The Paper (www.thepaper.cn) learned from relevant parties on the evening of April 19 that three people pretended to be employees of Guiyang Nanming Laoganma Flavor Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as: Laoganma Company) and defrauded Shenzhen Tencent computer system. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as: Tencent) has been ruled by the Guiyang Intermediate People's Court in the second instance: the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.
On December 29, 2021, the People's Court of Nanming District, Guiyang City made a first-instance judgment on the case. The three defendants were sentenced to 12 years, 7 years, and 6 years in prison respectively, and fined, and the three returned to Tencent. More than 4.31 million Yuan.
Guiyang Intermediate Court made a second-instance ruling on the case of posing as Laoganma employees to defraud Tencent, dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
The pictures in this article are provided by the respondents
Tencent sues Laoganma for seizing more than 10 million yuan of property, leading to fraud case
This case of fake Laoganma employees defrauding Tencent will start on June 29, 2020.
On that day, China Judgment Documents Network disclosed a civil ruling issued by the Nanshan District People's Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, agreeing to the plaintiff Tencent's request to seal up and freeze the defendant Laoganma's property worth about 16.24 million yuan.
The reason for the seizure is that in March 2019, Tencent and Laoganma signed a "Joint Marketing Cooperation Agreement", Tencent invested resources for the promotion of Laoganma's oil pepper series, and Tencent has fulfilled relevant obligations in accordance with the contract. , but Laoganma Company did not pay according to the contract.
Tencent has repeatedly urged the case to no avail, so it had to sue in accordance with the law.
Tencent's alleged cooperation is said to be a cooperation between its game QQ Speed and Laoganma in 2019.
According to the information in 2019, Laoganma Company will become the industry annual partner of the QQ Speed mobile game S-League.
On the evening of June 30 of the same year, the WeChat public account "Laoganma" issued a statement saying that the company has never signed a "Joint Marketing Cooperation Agreement" with Tencent or authorized others to sign the "Laoganma" brand with Tencent, and has never. Has conducted any business cooperation with Tencent.
In response to the above-mentioned major incidents, Laoganma Company took legal measures in a timely manner to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the company, and has reported the case to the public security organs.
On July 1, 2020, the Shuanglong Branch of Guiyang Public Security Bureau issued a police report saying that the suspects Cao Mou (male, 36 years old), Liu Mouli (female, 40 years old), Zheng Moujun (female, 37 years old) forged The seal of Laoganma's company, posing as the manager of the company's marketing department, signed a cooperation agreement with Tencent.
The purpose is to obtain the gift package codes of online games provided by Tencent in the promotion activities, and then illegally obtain economic benefits through Internet reselling.
Three people have been detained according to law on suspicion of crime.
After investigation by the Guiyang police, three persons posing as Laoganma Company were arrested.
After investigation by the Guiyang police, three persons posing as Laoganma Company were arrested.
Eight days later, Tencent and Laoganma issued a joint statement stating that Tencent had applied to the court to withdraw the property preservation application and the lawsuit in this case, and had reported the contract fraud to the Guiyang police. Both Tencent and Laoganma would follow up. Actively cooperate with the advancement of relevant legal procedures.
In addition, the two sides have conducted in-depth communication and have clarified the misunderstanding.
For various misunderstandings and deficiencies in the process of the incident, Tencent has apologized to Laoganma Company in person, and will further improve the relevant procedures in the future.
In February 2021, the People's Procuratorate of Nanming District, Guiyang City issued an announcement stating that it would prosecute Cao and other three people in accordance with the law.
On December 29 of the same year, the Nanming District People's Court sentenced Cao Mou for contract fraud and was sentenced to 12 years in prison and fined 100,000 yuan; Liu Mouli and Zheng Moujun were also sentenced to seven years in prison for the same crime. 50,000 yuan and a fine of 40,000 yuan in 6-year imprisonment, and the three people refunded 4,313,650.8 yuan to Tencent.
For the first-instance verdict, the principal culprit, Cao Mou, expressed his dissatisfaction in court and appealed.
After being frozen by Tencent, Laoganma issued a statement that it had never conducted commercial cooperation with Tencent.
The two defendants appealed against the amount determined by the prosecution
The criminal ruling obtained by The Paper shows that after the first-instance verdict, the defendants Cao Mou and Liu Mouli appealed against the verdict.
