China News Service, Guangzhou, November 5 (Suo Youwei, Quan Xiaoqing, Lin Ting) The Guangdong Higher People’s Court notified on the 5th that the court recently organized, led, and participated in a crime case involving 23 people including Zhao Jianhua and other underworld organizations. A second-instance verdict was issued, and the appeal was ruled to dismiss the original verdict.

  On August 6, the Intermediate People’s Court of Shaoguan City issued a first-instance verdict on the crimes of organizing, leading, and participating in triad organizations, including Zhao Jianhua and other 23 people, respectively, for the crimes of organizing, leading, and participating in triad organizations, the crime of opening a casino, and the crime of provoking troubles. The crime of obstructing testimony, the crime of forced trading, the crime of illegal detention, the crime of intentional injury, the crime of assembling a crowd, the crime of embezzling funds, the crime of disrupting production and operation, and the combined punishment of several crimes, the defendants Zhao Jianhua, Liu Hongzhang, and Li Hanwen were sentenced to 20 years in prison. He was also sentenced to confiscation of all personal property or fines; the remaining 20 defendants were sentenced to 18 to one year imprisonment, as well as property penalties.

After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, Zhao Jianhua and other 14 defendants filed an appeal.

  The Guangdong Higher People's Court found that since 2006, Zhao Jianhua and others have opened casinos in Shixing County, Wengyuan County of Guangdong Province, Dayu County of Jiangxi Province and other places to collect illegal property.

By obtaining illegal benefits and continuously recruiting idlers from the society, Zhao Jianhua has gradually formed a triad organization with a relatively fixed and large number of backbone members.

  The organization has long been engaged in illegal usury activities in order to make huge profits. When the victim fails to pay the principal and high interest overdue, it will resort to verbal threats, door-to-door nuisance, close following, restriction of freedom, random beatings, arbitrary destruction of property, etc. Means, forcing the victim to repay the principal and high interest, or use property such as house and car to repay the debt.

  In 2013, Zhao Jianhua successively lent a total of about 2 million yuan to the victim Zhong XX with a monthly interest of 5%.

Because Zhong Moumou failed to pay the high interest, Zhao Jianhua, Liu Hongzhang and others coerced their family to leave the residence, and then lived in their home for a long time, disposing of their belongings at will, and even planned to transfer the house to others.

After Zhong Moumou called the police, Zhao Jianhua presented a false house transfer agreement to the police, falsely claiming that the house was owned by him, in order to continue to occupy the house.

Zhong XX was eventually forced to transfer the above-mentioned houses to offset the principal and interest of his loan from Zhao Jianhua.

  In 2014, according to Liu Hongzhang's introduction, Zhao Jianhua lent more than 1.3 million yuan to the victim Lai Moumou and his wife with a monthly interest of 5%.

In order to recover debts, Liu Hongzhang and others went to the farm run by Lai to throw paper money, set off firecrackers, spray paint, and puncture tires on many occasions, causing troubles and making Lai's farm unable to operate normally.

  Due to a dispute with the victim Zhang and others while catching fish, Zhang Xiping (handled in another case) gathered more than ten people including Liu Hongzhang, Li Hanwen and other tools with knives, sticks and other tools to retaliate against Zhang and severely wound him. , The other two were slightly injured.

  In addition, the organization also accused others of perjury to hinder the normal litigation activities of the judiciary in order to evade legal punishment; reckless and reckless, often make troubles, create troubles, deliberately undermine the normal business activities of others, affect the normal life of the local people, and cause evil Social impact.

  The Guangdong Higher People's Court held that the facts found in the original judgment were clear, the evidence was reliable and sufficient, the conviction was accurate, the sentencing was appropriate, and the trial procedures were legal, so it made the aforementioned ruling in accordance with the law.