The following is about whether the practice of forging IOUs can restore the truth

I encountered a similar incident, it was the other party who tore off the signature under the letter and filled in the arrears on it, but at that time, under the review of the court personnel, the other party admitted that it was forged. If your matter has already entered into a lawsuit, you can ask the other party questions at trial; If the lawsuit has not been initiated, two or more intermediaries may be asked to take the method of recording (it can be recorded secretly, and the intermediary needs to write a certificate to confirm the authenticity of the recording materials afterwards) to ask the other party the following questions to see if there are any flaws in the other party:

1. I have the ability to write, why is the content of the IOU written by you?

2. Why is there a tearing mark on the paper used for the IOU? Did I get a receipt when I collected rent from you? How many have you played? You provide the receipt (which can be used to compare the paper used for the IOU).

3. When and what is the purpose of the loan? Where is the loan disbursed and who is present? Where is the loan withdrawn from the bank, and is there any withdrawal procedure? What is the face value of the borrowed amount?

4. Is there an agreed interest rate when borrowing? Why is such an interest rate agreed? Have you ever asked me for the amount you owe? Why don't you ask for the money you owe? Who can prove it when you demand it?

5. If you have collected rent from him after borrowing money, can you ask him why you still pay me rent since I owe you money? Why not deduct from the balance owed?

You can also provide evidence to prove your financial situation and prove that you do not need to borrow money from others during the time period when the IOU is issued.

If you can't find any flaws, you can only apply for a "handwriting time test" (handwriting stale test) to check whether the content of the IOU and the time of signature are consistent.

I don't know whether the loan or the arrears are owed, and the arrears court generally has to review the debt. Even if you bring up the IOU, it was forged by him, and if you want to point out what is unreasonable, if the other party cannot give a reasonable explanation, the court will not recognize it.

It is possible to distinguish the time of writing by identification, or to determine the fact of forgery by looking at the torn note.

Legal Analysis: Invalid. 1. Evidence must be presented to prove that there is no borrowing fact.

An IOU with the fact of borrowing has no legal effect and is not protected by law; 2. The court will determine whether there is a loan relationship based on factors such as the delivery voucher, the ability to pay, the transaction habits, the size of the loan amount, the relationship between the parties, and the transaction details stated by the parties.

Legal basis: Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases Article 2 When a lender initiates a private lending lawsuit with the people's court, it shall provide proof of creditor's rights such as IOUs, receipts, and IOUs, as well as other evidence that can prove the existence of a legal relationship between lending. Where the IOUs, receipts, IOUs and other creditor's rights vouchers held by the parties do not contain the creditors of the jujube forest, and the party holding the creditor's rights vouchers initiates a private lending lawsuit, the people's court shall accept it.

Where the defendant raises a factual defense against the plaintiff's creditor qualifications, and the people's court finds that the plaintiff does not have the creditor qualifications upon review, it rules to dismiss the lawsuit.

Generally speaking, it is a fraudulent act, and it may seriously constitute a crime of fraud. Whether or not the forgery of an IOU is a crime shall be distinguished between different circumstances and based on specific facts. Under normal circumstances, the forgery of an IOU is not for the purpose of illegal possession or without a false lawsuit, then it is difficult to constitute a crime.

For example, if an IOU is forged because the other party does have a debt relationship with the forger, and the reason for the debt is not the loan but the labor fee, lease fee or other expenses owed, it is difficult to find it a crime. Forging an IOU may constitute a crime of fraud. Falsification of evidence is the use of fictitious facts for the purpose of illegal possession to defraud others of their property, and the amount is huge.

The specific embodiment of the purpose of unlawful possession, the subjective aspect is expressed in direct intent. Because the perpetrator is in urgent need of funds, has a poor financial situation, and raises funds for gambling and drug abuse, etc., the perpetrator is now interested in the purpose of illegal possession. The use of fictitious facts, that is, the victim himself has no debt relationship with the actor, and the fictitious IOU of the perpetrator can reflect his specific act of using fictitious facts.

Due to the fraudulent act of the perpetrator, the direct economic loss of the victim is huge. According to the standard of a huge amount, according to the regulations, the amount of fraud is between 3,000 and 10,000 yuan, which is a huge amount. If the perpetrator commits an act of deception and the victim does not suffer any loss, it may not be found to be a crime of fraud.