Cao's grounds for appeal were "insufficient evidence and excessive sentencing".
Its defender believes that the first-instance court's determination of the amount of 4,313,650.8 yuan was an error in its determination. Now, no evaluation agency can make an evaluation of the value of the CDKEY game props exchanged in line with the market value. Therefore, when no professional evaluation agency can make an evaluation, the public prosecution The amount calculated by the agency as a non-professional is not authoritative and fair, and cannot be used as the basis for the conviction and sentencing of Cao Mou and Liu Mouli. Regarding the exchange of coupons, the amount of fraud is calculated by converting diamonds or coupons into RMB. The method and data calculated by the public prosecution agency by itself is extremely unreasonable, imprecise, unscientific and unfair to the defendant.
Secondly, Tencent has committed theft and deliberately allowed losses to expand, which is a major fault.
Third, it should be determined on the basis of the actual income of Cao and others of more than 540,000 yuan, which is not only fair, but also feasible.
Fourth, although the behavior of Cao and others is not allowed by the criminal law, the CDKEY involved in this case has no specific value to Tencent, and the first-instance sentence is too severe.
In Liu Mouli's four-point appeal opinion, in addition to the first three points being the same as Cao Mou, Liu Mouli also pointed out: "Although my behavior is not allowed by the criminal law and should be punished accordingly, the CDKEY involved in this case is not allowed to Tencent. As far as it is concerned, it is a string of codes generated by one key, and it is not worth much. In this case, I have not participated much and only played an auxiliary role. The sentencing in the first instance was too heavy."
The ruling shows that the original public prosecutor did not raise any objection to the original judgment within the statutory time limit.
During the trial of the second instance, the appellants Cao Mou, Liu Mouli and their defenders did not submit new evidence.
On June 29, 2020, the Nanshan District Court of Shenzhen announced on the Judgment Documents website that Tencent Company sued for freezing Laoganma Company's 16 million yuan property, which led to a fraud case.
On June 29, 2020, the Nanshan District Court of Shenzhen announced on the Judgment Documents website that Tencent Company sued for freezing Laoganma Company's 16 million yuan property, which led to a fraud case.
Details of the crime: The three pretended to be the managers of Laoganma's company and deceived Tencent.
The original judgment found that at the end of 2018, Cao Mou, Liu Mouli, and Zheng Moujun pretended to be employees of Laoganma Company after premeditating, and signed a contract with Tencent in the name of the fictitious Laoganma Company to push Laoganma in the QQ Speed game developed by the company. Godmother's product advertisement contract, defrauding Tencent to reward the gift package in the game and the CDKEY for decoding the gift package, and transfer the CDKEY to others, and others can obtain the corresponding game product (equipment) code through the CDKEY decoding gift package obtained.
Cao Mou and Liu Mouli contributed, and Zheng Moujun bought a new phone card, registered a new WeChat account, and printed the business cards of Laoganma employees.
Then Zheng Moujun pretended to be Li Moulin, the marketing manager of Laoganma Company, and Lin Moudan, the business manager of Tencent's interactive entertainment business, to contact him about cooperation matters.
In February 2019, Zheng Moujun continued to discuss cooperation matters with Lin Moudan in the name of Li Moulin, and Lin Moudan proposed to go to Guiyang for an on-site inspection.
The three of Cao then leased a central office in Guanshanhu District, Guiyang City, and pretended to be the office space of Laoganma Company, and Zheng Moujun pretended to be Li Moulin and Liu Mouli pretended to be the sales manager of Laoganma Company Wang Mouna and Lin Moudan, who came to inspect, made contact.
After gaining the trust of Tencent employees, Cao Mou pretended to be the manager of Laoganma Company Li Moupeng and Zheng Moujun to discuss the details of cooperation with Lin Moudan and others of Tencent Company through WeChat. On March 14, 2019, May 6 Japan signed two "Joint Marketing Cooperation Agreements" with Tencent in the name of Laoganma Company with a total target value of 10.3 million yuan, on the "QQ Speed Mobile Game S League" and "QQ Speed Mobile Game S League - International Competition" with Lao Gan. Mayou chili series products carry out joint marketing cooperation.
