xxxx18hd亚洲hd秘书_www裸玉足久久久_国产性xxxx无遮挡夜色_亚洲精品视频三区_中文字幕欧美一区,在线免费观看日韩av,亚洲乱妇19p,免费看裸体网

位于阿曼的某紙業(yè)公司通過網(wǎng)絡(luò)找到ARG Xcopy (Thermal Paper)~ARG Paper Products Manufacturing(Guangdong) Co. Ltd.，通過和公司的負(fù)責(zé)人，來自蘇里南的G先生溝通，確定他可以提供中國生產(chǎn)的熱敏紙以后，遂下單支付后滿懷期待地等待著貨物。卻沒想到這背后隱藏著一個(gè)個(gè)精心設(shè)計(jì)的陷阱。G利用復(fù)雜的合同主體及賬戶轉(zhuǎn)移，以達(dá)到占有金錢的目的。當(dāng)信任遭遇欺詐，當(dāng)金錢遭遇謊言，一場(chǎng)跨越國界的法律較量悄然上演。讓我們一起揭開這起跨國紙業(yè)迷局背后的真相，京師深圳趙寶蓮律師代理跨國主體之間的訴訟，終于幫助受騙者討回公道。

Based in Oman, A company found ARG Xcopy (Thermal Paper)~ARG Paper Products Manufacturing(Guangdong) Co. Ltd. through the internet. After communicating with the company's responsible person, Mr. G from Suriname, they confirmed that he could provide thermal paper produced in China. The Paper Company then placed an order and paid with anticipation, only to find themselves caught in a series of carefully designed traps. Mr. G used complex contract entities and account transfers to achieve his goal of possessing money. When trust met fraud, and money encountered lies, a legal battle across borders quietly unfolded. Together, let's uncover the truth behind this international paper industry puzzle. Lawyer Baolian Zhao from Beijing Jingsh (Shenzhen) Law Firm represented the lawsuit between multinational entities and Finally helping the victim get justice.

原告為阿曼的一家紙業(yè)公司，紙業(yè)公司通過網(wǎng)絡(luò)推介與蘇里南G結(jié)識(shí)，G對(duì)外宣傳自己控制跨國公司，名稱為ARG Xcopy。G聲稱他實(shí)際控制在中國深圳TU公司和在印尼進(jìn)出口公司。G在得知某紙業(yè)公司需要采購熱敏紙后，向紙業(yè)公司介紹其在中國山東有造紙廠并且倉庫有庫存。雙方通過多次交流，最后約定從中國深圳TU公司處購買熱敏紙，發(fā)貨地為中國青島。同時(shí)他發(fā)出中國TU公司營業(yè)執(zhí)照，上有政府記載公司的所有重要信息。但是由于稅務(wù)原因，他要求定金付給中國公司的賬號(hào)，但貨款要支付到其印度尼西亞的公司賬號(hào)內(nèi)。四季公司遂按照G公司的要求將定金支付給了其在中國公司的股東，其他預(yù)付款項(xiàng)支付給了印尼公司的對(duì)公賬戶。后G以印尼公司名義發(fā)出了形式發(fā)票。四季公司支付完畢以后，G又以發(fā)貨為由繼續(xù)要求四季公司支付運(yùn)費(fèi)，前前后后支付了十幾萬美元。后G無貨可發(fā)，也不退款，遂成訴。

在這種情況下，四季公司無奈決定聘請(qǐng)京師深圳律師處理此事。恰巧也有另外一家來自巴勒斯坦的客戶也同樣被G欺詐遭遇了同樣的事情，欺詐手段完全一致。趙律師通過兩方證據(jù)比對(duì)，同時(shí)對(duì)G所稱其在中國TU公司及印尼進(jìn)出口公司進(jìn)行的背景盡調(diào)，發(fā)現(xiàn)G利用在中國注冊(cè)的公司對(duì)外進(jìn)行招搖撞騙，他個(gè)人已經(jīng)有一家實(shí)際控制的公司被列入失信被執(zhí)行人。也就是說，被騙人不止阿曼某公司，還有他人。報(bào)警無果之后，趙律師代理阿曼紙業(yè)公司遂在中國深圳前海合作區(qū)人民法院提起訴訟，原告為來自阿曼紙業(yè)公司，被告為G個(gè)人、中國深圳TU公司，以及中國深圳公司的股東等三個(gè)被告。

The plaintiff is a paper company in Oman, which was introduced to Suriname G through an Internet referral, G advertised that he controlled a multinational paper company named ARG Xcopy. G claimed that he actually controlled Tu Company in Shenzhen, China, and an import and export company in Indonesia. After learning that Paper Company needed to purchase thermal paper, G introduced that he had paper industry cooperative manufacturers in Shandong, China, and there was inventory in the warehouse. After multiple exchanges, the two parties finally agreed to buy thermal paper from Tu Company in Shenzhen, China, with the shipping location being Qingdao, China. At the same time, he issued the business license of China's TU Company, which recorded all important information about the company by the government. However, due to tax reasons, he required a deposit to be paid to the account of the Chinese company, but the payment for the goods should be made to his Indonesian company account.

