneer Co., Ltd. commissioned the auction to carry out the reconsideration case. The purpose is to make clear that if the buyer and the auctioneer are connected, malicious collusion leads to damage to the rights and interests of the relevant rights related to the subject matter, and the people's court shall rule that the auction is invalid.

This is of guiding significance for standardizing the court's auction work, correcting and preventing malicious collusion between auction houses and bidders in a commissioned auction.

Guidance case No. 36 CIC Company limited by guarantee and Haitong Securities Limited by Share Ltd and other securities dispute disputes implementation reconsideration case, designed to ensure that the executor received a notice of execution of the court execution notice, and received a case of another court to request the applicant to directly notify the creditors of the applicant's execution of the debts confirmed by the court's effective legal instruments and repay the debts.

Guidance case No. 37 Shanghai Jinwei Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Swiss Swiss Tektronix Inc arbitration award execution reconsideration case, aiming to clarify the application executor of the foreign-related arbitral award, found that the people's court has enforcement jurisdiction if the executed person or his property is in the territory of China, and the time limit for the execution of the execution shall start from the date of the discovery of the executed person or his property in the field of our country.

This solved the dispute of jurisdiction over foreign-related enforcement, and established the specific criteria for the initiation of foreign related cases during the execution period.