Legal basis

Article 266 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China [Crime of Fraud] Where public or private property is defrauded, and the amount is relatively large, a sentence of up to three years imprisonment, short-term detention or controlled release is to be given, and/or a fine; where the amount is huge or there are other serious circumstances, a sentence of between 3 and 10 years imprisonment and a concurrent fine is to be given; where the amount is especially huge or there are other especially serious circumstances, a sentence of 10 or more years imprisonment or indefinite imprisonment is to be given, and a concurrent fine or confiscation of property. Where this Law provides otherwise, follow those provisions.

Legal Analysis: It is illegal to forge a letter of repentance. Where, in the course of hearing a private lending case, the people's court ascertains that it is a false private lending lawsuit, it shall reject the litigation claim; if a crime is constituted, it shall be transferred to the judicial organ with jurisdiction for investigation of criminal responsibility; Of course, the parties can also report the case to the public security organs on their own, and the public security organs will file a case for investigation.

Legal basis: Article 266 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China: Where public or private property is defrauded, and the amount is relatively large, a sentence of up to three years imprisonment, short-term detention or controlled release is to be given, and/or a fine; where the amount is huge or there are other serious circumstances, a sentence of between 3 and 10 years imprisonment and a concurrent fine is to be given; where the amount is especially huge or there are other especially serious circumstances, a sentence of 10 or more years imprisonment or indefinite imprisonment is to be given, and a concurrent fine or confiscation of property is to be given. Where this Law provides otherwise, follow the provisions of Yanbizhao.

It is an offence for another person to forge an IOU. Where in the course of hearing a private lending case, the people's court ascertains that it is a false private lending lawsuit, it shall reject the plaintiff's litigation claim; if a crime is constituted, the case shall be transferred to the judicial organ with jurisdiction to investigate its criminal responsibility; Of course, the injured party can also report the case to the public security organ on its own, and the public security organ will file a case for investigation.

Legal basis

Article 13 of the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases.

In any of the following circumstances, the people's court shall find that the private lending contract is invalid:

1) Arbitrage loans from financial institutions for on-lending;

2) Relending funds obtained by borrowing money from other for-profit legal persons, raising funds from employees of that unit, or illegally absorbing deposits from the public;

3) Lenders who have not lawfully obtained lending qualifications provide loans to unspecified targets of society for the purpose of making profits;

4) The lender knew or should have known in advance that the borrower was borrowing money for illegal or criminal activities, but still provided the loan;

5) Violating mandatory provisions of laws or administrative regulations;

6) Violating public order and good customs.

Summary. Hello, in law true is true, false is false, if one party believes that the IOU is false, the party who bears the burden of proof must apply for appraisal, do not apply for appraisal, resulting in the inability to prove that it is false, the court to accept it, no responsibility. If the appraisal is already false, and the court still accepts it, then it is suspected of arbitrarily adjudicating.

If there is evidence to prove that the IOU is suspected of being forged, is it illegal for the judge to still use the fake IOU to decide the case?

Hello, in law, true is true, false is false, if one party believes that the IOU is false and ruined, the party who bears the burden of proof must apply for appraisal, and if it does not apply for appraisal, it is impossible to prove that it is false, and the court accepts it, and is not responsible. If the appraisal is already false, and the court still accepts it, then it is suspected of arbitrarily adjudicating the search.

We have evidence to prove that the so-called debt of the IOU is completely false. I have a purchase statement issued by the financial department, one a month, and each statement of the travel type has a financial audit credit card, as well as the signature of the financial staff to confirm the recognition of the town. and reconciliation confirmation sheets.

This evidence can prove that the monthly accounts are settled by credit card.

If there is no signature from the relevant person, then it can not be recognized.

If there is a signature and it is not recognized, then it is necessary to apply for a handwriting examination.

My signature on the IOU was imitated by the factory. During the trial, the state also admitted it. Why is it a black hand stall on the IOU, the factory did not give a reasonable explanation.

Moreover, the black handprints are blurred and the edges are clear. This is clearly not in line with a person's pressing habits.

Since it is imitated by someone, it is a forgery of evidence, which is obviously fake!

The judge's explanation was that it didn't matter who signed the signature, as long as the handprint was mine, I would recognize it. As for my evidence, the judge will not accept it.