Therefore, The Paper Company paid the deposit according to G's requirements to the shareholder of his Chinese company, and other advance payments were made to the public account of the Indonesian company. Later, G issued a proforma invoice in the name of the Indonesian company. After The paper Company paid in full, G continued to ask the paper Company to pay for freight for shipping, with a total payment of several hundred thousand US dollars. Later, G had no goods to ship and refused to refund, leading to the lawsuit.

In this situation, the Paper Company reluctantly decided to find a lawyer from Beijing Jingsh (Shenzhen) Law Firm to handle the matter. Coincidentally, another customer from Palestine was also defrauded by G in the same way. Mrs Zhao compared the evidence from both sides and conducted background investigations on G's claimed companies in China, Tu Company and the Indonesian import and export company. She discovered that G used registered companies in China to swindle abroad, and one of his personally controlled companies had been listed as a dishonest debtor. This means that not only Oman paper company but also others had been deceived. After reporting the case without result, Mrs Zhao, representing Oman paper Company, filed a lawsuit at SHENZHEN QIANHAI COOPERATION ZONE PEOPLE'S COURT. The plaintiff was Oman paper Company, and the defendants were G personally, Tu Company from Shenzhen, China, and the shareholders of the Shenzhen company, totaling three defendants.

本案難點(diǎn)在于，原告和被告均為海外主體，買賣合同的法律關(guān)系建立在中國公司和阿曼公司之間？還是被告G主張的合同成立與印度尼西亞公司和阿曼公司之間？中國公司股東作為預(yù)付款的收款人，是否也要承擔(dān)相應(yīng)的補(bǔ)充賠償責(zé)任？在眾多的主體中，最終哪一方才是承擔(dān)返款貨款的主體。中國深圳TU公司為個(gè)人有限責(zé)任公司，其一人股東除了接受貨款以外，是否也實(shí)際參與了買賣合同的協(xié)商，其是否應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)相應(yīng)的責(zé)任？G個(gè)人是否在這筆交易中要承擔(dān)擔(dān)保責(zé)任？如果印尼公司為買賣合同的相對(duì)方，那么中國法院的判決是否可以在印尼得到承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行？這些都將是法庭審理的難點(diǎn)和核心。

The difficulties in this case lie in the fact that both the plaintiff and the defendant are overseas entities. Is the legal relationship of the sales contract established between the Chinese company and the Omani company, or does the defendant G claim that the contract was established between the Indonesian company and the Omani company? As the shareholder of the Chinese company and the recipient of the advance payment, should he also bear corresponding supplementary liability? Among the numerous entities, which party is ultimately responsible for repaying the purchase price? TU Company in Shenzhen, China is a one-person limited liability company. Apart from receiving payments, has the sole shareholder also actually participated in the negotiation of the sales contract? Should he bear corresponding responsibilities? Whether G personally should bear the guarantee liability in this transaction? If the Indonesian company is the counterpart of the sales contract, can the judgment of the Chinese court be recognized and enforced in Indonesia? These will all be the difficulties and core issues of the court's trial.

經(jīng)過兩次開庭時(shí)間均超過六小時(shí)的審理，法院最終認(rèn)為案外人印尼進(jìn)出口公司僅是被告G指定的代收款人，并非合同主體。原告紙業(yè)公司與被告中國深圳TU公司達(dá)成案涉買賣合同后，原告公司已按約定支付了貨款，但被告公司至今未能向原告四季公司交付貨物，導(dǎo)致合同目的無法實(shí)現(xiàn)，被告公司已構(gòu)成根本違約。被告中國深圳TU公司的行為構(gòu)成遲延履行主要債務(wù)，且經(jīng)催告后在合理期限內(nèi)仍未履行，故原告四季公司有權(quán)要求解除合同。原告紙業(yè)公司已經(jīng)多次向被告G個(gè)人提出退款要求，G個(gè)人也當(dāng)時(shí)同意了。因此，應(yīng)當(dāng)視為雙方就合同解除達(dá)成一致。

本案被告深圳TU公司應(yīng)依法承擔(dān)遲延履行的違約責(zé)任。被告G雖同意退款，但至今未實(shí)際履行，原告四季公司主張被告深圳TU公司退還貨款于法有據(jù)。被告深圳TU公司為個(gè)人有限公司，沒有證據(jù)證明其與公司財(cái)產(chǎn)相互獨(dú)立，被告股東應(yīng)承擔(dān)舉證不能的不利后果。至于被告蘇里南G的責(zé)任，被告G系被告深圳公司的法定代表人，其在本案中實(shí)施的行為均應(yīng)為職務(wù)行為，其法律后果均應(yīng)由深圳公司承擔(dān)，故被告G無需承擔(dān)返還貨款責(zé)任。

After two court sessions that lasted more than six hours each, the court ultimately ruled that the third party, Indonesia Import and Export Company, was merely an agent designated by Defendant G for receiving payment, not a party to the contract. After Plaintiff The paper Company and Defendant in Shenzhen, China, TU Company reached the subject sales contract, Plaintiff had paid the agreed-upon price as per the contract, but Defendant has failed to deliver the goods to Plaintiff to this day, resulting in the unachievable purpose of the contract, and Defendant Company has committed a fundamental breach of contract. The actions of Defendant TU Company from Shenzhen constituted a delay in fulfilling its main debt, and despite being urged, it still failed to fulfill within a reasonable time limit, hence Plaintiff is entitled to request the termination of the contract. Plaintiff made a request for a refund to Defendant G personally, who agreed at that time. Therefore, it should be considered that both parties reached an agreement on the termination of the contract.

