Ten years after he was released from prison, the owner of the millions of steel companies in Shandong faced a "billion in money" suspicion.

In March 2026, Liu, 61, filed a “Shareholder Recognition” suit with the Mount Lang Court of the city of Penyi. The court has not yet completed its hearing in the case of the fraudulently signed party that fraudulently took the identity of the shareholders.

On 17 December 2022, Liu Ke was released from prison. Ten years ago, on 18 December 2012, he was taken away by a police station in Lanshan, the police station of the city of Yiyi. He is the Chairman of Kim Kim Construction and Steel Engineering Co. Ltd., Shandong, “Second in the line of the Peri-Will Steel Industry”. Ten years later, the company was gone.

Dong Jianhua has repeatedly submitted a marriage certificate to the court, allegedly forgery. Interviewees

The case was brought from the lower court in Qin Huae and Dong Huai-in “Sister” to Shandong High Court in connection with the dissolution of the company. When he was released, the Lanshan Court also ruled, on the application of Dong's “brother”, that the company was in compulsory liquidation. In September 2025, the company ' s surplus assets were sold on the judicial auction platform for $9.46 million, including 14889 square metres of land use, 12747 square metres of production workshops, 2nd floor office buildings, 3rd floor dormitories, canteens and surplus equipment.

In 2005, the bank ' s mortgage value for land and annex buildings, including equipment, was 1.6797 million yuan. By 2012, Liu had said that the net assets of Kim Jianhua had exceeded $70 million.

The figure of 7 million was currently used only as his statement — several cabinets of financial records seized in the case were returned to the Chen Jianhua side, and she did not hand over the books when the company entered the compulsory liquidation. During the 10 years of Liu Kei's detention, Dong Jianhua Physical Control Company stopped construction projects, recovered the works through litigation or negotiations, disposed of vehicles, equipment and rented the plant. The company had recovered and spent money, and ultimately lacked a set of accounts that could be audited.

In the Valid Judgment of the Linyi Courts, Dong Jianhua was Liu Keqi's “ex-wife”; In the information on the business, it is the “shareholder” holding 45 per cent of the shares of the company.

Liu Ke only denied both identities.

01

Madam Boss has read the EMBA * * Chief of CEC* *

The Liu Keqi's series of proceedings began on 23 May

1. He said, however, that the conflict with Dong Jianhua had originated in 2003.

He claims that in 2003 Kim Jianhua was given a place at the Central Party School to study the EMBA curriculum. At that time, the company had just spent over $4.4 million on the acquisition of 1,4889 square metres of land use, preparing for the construction of standard plant and office buildings, and the construction of steel structures that it had to carry on was not complete. He sent Dong Jianhua, who had three children with him and was in good spirits, to study, thinking that he would later be responsible for the contract for the project, for organizing the construction, and for the internal management of the company.

Liu Kei said that Dong Jianhua had not gone to Beijing for a few days, but had been introduced to Wang Xingang, the chief of the Sinchong Chong Council of the City of Linyi, and had not returned to his home the night after.

Liu Kei is in Kim Jianhua. The plant was rented to others in the current year. Liu Tiger, take it.

Another Kim Jianhua employee claimed that since his trip to Beijing in 2003, Dong Jianhua had rarely appeared in the company, but had been driving a 300,000-dollar Pasat car, buying a cape with 40,000 different shawks, in pair with Wang Xin.

Liu Kei stated that the 2004 audit found a shortfall of $2.4 million in the company ' s accounts. Dong Jianhua admitted to lending 1.4 million to Wang Xingang and another 1 million to spend in eight months, claiming that he had been young and ignorant and that he had just found true love. Liu Kei asked Wang Xin to pay back and to break up with Dong Jianhua.

According to Liu Kei, Wang Xin just paid $350,000 later in 2005.

Dong Jianhua denied being a traitor. In her letter to Liu Keji, a lawyer, Wan Jiu, in May 2026, she wrote that in 2003 the company had been hit by a major crisis, “a complete collapse of the men's side to the crisis. I was introduced to Wang Xin Kong through a student who helped us with our lawyers with human resources, and took two years to recover the company's losses and to survive the crisis. This man was also the only excuse for the man to accuse me of cheating, in complete favor of revenge and inverted the verb. The blogger adds:

As to when the two persons separated, they were present in the proceedings.

The first instance criminal judgement cited the complainant's testimony in the case of Dong Jianhua: “In 2005, she and Liu had a conflict and returned home from his business”.

