Prosecution Of Crimes Involving Forged Housing Permits
1. Legal Framework
Forgery of housing permits is treated seriously in China because housing permits (hukou-related or property ownership permits) are official documents with legal and financial implications, including eligibility for purchase, subsidies, and loans.
Relevant Provisions of Chinese Law
Criminal Law of the PRC (2020 Revision):
Article 280: Forgery of certificates or official documents for personal gain.
Article 225: Fraud — includes using forged permits to obtain housing or financial benefits.
Article 287: Selling forged documents or permits.
Administrative Measures on Housing Permits:
Local housing authorities supervise issuance and registration of permits. Forged permits can also lead to administrative sanctions.
Key Principles:
Criminal liability arises when forging permits results in financial gain, illegal property acquisition, or affects public order.
Both individuals and organizations (brokers, companies) can be prosecuted.
2. Case Law Examples
Here are six detailed cases illustrating how courts in China prosecute forged housing permits:
Case 1: Li Wei Housing Permit Forgery Case (2011)
Facts:
Li Wei, a real estate agent in Guangzhou, forged housing purchase permits for 12 clients to bypass restrictions.
Clients paid Li Wei over 2 million RMB to secure housing illegally.
Legal Issues:
Article 280 (forgery)
Article 225 (fraud)
Outcome:
Li Wei sentenced to 7 years imprisonment, fined 500,000 RMB.
Clients’ illegally obtained permits were revoked.
Significance:
First major case demonstrating that forging housing permits for profit is a serious criminal offense.
Case 2: Zhang Qiang Residential Permit Scam (2013)
Facts:
Zhang Qiang ran a network providing forged “residential permits” (hukou) to migrant workers to qualify for subsidized housing.
Over 300 permits were forged; total illegal gain: 3.5 million RMB.
Legal Issues:
Articles 280 and 287 (forgery and sale of forged documents)
Outcome:
Zhang Qiang sentenced to 9 years imprisonment, assets confiscated.
Two associates received 5 years each.
Significance:
Shows organized criminal networks targeting government housing systems.
Case 3: Sun Hua Fake Housing Permit Fraud Case (2015)
Facts:
Sun Hua forged housing certificates to sell apartments to buyers not eligible under local housing policies.
Over 50 apartments sold; fraud total: 10 million RMB.
Legal Issues:
Articles 280 (forgery) and 225 (fraud)
Outcome:
Sun Hua sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, all gains confiscated.
Property developers cooperating with him were fined.
Significance:
Highlights large-scale real estate fraud involving forged official documents.
Case 4: Beijing Broker Forged Permit Case (2016)
Facts:
A real estate broker in Beijing, Wang Lin, forged housing purchase permits for clients to bypass Beijing’s housing purchase restrictions.
Over 100 clients involved; collective illegal gain: 6 million RMB.
Legal Issues:
Articles 280 (forgery), 225 (fraud), 287 (selling forged permits)
Outcome:
Wang Lin sentenced to 8 years imprisonment, assets seized.
Broker company license revoked.
Significance:
Emphasized corporate responsibility for involvement in forgery crimes.
Case 5: Li Jun & Associates Forged Housing Permit Ring (2018)
Facts:
Li Jun organized a criminal ring to forge local housing permits for individuals seeking low-income housing.
Ring sold permits over 5 years, gaining 12 million RMB.
Legal Issues:
Articles 280, 225, 287
Outcome:
Li Jun sentenced to 12 years imprisonment; 6 co-conspirators sentenced to 3–8 years.
Government recovered some funds and revoked permits.
Significance:
Illustrates long-term, organized forgery schemes targeting social welfare housing.
Case 6: Chen Mei Forged Housing Certificate Case (2020)
Facts:
Chen Mei, a small-town property agent, forged housing certificates to help buyers qualify for mortgage loans.
Total fraud: 1.5 million RMB.
Legal Issues:
Articles 280 and 225
Outcome:
Chen Mei sentenced to 5 years imprisonment, fined 200,000 RMB.
Financial institutions notified; affected mortgages canceled.
Significance:
Demonstrates financial sector involvement and risk mitigation in housing permit forgery cases.
3. Key Observations
Profit Motive is Central:
Cases almost always involve financial gain or property acquisition.
Organized Networks are Prosecuted More Severely:
Long-term or multi-person forgery rings face higher sentences.
Combination of Forgery and Fraud:
Forging the document alone can lead to imprisonment, but using it to defraud or sell housing usually carries heavier penalties.
Corporate or Institutional Liability:
Companies, brokers, or colluding officials can also face fines, license revocations, or criminal liability.
Sentences Reflect Scale:
Small-scale forgery → 3–5 years
Large-scale or organized → 8–12 years
4. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Offender | Scale | Legal Provision | Sentence | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Li Wei | 2011 | Individual agent | 12 permits | Art. 280, 225 | 7 yrs | Profit-oriented forgery |
| Zhang Qiang | 2013 | Network | 300 permits | Art. 280, 287 | 9 yrs | Organized criminal network |
| Sun Hua | 2015 | Individual | 50 apartments | Art. 280, 225 | 10 yrs | Large-scale real estate fraud |
| Wang Lin | 2016 | Broker | 100 clients | Art. 280, 225, 287 | 8 yrs | Corporate involvement |
| Li Jun & Assoc | 2018 | Criminal ring | Multi-year scheme | Art. 280, 225, 287 | 12 yrs | Social welfare housing target |
| Chen Mei | 2020 | Small-town agent | Mortgage fraud | Art. 280, 225 | 5 yrs | Financial sector risk mitigation |
This demonstrates that China’s courts treat forged housing permits seriously, with punishments reflecting scale, organization, and financial impact.
RELATED Blog
comments