The agreement has successively stipulated a total of 9 months from April 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019, and a total of 6 months of cooperation from July 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. "QQ Speed Mobile Game S Competition" and "QQ Speed Mobile Game S Competition - International Competition" carry out joint marketing cooperation.
Laoganma Company paid RMB 10.3 million to Tencent according to the corresponding progress.
Among them, it is agreed that Tencent will provide 200,000 gift packages worth 100 yuan for QQ Speed.
In order to successfully sign the agreement, Zheng Moujun found someone near the Guiyang Railway Station to forge a business license of Guiyang Nanming Laoganma Flavor Food Sales Co., Ltd., as well as the special contract seal of Guiyang Nanming Laoganma Flavor Food Sales Co., Ltd. Ma Limited Liability Company riding seam each one.
The business license was then provided to Tencent, and the forged Laoganma company seal was affixed to the agreement.
Cao Mou and Zheng Moujun asked Tencent to provide CDKEYs on the grounds that they needed to print CDKEYs on cooperative products for joint promotion, so Tencent staff sent a total of 1.2 million QQ Speed game CDKEYs to Cao Mou through corporate mailboxes and WeChat peer-to-peer .
After getting the CDKEY, Cao sold it through Taobao, Xianyu and other platforms, and found a profit of 669,282 yuan. The stolen money was used by the three defendants to repay debts and daily expenses.
The CDKEY sold by Cao has been exchanged for 442,311 QQ Speed game gift packs, including 409,242 game gift packs worth 4,313,650.8 yuan on the game mall.
After the second-instance trial, it was found that the facts that the appellant Cao Mou, Liu Mouli, and the defendant Zheng Moujun committed the crime of contract fraud were clear in the original judgment, and the evidence was indeed sufficient.
The listed evidence was presented, cross-examined and verified in the first instance, and confirmed by the court of second instance.
After the fraud case was verified by the police, Tencent and Laoganma jointly issued a statement that Tencent apologized to Laoganma.
The second instance upheld the dismissal of the appeal and upheld the original judgment
The original judgment determined that Cao Mou was the principal in the joint crime, and Zheng Moujun and Liu Mouli were the accomplices.
Regarding the reasons for appeal and defense opinions of Cao Mou and Liu Mouli, the court of second instance held that the value of the game exchange code CDKEY involved in this case could not be assessed by a relevant qualified evaluation agency, nor was there any market guide price for reference. The actual transaction price of the item in the game mall at that time was used as the unit price, multiplied by the number of CDKEYs that Cao received and exchanged from Tencent, and calculated as the amount of the alleged crime.
In addition, the information provided by Tencent confirms that the pricing of props for the QQ Speed car project has been consistent and has never changed.
Therefore, the data is reasonable as the basis for conviction in this case.
The court of second instance also found out that there is no evidence in this case to prove that Tencent's internal personnel leaked and sold CDKEY in violation of regulations, and there is witness testimony to prove that Tencent's employee Wang found abnormal situations when supervising the use of CDKEY, and had contacted with "Li Mou" Peng" (Cao Mou pretending to be) contacted, "Li Moupeng" said that it was caused by the abnormal use of the supermarket after CDKEY entered the supermarket with Laoganma products.
In addition, the notarial certificate provided by Tencent confirmed that Tencent employees, under the witness of the notary, preserved the evidence during the exchange process in the QQ Speed mobile game.
Through the configuration and distribution of CDKEY, taking the gift package Jinjing Energy as an example, the gift package exchange needs to be purchased and paid for.
It means that CDKEY has value and can only be purchased after paying the consideration.
In conclusion, the court of second instance held that the grounds for appeal of Cao Mou and Liu Mouli were not tenable, and the court did not accept them.
The court of second instance held that Cao and the three of them, for the purpose of illegal possession, pretended to be employees of Laoganma Company, and defrauded Tencent Company of 4,313,650.8 yuan worth of property during the process of signing and performing the contract.
The facts determined in the original judgment were clear, the evidence was indeed sufficient, the conviction was accurate, the sentencing was appropriate, and the trial procedure was legal and should be upheld.
Therefore, on April 11, 2022, a ruling was made to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment, which is the final judgment.
The Paper reporter Xie Yinzong