In nine divorce proceedings or court inquiries, Liu Kei insisted that Dong Jianhua was not together in

1. On the occasion of his first divorce suit in 2016, Dong Jianhua submitted Liu Xiaoyan ' s diary, the former company accountant, which recorded her relationship with Liu Keqi for almost two years in September 2004.

As regards the length of separation, Tung Jianhua has three versions in the proceedings, in 2002, 2005 and

1. In the first session of the shareholders ' recognition case, on 16 July 2026, Dong Jianhua explained that the company charter, which was designated as a ludicrous and undefended, had been separated once in 2005, but that it was only in 2006 that Liu Ke stayed together to save the marriage, so that in 2008 the couple had negotiated and signed it together.

Liu Kei considered that the importance of the point of separation was to confirm whether he and Santei Liu Ke Xian had a genuine intention to transfer 50 per cent of the shares of Kim Jianhua to Dong Jianhua's “breed” name on 27 December 2006.

According to the business records, the registered capital of the company was $11.16 million by 2004, with an equity structure of 86.16 per cent for Liu Ke and a corresponding contribution of $9,615,100; Liu Xian held 13.84 per cent of the shares, with a corresponding contribution of $154.49 million.

On 27 December 2006, three agreements on the transfer of shares and the corresponding resolutions of the Council of Shareholders, amendments to the articles of incorporation and others were issued. 36.16 per cent of Liu ' s 86.16 per cent shareholdings were transferred to Dong Jianhua, 5 per cent to Dong Wyndok and 8.84 per cent of Liu Xian ' s shareholdings were transferred to Dong Jianhua. In the change of interest, Liu Kei retained the position of the Chairman and legal representative of the company.

According to the Real Property Registry of the city of Penyi, in 2005 Kim Jianhua mortgaged 14889 square metres of land use and buildings on land to the Bank of Commerce and Industry at an assessed value of $10.67 million. According to the Agricultural Bank, in late 2006, there were 310 employees in Kim Jianhua, with a total of $5.79 million in assets, $1.86 million in liabilities and $39.92 million in net assets. This means that 50 per cent of the company's equity interest corresponds to a shareholder interest of $0.94 million.

The Bank of Agriculture's loan information recorded financial data for the period from 2007 to March 2010 for Kim Jianhua: total assets of $6.40 million, liabilities of 1951,000, and revenue of $1.03.8 million and profit of $8.21 million at the end of 2007; Total assets at the end of 2008 were $5.925 million, liabilities were $9.39 million, and the proceeds were $1,1123 million, with a profit of $8.87 million; Total assets at the end of 2009 were $6,495 million, liabilities $8.88 million, and a profit of $1,1293 million; In January 2010, the land assessment price was $6.610.7 million, with a projected profit of $130 million for 2010.

The conflict between Liu Keqiang and Dong Jianhua escalated significantly in

1. Dong Jianhua claims that Liu Kei's third person is pregnant and forced to leave the house; Liu Kee, for his part, claimed that the bank had not renewed its loan to Kim Jianhua because the loan guarantee of $1.4 million granted by Dong Jianhua to Wang Xing's associate company had not been paid as scheduled.

On 23 May 2012, Liu Kei filed a complaint with the Penyi City Business Administration for a change of interest registration for the purpose of valorizing the signature on the document for transfer of interest, and for the cancellation of the registration of the shares of Dong Jianhua and Dong Huai-il. The court of the prefecture of Penang, in first instance, dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was “over the five-year time limit for administrative action” established by law.

Liu Kei appealed. On 18 December 2012, during the second instance of the administrative proceedings, Liu Ke was convicted of false VAT-specific invoices. On 5 January 2013, the first instance decision was upheld by the Pypriton Court of Justice.

The man, Liu Ke, tried to take back his share and ended up in prison.

The court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry replied “It is not clear” how a copy of the unusual business licence, which had been written by Dong Jianhua as Chairman of the Board and legal representative, was entered into the file.

02

The boss's mother's three lives * e*: 1969, 1979, 1980*

Born in the town of Pangang Liang village, in the city of Higashi county, the identity card number is now used for the date of birth on 14 August 1969.

In all three divorce proceedings she admitted that she had used the name Dong Huayan and a set of identification numbers corresponding to the 14 March 1970 generation.

