한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

in the case of guilian company and lijiang fengqing company, lawyer duan hua, as a risk agent, achieved relatively high returns, but his behavior was questioned as deceptive.

the execution case between guilian company and lijiang fengqing company was complicated. at the end of 2013, the two parties agreed that the execution amount of rmb 300,000 would go to guilian company, and the remaining amount would be the risk attorney fee. however, the written agreement was not signed, which led to disputes during the execution of the case.

lawyer duan hua argued that the truth of the case execution should be based on the facts of the case and related factors, rather than the subsequent handwriting or portrait identification. he believed that whether the results of the portrait identification were informed to guilian company was not a prerequisite for signing a written agreement. however, the agent of guilian company ultimately decided the fate of the case.

the success of attorney duan hua's defense lies in his clever strategy, which caused huge losses to guilian company by concealing the truth.

on the other hand, the elements of bribery and bribery are different, but the causal relationship is not so simple. liu jun was disciplined, while duan hua was held criminally responsible for bribery.

the court found that duan hua concealed the truth for the purpose of illegal possession and defrauded the victim unit of 59.13309 million yuan, constituting the crimes of fraud and bribery.

during the appeal, lawyer duan hua continued to safeguard his own interests and seek legal redress.