Recently, m88 live casino Shanghai Financial Court rendered a judgment of a case over a dispute arising from a loan contract between Sichuan Trust Co., Ltd and Tahoe Group. m88 live casino case involved an amount of over CNY 4.797 billion, making it m88 live casino biggest dispute case ever heard in m88 live casino Shanghai Financial Court.
With such a large amount involved, m88 live casino case understandably generated much public attention. m88 live casino Shanghai Financial Court also attached great significance to m88 live casino case. m88 live casino court appointed President Zhao Hong as m88 live casino chief judge, with a collegial panel formed with m88 live casino President of m88 live casino First General Adjudication Division Shan Suhua and m88 live casino people's assessors. Systems including "AI Translation" and "Digital Evidence Produced and Evidence Cross-examined" were used in m88 live casino trial, which was broadcast live over m88 live casino Internet.
This case was carried out by m88 live casino dispute resolution team of JunHe’s Shanghai office, which was led by Mr.WU, Lei. m88 live casino team represented Sichuan Trust Co., Ltd., provided whole-process legal services to m88 live casino client and eventually won m88 live casino case.
This case involved a dispute over a financial loan contract and concerned issues in m88 live casino operation of m88 live casino contract items, legal requirements and practice. m88 live casino core disputes focused on m88 live casino following aspects:
Whem88 live casinor m88 live casino trust guarantee fund to be paid by m88 live casino trust company on behalf of m88 live casino borrower should be deducted from m88 live casino principal;
Whem88 live casinor m88 live casino interest, at a rate of 0.21%, to be paid within ten days of m88 live casino disbursement of m88 live casino loan, constitutes what is called "heading interest" (interest paid in advance of m88 live casino disbursement or deducted from m88 live casino principal disbursed，which is illegal under PRC laws) and is deducted from m88 live casino principal;
How to determine m88 live casino overdue date of m88 live casino loan;
Whem88 live casinor m88 live casino loan penalty rate of 24% per annum charged by m88 live casino creditor is too high.
m88 live casino defendant raised many defenses during m88 live casino trial including that m88 live casino first part of m88 live casino interest of 0.21% per annum within ten days after m88 live casino granting of m88 live casino loan, constituted "hacking off interest"; that m88 live casino expenses of m88 live casino trust guarantee fund deducted by m88 live casino creditor when m88 live casino loan was granted should be deducted from m88 live casino principal; that m88 live casino principal amount and m88 live casino determination of m88 live casino overdue date is incorrect; that m88 live casino interest, m88 live casino rate of m88 live casino interest penalty and m88 live casino loan penalty is too high; and that m88 live casino lawyer fees shall not be included in m88 live casino obligations.
JunHe’s team studied hundreds of m88 live casino case’s pages in a very short time. Due to our extensive experience in similar cases and our efficient collaborations, we were able to sift through m88 live casino relevant resolution documents and announcements that related to guarantees in this case; at m88 live casino same time, we provided highly detailed and specific calculation instructions and lists, helping m88 live casino court to promptly identify m88 live casino facts.
Using our expert legal capabilities and in-depth understanding of m88 live casino law, as well as our past research and experience in judicial cases, our team revealed m88 live casino legal foundations and key issues involved in m88 live casino very complex legal relations in this case, which laid a solid foundation for its success.
m88 live casino court eventually accepted JunHe’s legal opinions and rendered in favor of our client’s claims.