Another case of the fraudulent use of the family name of Dong Jiehua by Liu Keqi was investigated by the police station in Pyongyang in

1. The civil registry and marriage file show that Dong Jianhua ' s fifth sister, Dong Huaiyan, was born on 14 March 1970 and married to the villagers in 1993.

The owner of the Pansang Hotel in the village behind Liu's home town said to the police that Dong Jianhua was the first to be called Dong Huata.

The boss recalled that in November 1993, Dong Huatau had volunteered to visit the hotel to ask if she was in a good dress, claiming to be 15 years old and being tall. I'll make a bowl and clean the restaurant. She was 14 years old, she was from the small village of Guang Liang, a local town, eight sisters, the youngest, and six sisters, one brother.

"Lao Ke-chul was a dry electric welder and at dinner at my hotel he met Dong Hua-tae, the matchmaker of the wife of Wang Yu-tae, who was the wife of the two. Liu was detained by the Public Security Bureau in 1994 for taking a motorcycle, and in this case the two were found to be in good company. Dong Huai-ta was supposed to be a natural in 1979, when she was

1. The marriage was too difficult for the two people to get married when Dong Huata was too young to get a marriage certificate and had not heard of Liu Kee's wedding. The blogger adds:

Public security forensics materials on the status and age of Dong Jianhua. Interviewees

The PSB ' s original family survey of Dong Jianhua also failed to solve the mystery. Among the old household names of Uncle Tung Chinghuai, a “neo-female, Bae-Ben” was born on 27 January

1. Several villagers and village cadres told the police that Dong Jianhua was the “Zeni” of the Dong Jung-Cheng, Huang and Young-soo family, and that the Tung-Chengcheng couple had been born and had passed on to the third uncle without children.

In August 2024, Dong Huai-in, born in 1978, told the police that he had six sisters, five of whom were called Dong Huai-yan. Dong Jianhua's mouth is in his name and his family is not very close to him. Dong Jianhua's name was, he's forgotten. After his death, Dong Jianhua returned to her father ' s house for some reason, and he began to call her sister. (b) Is Dong Jianhua the daughter of Uncle San or the daughter of the father ' s Council? He does not know; He doesn't know how big Dong Jianhua is and who he is.

On the same day, Huang and Young, Dong Jianhua ' s mother, told the police that she had eight children. She said the youngest girl, "Maybe it's cuisine flower," "Cheanie is cuisine flower," but "What's her name now? Dong was given 8th, “What is the name of the 8th?” because Dong was pregnant and had no wife.

The investigation by the police in Pyongyang was not continued because Dong Jianhua warned her mother, who was in her 80s, that she had died and was responsible for the Public Security Bureau.

In 2026, the case against Liu Keqiang and Liu Xian brought a case against Kim Jianhua for the recognition of shareholders in the company, and a third age record was recorded for Dong Jianhua. According to the original business file of the company when it was established in 2001, the first generation of identification numbers, which were filled out under the name “Supervisory Dong Jianhua”, was dated 20 November 1980.

In 1969, 1979, 1980 the three birth years were 11 years different.

This gap is directly related to whether Dong Jianhua can become Liu Keqie's “ex-wife”

• the law provides that a marriage may be considered a de facto marriage if, prior to 1 February 1994, a marriage was held in accordance with custom and the marriage was entered into between 22 years of age for men and 20 years of age for women.

03

One fake Marriage Certificate and * Three divorce proceedings* *

Under the Civil Litigation Act, in cases involving status relations, the person concerned should appear in court, except in exceptional circumstances such as failure to express his or her intention. Thus, despite the fact that Liu Ke is serving his sentence, he participated in three separate court hearings, pre-court meetings and court inquiries in Tung Jianhua, in the Ranshan Court and Nai Yi Court, totalling nine.

From the first session of the Mount Lang Court in 2016 to the investigation by the Nai Yi Court of the second appeal in 2022, the core claim of Liu Keqiang has never changed: Dong Jianhua sued for divorce in order to acquire the property of Kim Jianhua and his own; She was not born in 1969, as indicated in her identity card, but in 1980; The Marriage Certificate is false and the two persons have never registered their marriage; They were not known and married in 1993, as Dong Jianhua had claimed, but had not started living together until the spring of 1994.

He repeatedly requested the court to verify the true identity and age of Dong Jianhua and to submit an age assessment of Dong Jianhua.

The two courts did not accept Liu Keqi ' s defence. After three indictments and one retrial, the lower court of lymphate issued a final judgement in March 2022, finding that the two parties constituted a de facto marriage and granting divorce.

