Not only did you help me recover my losses, but you also cleared my name! "Recently, facing the prosecutor of Xia County Procuratorate in Shanxi Province, Jiang tightly held the civil mediation agreement in his hand, his voice filled with excitement and sobs. This 15 year loan dispute has finally come to an end under the supervision of the procuratorial organs. In 2008, Jiang, who was then the director of a village committee, borrowed 40000 yuan from the local rural credit cooperative in his personal name to solve the shortage of funds for collective construction in the village. The full amount was transferred to the village committee account. In 2021, Rural Commercial Bank (formerly Rural Credit Cooperative) sued Jiang for not repaying principal and interest. Although Jiang felt wronged, he still repaid the loan after the court judgment came into effect. Subsequently, Jiang filed a lawsuit for recovery with the village committee. The court determined that the village committee had already repaid Jiang's 2008 loan based on the repayment records from 2009 and ruled against Jiang. Subsequently, Jiang applied for a retrial but was rejected by the court. Helpless, in June 2024, Jiang applied for supervision to the Xia County Procuratorate. Is it a village committee debt or a personal debt? Why do Jiang and the village committee have two repayment recipients for a loan? ”With these questions in mind, the handling prosecutor launched a comprehensive review, visited the village committee's warehouse and former village officials on site, page by page reviewed the long sealed accounts, and went to the township agricultural economic station and rural commercial bank to retrieve the original vouchers. However, due to the long time span of the case, most of the informants have gone missing, and the accounting records and management of the village committee were not standardized at that time, the case was once deadlocked. In response, the prosecuting attorney has decided to re-examine the existing evidence. Finally, several yellowed old account books brought a turning point to the case: one was the cash journal of the village committee in 2008, which clearly recorded that the 40000 yuan loan from Jiang was included in the village committee's accounts for the purpose of "village collective expenses", proving that it was originally a public loan; The other one is the cash journal of the village committee kept by the township agricultural economic station. The account shows that in July 2009, there was a loan principal of 40000 yuan from Jiang, but there was also an input record of 39000 yuan received from Jiang during the same period. In 2010, the account showed a loan principal of 39000 yuan received from Jiang, and another input record of 38000 yuan received from Jiang during the same period. The handling prosecutor immediately realized that there was a possibility of "borrowing new to repay old" in this case, that is, after the village committee formally repaid Jiang's loan in 2009, Jiang borrowed a new loan (39000 yuan) in his own name and transferred it to the village committee. After the village committee returned the new loan of 39000 yuan, Jiang borrowed another new loan (38000 yuan) and transferred it to the village committee. The reason why there are two repayment parties for a loan is that Jiang borrowed new loans twice to repay the old loans, allowing the village committee to continue using the loan in a 'borrowing new to repay old' manner, "said the handling prosecutor. In the field of financial lending, "borrowing new to repay old" is a common operating mode, which refers to the borrower borrowing a new loan to repay their old loan that is due or about to expire. Essentially, it is a continuation or restructuring of debt, rather than a true debt repayment. In addition, the handling prosecutor also found a 2019 accounting voucher from the village committee, which clearly recorded the village committee's "bad debt write off" of the "38000 yuan loan from Jiang Credit Cooperative". This means that the village committee believes that this 38000 yuan loan has nothing to do with itself. After 2010, due to the change of the village committee and the closure of accounts, the loan was not repaid with interest. Jiang continued to pay the loan interest until 2013, when he could no longer afford it, and was eventually sued by the bank. We retrieved the complete loan transaction records between Jiang, the village committee, and the credit union, combined with the previous village committee accounts, and fully restored the operational trajectory and fund flow of Jiang and the village committee's' borrowing new to repay old '. From this, it can be clarified that the actual borrower of Jiang's loan was always the village committee. ”The prosecutor in charge said. After clearly identifying that "borrowing new to repay old" is the core link leading to debt continuation and misalignment of rights and responsibilities, in July 2024, the court immediately issued a recommendation for retrial to the court. After the retrial procedure was initiated, in order to substantially resolve the conflict between Jiang and the village committee and avoid other disputes that may arise from litigation, the prosecutor and judge unanimously believed that facilitating a settlement between the two parties was the best way to handle the case. Subsequently, the prosecutor shuttled back and forth between the village committee, rural commercial bank, and court several times, relying on detailed evidence, clear logic, and powerful interpretation and reasoning, fully utilizing legal thinking and methods, to help all parties recognize the facts of the case. In August of this year, with the joint mediation of prosecutors and judges, the village committee reached a settlement agreement with Jiang, agreeing that the village committee would repay a total of more than 62000 yuan in loan principal and interest advanced by Jiang. (New Society)