■Our reporter Nie Guochun

  According to Lighthouse Professional Edition data, as of 21:17 pm on February 9, the total box office (including pre-sale) of national cinema films in 2022 officially broke the 10 billion yuan mark. It took 40 days to refresh the fastest annual box office break in Chinese film history. Billion records.

  The box office of movies has repeatedly set records. "Investing tens of millions of movies can get hundreds of millions of box offices, what are you waiting for", which has become a common slogan to attract investors.

However, legal experts pointed out that the high return of film investment determines that it has a large investment risk. Investing in film and television is not a huge profit. Investors with weak anti-risk capabilities should be cautious in signing contracts to avoid property losses.

Case: Crowdfunding for a film that has not been released for two years

  In December 2018, Mr. Liu took a fancy to the high rate of return in the film industry and invested in Junli's film crowdfunding project.

The two parties signed an agreement that Mr. Liu invested 200,000 yuan to obtain a 0.1% share of the film. The release date of the film is subject to the release and distribution license, but no later than September 30, 2020.

  Regarding income and dividends, the agreement stipulates that the expected payment date of the film is 3 months after the film is released, and Mr. Liu can share 0.1% of the box office income after the film is released.

At the same time, Junli Company promised that if the film could not be released as scheduled, Junli Company could repurchase the share of the film held by Mr. Liu at the price of the investment principal of 200,000 yuan plus an annualized income of 8%.

  However, until November 2020, the film has not yet been released.

Mr. Liu negotiated with Junli for many times and asked the company to repurchase the share of the film according to the contract. The company persuaded the film to obtain huge profits after the film was released, but did not repurchase according to the agreement.

So Mr. Liu sued Junli Company to the People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing, requesting Junli Company to repurchase the movie share at a price of 200,000 yuan plus 8% of the annualized income according to the contract.

  The defendant, Junli Company, argued that the company was only the co-producer of the film and could not control the release of the film, and that the film was not released as scheduled because of differences between the actors and the crew, which led to the slow shooting schedule, not Junli Company.

Now that the movie has been submitted for review, it is estimated that it will be released soon. If Mr. Liu wants to recover the investment money as soon as possible, he can transfer his shares by himself. The company does not agree to buy back.

  The Beijing Haidian Court held that the "Theatrical Film Investment Agreement" signed by Mr. Liu and Junli Company was legal and valid. According to the facts ascertained by the court, Junli Company had violated its contractual obligations and constituted a breach of contract.

Therefore, the court supports Mr. Liu's claim.

  After the first-instance judgment was pronounced, Junli Company appealed.

Recently, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment on the case, upholding the original judgment.

At present, the judgment of the case has come into effect.

  The above investment disputes are not an exception.

The reporter of "China Consumer News" saw on the online judgment document that Beijing Haidian Court alone will conclude a number of cases on film and television investment in 2021, involving "Fox Hunter", "A Chinese Ghost Story", "Tiger Revolution" and "Chameleon's Lore" ” and many other film and television works, most of which are caused by the fact that the film and television projects invested in it were not released as scheduled.

  At the end of 2016, Mr. Lin from Beijing invested 20,000 yuan in a friend's company and participated in the crowdfunding of a spy war-themed TV series.

He told the "China Consumer News" reporter that at that time, a friend claimed that the minimum income could be more than 30%.

When the TV series was broadcast more than a year later, the spy war movie was no longer a popular subject, and the filmmaker said that the broadcast revenue was less than expected and there was a slight loss.

"The profit that was claimed before is gone. Fortunately, the principal was reluctantly recovered in the end. Otherwise, a lawsuit would be inevitable." Mr. Lin said that he would never make such an investment again.

Survey: Film and television crowdfunding disputes, more scams

  The reason why Mr. Lin invested in TV dramas was not only because of the acquaintance of friends, but also because of the rapid development of film and television crowdfunding in my country.

  In 2013, the producer of "One Hundred Thousand Bad Jokes" launched crowdfunding through the "Call Time" platform, and film and television crowdfunding entered the public eye.

In 2015, the film "Journey to the West: The Return of the Great Sage" not only achieved high reputation and high box office, but also allowed 89 crowdfunders to obtain a total income of 30 million yuan in principal and interest. Compared with the crowdfunding fund of 7.8 million yuan, the profit was nearly 4 times.

  Since then, various film and television crowdfunding platforms have emerged, and some crowdfunding works have also brought good returns to investors.

