Hello, is this Director Li from the Market Supervision Administration? This company has a case with us, please be careful not to let it be deregistered. "" Okay, Judge Zhang, can you send me the filing documents first... "Recently, the deregistration application of a company involved in the lawsuit was stopped by the relevant administrative department in accordance with the law. This is the first successful case of intercepting illegal deregistration by the Three Gorges Dam District Procuratorate of Yichang City, Hubei Province in June this year, led by the district court and the Market Supervision Administration Bureau, after jointly issuing the "Regulatory Cooperation Mechanism on Illegal deregistration of sued enterprises". The introduction of this mechanism stems from the handling and reflection of a "debt" case by the Three Gorges Dam District Procuratorate. After applying for supervision in 2021, Wang discovered that his bank card had suddenly been frozen. Upon investigation, he found out that Company A, which he had served as the legal representative for many years, had been sued by Li for owing him goods. The court ruled to repay more than 300000 yuan. As Company A has been deregistered, Wang, as a shareholder, has been added as the debtor. The company has long been deregistered, and I have never done business with the plaintiff Li. Where did this debt come from? ”Wang is completely confused. According to the litigation materials, between 2016 and 2018, Company A subcontracted two greening projects from Company B. Zhang (who has passed away) signed a stone supply contract with Li on behalf of Company A. But Wang insisted that he had no knowledge of this supply contract, and Zhang, who signed on behalf of Company A in the contract, was not an employee of the company and had not been authorized by him. They were just "acquaintances". What's even more strange is that Company A cancelled its registration within 10 days after the first instance court filed the case, but Wang claimed that he had never received a notice of litigation from the court. Due to Wang's absence, the first instance court made a default judgment. After the case entered the execution procedure, Wang's assets were frozen. After his application for retrial was rejected, he had no other choice but to apply for supervision from the procuratorial organs. After accepting the case, the prosecutor in charge of the Three Gorges Dam District Prosecutor's Office retrieved the original trial file and found that there were many doubts in the case: the signatory of the contract, Zhang, was not an employee of Company A and had passed away in 2019, making it impossible to verify whether his actions constituted official duties. A company does not have the qualification to undertake greening projects, why can it sign a subcontracting contract with B company? Is the rapid cancellation of Company A after filing a case in the first instance court a deliberate attempt to evade debt or is there another hidden reason? With doubts in mind, the prosecuting attorney launched an investigation starting from the engineering subcontracting chain. By searching for related cases, the prosecutor unexpectedly discovered that Zhang had signed a subcontracting contract with Company B in the name of Company C. After further investigation by the prosecutor, it was found that Company B actually retained the subcontracting contract signed with Company C. However, due to chaotic management, Zhang often used Company A's name to communicate with material supplier Li during construction, which led Li to mistakenly believe that the object of his transaction was always Company A. The evidence presented in court was also directed towards Company A, resulting in the judge not knowing the existence of Company C. At this point, the truth surfaced: Zhang used the "yin-yang contract" to confuse the trading parties and involved the already cancelled Company A in a debt dispute. Although the contract issue has been preliminarily clarified, is Wang completely innocent? The handling prosecutor, with the assistance of the public security organs, found that the relationship between Wang and Zhang was not the "nodding acquaintance" he claimed - another construction company under Wang's name had paid social security for Zhang. Faced with this evidence, Wang had to admit that Zhang had indeed borrowed qualifications from Company A from him, but he did not agree at the time and did not continue to follow up on the matter. After A company was involved in the lawsuit, in order to avoid trouble, he cancelled A company. He actually knew about the lawsuit involving Company A and even went to inquire about the situation with Mr. Zhang. Mr. Zhang promised to handle everything well and not worry about it. In August 2023, the Three Gorges Dam District Procuratorate issued a recommendation for retrial to the court, clearly stating that: in terms of substance, there is no evidence to prove that Company A has a real contractual relationship with Mr. Li, and the original judgment lacks factual basis; In terms of procedures, the litigation subject of Company A is not qualified after its deregistration, and there are certain illegal situations in the execution of service procedures. On October 19, 2023, the court adopted the prosecutor's suggestion to initiate a retrial. However, there were serious differences between the two parties during the trial process: Li insisted that Wang, as a shareholder of Company A, should bear responsibility, while Wang believed that he was also a victim of Zhang's fraudulent behavior and refused to take responsibility. Faced with the deadlock, the handling prosecutor realized that although Wang had resistance to compensation, he had developed a certain level of trust in the prosecutor's investigation and reasoning work during the early stages of contact. The prosecutor discussed with the retrial judge and decided to interview Wang again. Through the interview, Wang realized that his act of deregistering the company had flaws and risks in the legal process, and the company's lending of qualifications also brought certain risks and hidden dangers. Meanwhile, if both parties continue to be deadlocked in this case, they will continue to incur time and economic costs, and their lives and reputation will also be affected. It is better to jointly seek a mutually acceptable solution to completely resolve this matter. On October 16, 2024, after the prosecutor and judge explained the law, analyzed the pros and cons, and finally reached a mediation agreement. Wang provided certain compensation to Li, and the long-standing dispute was successfully resolved. During the handling of this case, the prosecutor from the Three Gorges Dam District Procuratorate found through careful sorting that in several recent cases involving corporate litigation, there were instances of companies deregistering during the litigation process. In response, the Three Gorges Dam District Procuratorate has issued prosecutorial suggestions to the jurisdictional courts and the Market Supervision Administration Bureau to urge the rectification of illegal situations in individual cases. In order to prevent illegal deregistration of sued enterprises from the source, on June 27th of this year, the Three Gorges Dam District Procuratorate led the district court and the district market supervision and administration bureau to jointly issue the "Regulatory Cooperation Mechanism on Illegal deregistration of sued enterprises", establish a platform for the exchange and sharing of information on market entities involved in lawsuits, and clarify that if market entities within the jurisdiction are involved in lawsuits, the court and procuratorate shall send a letter to the market supervision and administration bureau to request the suspension of the deregistration procedures of sued enterprises, refuse to accept their deregistration applications, and prevent sued enterprises from evading legal responsibilities through illegal deregistration. At the same time, the Market Supervision Administration of the district may revoke the illegal cancellation registration in accordance with the law, list the relevant enterprises in the list of abnormal business operations, or list the enterprises and their legal representatives and main responsible persons who violate the cancellation registration in the list of serious illegal and dishonest enterprises based on judgments; The procuratorial organs may transfer the suspected illegal cancellation of registration to the public security organs for filing and investigation in accordance with the law. At present, relying on this mechanism, the judicial authorities have successfully intercepted the above-mentioned cases of illegal cancellation, effectively safeguarding market order and the legitimate rights and interests of creditors. With the deepening implementation of this mechanism, behaviors that evade responsibility and supervision will be effectively punished and deterred. (New Society)