The defendant, TU Company from Shenzhen, should bear the liability for breach of contract for delay in performance according to law. Although Defendant G agreed to refund, it has not actually performed as of today, and Plaintiff  claim for Defendant TU Company to refund the purchase price is well-founded according to law. Defendant TU Company is a limited liability company with individuals as shareholders, and there is no evidence that its property is independent from the company's property. Therefore, the defendant shareholders should bear the adverse consequences of failing to provide evidence. As for the responsibility of Defendant Suriname G, Defendant G is the legal representative of Defendant Tu Company from Shenzhen and all actions taken by him in this case should be considered as acts within the scope of his duties. The legal consequences should be borne by Shenzhen Company, so Defendant G does not need to bear the responsibility for refunding the payment for goods.

1.確認(rèn)原告四季公司與被告深圳TU公司合同于 2022 年 8月 3 日解除；

2.判令被告深圳TU公司向原告四季公司退還全部貨款；

3.判令被告深圳TU公司向原告四季公司支付資金占用損失；

4.被告深圳公司一人股東對(duì)被告深圳TU公司的上述第一至三項(xiàng)債務(wù)承擔(dān)連帶清償責(zé)任。

1.Confirm that the contract between plaintiff and defendant TU Company from Shenzhen was terminated on August 3, 2022;

2.Order defendant TU Company from Shenzhen to refund all the payment for goods;

3.Order defendant TU Company from Shenzhen to pay for the loss of capital occupation to plaintiff ;

4.The sole shareholder of defendant TU Company from Shenzhen shall be jointly and severally liable for the aforementioned debts of defendant TU Company from the first to the third item.

1. 在跨境交易前，務(wù)必對(duì)潛在合作伙伴進(jìn)行全面、深入的盡職調(diào)查，包括信用記錄、經(jīng)營歷史及市場(chǎng)反饋，以規(guī)避潛在風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。

Before engaging in cross-border transactions, it is crucial to conduct thorough and in-depth due diligence on potential partners, including credit history, business background, and market feedback, to avoid potential risks.

2. 在簽訂合同時(shí)，務(wù)必明確合同主體，即與誰建立買賣合同關(guān)系。同時(shí)，制定詳細(xì)的合同條款，確保合同內(nèi)容清晰、明確，避免后續(xù)產(chǎn)生糾紛。同時(shí)注意在合同中違約條款和爭議解決條款均有可能成為順利解決爭議的重要手段。

When signing contracts, it is essential to clearly identify the contracting parties, that is with whom the sales contract relationship is established. At the same time, develop detailed contract terms to ensure that the contract content is clear and unambiguous, preventing disputes from arising later. Also, note that both breach of contract clauses and dispute resolution clauses in the contract can be important means to resolve disputes smoothly.

3. 在支付貨款時(shí)，務(wù)必核實(shí)收款賬戶的真實(shí)性與合法性。避免將貨款支付至非合同主體的賬戶，以免資金流失且難以追回。同時(shí)，建議采用信用證等安全支付方式，降低交易風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。

When paying for goods, it is imperative to verify the authenticity and legality of the receiving account. Avoid sending payments to accounts not belonging to the contractual party to prevent loss of funds and difficulties in recovery. Additionally, it is recommended to use secure payment methods such as letters of credit to reduce transaction risks.

4. 在合同履行過程中，保持與合作伙伴的密切溝通，及時(shí)了解貨物生產(chǎn)、運(yùn)輸及交付情況。如遇問題，及時(shí)協(xié)商解決，避免問題惡化導(dǎo)致合同無法履行。

During the performance of the contract, maintain close communication with partners to stay informed about the production, transportation, and delivery of goods. If problems arise, address them promptly to prevent escalation and potential non-performance of the contract.

5. 企業(yè)應(yīng)關(guān)注一人公司股東責(zé)任，防范連帶責(zé)任風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。在簽訂合同時(shí)，建議明確約定股東責(zé)任條款，降低潛在風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。

Companies should pay attention to the liability of shareholders in one-person companies and guard against joint and several liability risks. When signing contracts, it is advisable to clearly stipulate shareholder liability clauses to minimize potential risks.

6. 一旦遭遇合同違約或欺詐行為，企業(yè)應(yīng)迅速采取行動(dòng)，收集證據(jù)并尋求專業(yè)律師的幫助。通過法律途徑維護(hù)自身權(quán)益，降低損失。

In the event of contract breach or fraudulent behavior, companies should take swift action to gather evidence and seek assistance from professional lawyers. Protect their interests through legal channels to minimize losses.