But Dong Jianhua never volunteered to marry. She filed three divorce suits in September 2016, April 2019 and March 2020, based on the registration of both persons for marriage on 25 October 1995, for divorce and for the division of the joint property of the spouses.

A copy of the Marriage Certificate, dated 14 August 1969, which she submitted in 2016 when she first filed for divorce; The permanent population register, which also calls her Dong Huayan and Dong Huai-ta, contains a generation identification number corresponding to 14 March

1. The two post-Sigur village committees certified that the letter itself, the signs and the handwriting were almost identical, stating that “the marriage certificate was lost because of poor custody of the couple. There is a need to re-establish and seek to be processed, but the colour is the “Pilma County Civil Administration Office, Marriage Registry Office” and only the “Pilma County Civil Administration Office” in black and white.

She based her claim for 50 per cent shareholding on the appearance of “two nominal shareholders: Liu Keyang and Dong Huai-in” (the name Liu Ke Yang used to be), “the establishment of a board of directors to elect the director to supervise the board. The Chairman, the legal representative, the management decision-making taking the risk of debt repayment, profit-sharing, etc., are attached directly to the so-called statute of the company, “the organizational chart of the company”.

In his written representation, the lawyer for Dong Jianhua emphasized that while there were nominal shareholders in Kim Jianhua, the statute could attest to the fact that Dong Jianhua had 50 per cent of the shares.

In response to the company's statute, Liu's current lawyer, Wan Jian, considered “a false act to the extent of the ludicrousness” and insisted that the presiding judge, the President of the Silver Sparrow Hill Court, Menpo, could not have identified the false.

The first divorce proceedings, which were preceded by a single hearing, were followed by two sittings in the Chamber, and Dong Jianhua filed an application for withdrawal of the complaint in November 2016.

04

He is serving a sentence and the company is dissolved*

She filed a second suit for divorce, which was filed against Kim Jianhua as a shareholder with Dong Huai-in, against the company for dissolution and the success of the first trial and against the Liu brothers, who appealed to Shandong High Court for the second hearing.

In 2017, Dong Jianhua, as a 45 per cent shareholder in the business register, filed a complaint for the dissolution of the company with the Nai Nae House on the grounds that his long term of disagreement with Liu Keji and his imprisonment had prevented the company from holding a shareholder meeting for many years. Liu Keqiang and Liu Ke Xian explicitly argued that the 2006 change of ownership registration was obtained from Tung Jianhua, Dong Huai-in-Wi, and that Tung Jianhua took control of and disposed of the company ' s assets while Liu Xian was serving his sentence.

On 14 November 2018, the Linyi Central Court decided to dissolve Kim Jianhua on the grounds that “Lao Kei served a long term of imprisonment, each registered 45 per cent of the shares, that the conflict could not be resolved through shareholders and that serious difficulties had arisen in the management of the company”.

Liu Ke-Chai's brother appealed to Shandong High Court. On 21 June 2019, the final judgement of Shandong High Court was upheld.

According to Liu, in April 2026, after the Land Mountain Court had heard the confirmation of shareholders ' eligibility case, a woman judge had told him by telephone that in 2017 Tung Jianhua had initially filed a suit for dissolution of the company in the Lanshan Court, and that she had informed Tung Jianhua that she would either withdraw the complaint or be dismissed by a decision and that Tung Jianhua would choose to withdraw the complaint. Since then, Dong Jianhua has been charged and admitted to the court in the lower court. The call has yet to be verified with the original Court file and audio recording.

The second suit for divorce was filed by Dong Jianhua in April

1. She still submitted the 1995 Marriage Certificate, which no longer appeared in two village council certificates and the absurd company charter, but the registration card for permanent residents on the 1969 family register, which was submitted by the registrar, Yuan Yang, was not filled out on the date of registration, which was inconsistent with the third household register submitted by her in 2020.

In July 2019, the Land Mountain Court ruled that divorce was not permitted “for the stability of the marital family, the mitigation of disputes and the proper resolution of disputes”.

In March 2020, when Tung Jianhua filed for divorce for the third time, only a copy of the 1995 Marriage Certificate was submitted, and the articles of association and the letter of certification of the village council no longer appeared. At the pre-court meeting in August 2020, she had stopped placing copies of marriage certificates, and had continued to claim the fact of registration of marriage on the basis of the letter of proof of marriage and the birth certificate of a migrant population issued by the County Archives of Pygyu, and had indicated that separate proceedings would be taken to divide the joint property of the spouses.