At the same time, some scams under the guise of "film and television crowdfunding" have also increased.

  In October 2019, the Liulin Branch of the Public Security Bureau of Zhengzhou City, Henan Province destroyed a film and television investment fraud gang that used "crowdfunding to make movies". The criminal suspects Wang, Yang and other 34 gang members sketched out a shocking scam that made the The victim's investment of nearly 20 million yuan was wasted.

  According to the police investigation, the gang designed a detailed process of the "crowdfunding movie" scam based on Wang's registered film production company in Beijing, using "beauties" to win over, "inside information", "high returns", etc. bait to commit crime.

  On September 24, 2020, the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau held a press conference to report the detection of the first film and television investment contract fraud case in Shanghai that defrauded investors by inflating production costs and exaggerating expected returns.

After investigation by the police, in September 2018, the criminal suspect Bao Mou signed an agreement with a film producer with a company under his name before he was able to pay the investment, and purchased 18% of the box office revenue rights and Authorship.

Subsequently, a company named Bao announced that it had a large production of 260 million yuan. It is expected that the box office will be conservatively estimated to reach 2 billion yuan, and the investment of 1 million yuan can obtain 3.6 million yuan in income.

Bao and others violated the agreement not to transfer their shares or use it for financing without authorization, using the agreement signed with the producer as a cover, confusing the concepts of "copyright" and "box office revenue", and defrauded more than 260 investors to invest more than 45 million yuan Buy what is called a "yield share".

Later, the box office of the film was only 63 million yuan, and Bao Mou and others paid investors a total of more than 1 million yuan in investment income in proportion, causing huge losses to investors.

Among them, Mr. He, who reported the case, invested 500,000 yuan to buy 0.25% of the copyright income of the film, and only paid 13,000 yuan.

  Geng Ruipu, assistant judge of the Fourth Civil Trial Division of Beijing Haidian Court, told the reporter of "China Consumer News" that from the film investment agreements signed by investors in several cases heard by the court, film share holders only hold a small part of the film. The share is "sold" to investors by splitting the film share twice, which is a typical "killing pig" - the "high premium" trap.

  For example, the total cost of a movie is 10 million yuan after accounting by the producer. After the company obtains 10% of the share at the price of 1 million yuan, the 10% share is divided into 100 copies, and the crowdfunding raises 10 million yuan. Yuan, that is, a premium of 9 million yuan is generated, and the investment of 100,000 yuan only obtains 0.1% of the film.

Investors believed that the total cost of the film was 100 million yuan, but the actual cost was only 10 million yuan. Even if the film was released as scheduled, it would be difficult for a 0.1% share to achieve the box office gains expected by investors.

Reminder: Do not use the buyback clause as a guarantee

  In Geng Ruipu's view, film shooting is subject to multiple factors such as funding, actors, and auditing, and there is often a risk of delayed or unreleased release.

Therefore, it is not as simple as imagined for investors to share the box office income.

  The film share holders are obviously aware of this. In order to dispel investors' doubts, the reporter saw that in many cases concluded by the Haidian Court, the film investment agreement stipulated that if the film fails to be released as scheduled, the film and television company will The film shares held by investors are repurchased at the price of the investment principal plus an annualized 8%-10% income.

This minimum guarantee has reassured many people, including Mr. Liu, to put their money out.

  In this regard, Geng Ruipu analyzed and pointed out that the repurchase clause in the contract is different from mortgage, pledge and other real right guarantees and guarantees, and is an atypical guarantee method.

This type of guarantee neither has the priority effect of the security interest, nor is it different from the guarantee that increases the debtor's solvency. It does not increase the debtor's liability property scope or solvency, and is an act of "I speak for myself".

Therefore, unless the company itself has strong solvency, the guarantee effect of the repurchase clause in the contract is actually minimal.

  "Film investors should not sign an investment agreement only by relying on the project announcement of film and television companies, such as PPT, news reports, movie posters, etc., but should judge the feasibility of the investment project from the following aspects." Geng Ruipu reminded that, first, Whether the film and television company informs investors of its film share and total investment in the film, and whether the film producer is aware of the film and television company’s behavior of selling film shares; second, whether the film and television company understands the overall budget of the film and proactively discloses it to investors; third Third, since the filming and release of films are subject to confidentiality and copyright protection requirements, whether the film and television company requires investors to sign a non-disclosure agreement and provide scripts, samples, etc. before signing an agreement with the investor.