At that time, Dong Jianhua had won the Civil Judgement against the company that dissolved the Shandong High Court.

In the proceedings, Liu Kei indicated that the dissolution of the company would be reversed by other means upon release from prison and suggested that Dong Jianhua had leased the company ' s premises to Shandong China Logistics Ltd. in 2012, which had been registered at the same address as Kim Jianhua, and that the plant repairs described by Dong Jianhua had cost more than 800,000 people a false fortune.

Liu Keqi, during the trial, strongly requested the authenticity of the Marriage Certificate, the identification of Dong Jianhua and his age, and the process of the seizure and appropriation of his property. Judge Ma Yong, who had previously ruled against divorce, found that the two persons had registered their marriage on 5 June 1994 (Tung Jianhua had always advocated registration of marriage on 25 October

1. and had decided to grant divorce by way of a separate division of property.

Liu Kei appealed against the never registered marriage, and in May 2021, the court of Lykuyukii, after a review and trial, remanded the case in doubt about the status of the two persons.

After remanding the case, Liu Benn was replaced by a judge to form a panel for the presiding judge. Tung Jianhua still insists on registering for marriage, except that copies of the marriage certificate are no longer available, but rather a letter of proof of the marriage relationship between Liu Keji and Dong Huaiyan, which was registered on 15 June 1994 with the post-Sighu Village Council seal and the Civil Affairs Department special stamp for marriage registration, together with two original birth certificates for the mobile population and Liu Ki-beam, the owner of the Pansang Hotel in the post-Sighu village, who claimed that they had given a handwritten testimony about the wedding in January 1994.

Liu Jie-hwa, who was unable to testify because of his age, was unable to attend the court hearing, said that he was an 80-90-year-old and could write a strong letter. In any event, the court relied on the evidence of Dong Jianhua.

In 2024, Liu Ji-bin ' s son, Liu Jie-bing, said that he had never married Liu-kook since he was Qingming in 1994 when he said he was 15 years old when he was working in a hotel. Moreover, with regard to the letter “Registration of marriage on 15 June 1994”, the post-Sigur village and the Civil Administration provided additional instructions “in response to the unilateral statement made by Dong Jianhua”.

Liu Ben and the judge, sitting as presiding judges, found that Dong Huayan and Dong Jianhua were the same person and cited article by article the difference in the statements made by Liu Kei in the divorce proceedings, arguing on the basis of his first divorce hearing in 2016 that “marriage is a de facto marriage and is not registered”, and finding that they had a de facto marriage and ruling on divorce, as recorded in the certificate of family planning for the mobile population, “94.1”.

However, in a two-year survey by the police of the city of Pyren Chaihua, the time when Dong Jianhua, verified by the Physiology Office, was included in the family planning management was 15 June 1994.

In his transcript of the trial, Liu Kage added that Dong Jianhua had deliberately appropriated property and requested an age check on Dong Jianhua.

Lu Ke's handwritten content. Interviewees

Liu only appealed and he was serving his sentence in court, crying and requesting verification of Dong Jianhua ' s age. The last court of the lower court, the lower court of the lower court, which had been ordered to remand the case, upheld the first instance judgement of the de facto marriage, despite the fact that the name and identity card number of Dong Huaiyan was used on the permanent population register when Dong Jianhua first filed a complaint in 2016.

Thus, with the final judgement of the Lykumiya court in 2022, Dong Jianhua became Liu's “ex-wife” in the legal sense of the term.

In 2024, Liu applied to Shandong High Court for a retrial, using the Pancheng Public Security Investigation Paper as new evidence. In January 2025, the Full Court, presided over by three senior judges, Lee Kim Myung, rejected the decision of the Civil Procedure Code that the dissolution of the marriage must not be re-examined.

In 2026, Liu Kei again filed a complaint with the Linyi Central Court, the Yi Yi City Public Prosecutor ' s Office and the Shandong Provincial Public Prosecutor ' s Office on the grounds that there was evidence that Dong Jianhua had not reached the legal age of marriage before 1 February 1994 and that there was no basis for a de facto marriage.

With the status of a “ex-wife” as a judicially recognized woman, Dong Jianhua initiated a further action for the division of property after divorce.

In June 2025, the Lan Sierra Court issued a trial order that Liu Kei would have been entitled to 50 per cent of the 50 per cent share of the partnership in 2004 for Dong Jianhua, equivalent to 1806,000 yuan. In December of the same year, the final trial of the Pyrenya Central Court was maintained.

In 2026, the case was executed. Liu Kei applied for a stay on the grounds that the case for the recognition of shareholders had been filed and that the original business file of 2001 documented that Dong Jianhua had been born in 1980 and submitted a judicial report that he considered to be of great importance: he had an investment unit of $70802 held by the Banyamung Bank prior to his detention and had been sold with his forged signature in April

1. After his release from prison, he sued the Bank of Farmers and Commerce, and during the Lan Sierra court proceedings, the identification body was entrusted with the identification of the signature of Liu Keqi, who had not written all the handwriting.

Implementation did not stop. In 2006, the presiding judge of the first trial, Menpo, who filed a false statute of action for the division of the joint property of spouses, was transferred to the post of Chief Executive Officer. In 2026, the Executive Board of the Lanshan Court, from the auction of the Kim Jianhua Land Plant, deducted from Liu Jianhua the sum of $1.14 million to the Lan Shan Court account of the 45 per cent “possible distribution” of the shares of Liu Ke.

05

per person charged with criminal cases: * Queen of the Boss****

(a) The criminal case file documented that Liu Ke was detained on 18 December 2012 on suspicion of false VAT-specific invoices; (b) On 25 January 2013, he was remanded on bail and re-arrested on the same day on suspicion of forgery of a seal; On 1 March of the same year, he was arrested on suspicion of false VAT-specific invoices. The forgery of the seal was not subsequently entered into the indictment of the Public Prosecutor ' s Office.

Liu Kei has so far considered his imprisonment to be a conspirator of Dong Jianhua and Wang Xingang for three reasons: first, the reason that he was re-arrested on the day of the bail was that he had a stamp which had been engraved without the permission of the Public Security Bureau, but the company had only one; The second is Wang Xingang ' s brother, then head of the section of the district prosecutor ' s office in He East; Thirdly, after he was released from prison in 2022, he was told that in August 2012, when Dong Jianhua and Wang Xin had just been at a barbecue with others, Dong Jianhua said that she would offer $1 million if Liu was sent in.

Liu Kei is suspicious above, without direct justification. But his criminal case was somewhat strange: the record of the criminal trial had named Dong Jianhua as the “prosecutor”, while Liu Kee had said from the beginning of his removal until the court that his aim was to deprive him of his liberty and take away the company.

The bench of the case has also changed in the middle of the trial. The September 2013 indictment only indicted Liu Kei, on charges of false VAT-specific invoices and tax evasion. After three hearings had already taken place, in July 2014, the Lanshan Court recommended that the Public Prosecutor ' s Office add Kim Jianhua as the respondent ' s unit; Two days later, the prosecution service added a criminal case against Kim Jianhua, which became a criminal unit, and Liu Kei, who was sentenced as the direct perpetrator.

The Statement of Information issued by the Sigu Village Council and the Pyumu County Archives stated that the material previously produced was fraudulently obtained by Dong Jianhua and was not consistent with the facts or could not be verified. Interviewees

The crime of tax evasion, which was prosecuted by the Public Prosecutor ' s Office, was not found, on the grounds that the tax authorities had not pursued and punished it. The first instance judgement listed the purchase and sale contracts, the bill of entry, the billing documents, the payment and processing of the sales materials, and found that the line of issuance was not in accordance with the rules. The two sets of charges involved a total of $3.813 million and $1.33.14 million respectively, respectively, and the deduction amounts were $5.523 million and $19.34 million, respectively. Liu Kei insisted that there was a real steel deal and the court did not accept it.

In November 2014, Liu Ke was sentenced to 12 years ' imprisonment by the Lansan Court; The second trial was not held at the lower court, and the sentence was commuted to 10 years. The sentence was from 18 December 2012 to 17 December 2022.

Liu Kei said he had performed well while serving his sentence and had been declared a sentence of two years in prison, but after seeing the announcement, Dong Jianhua stated that he would be in danger to society and would be in danger of his own safety. So the day was not reduced.

06

Hidden by * * * Accounting books

After Liu Kei was detained, Dong Jianhua took control of the company. According to the Company Revenues, which she subsequently handed to the liquidation team, the company ' s rental of the plant amounted to $6.1 million and its total revenue to $12,917.53 million between 2014 and

1. The other, the Company Claims, lists claims such as partial recovery of the works, but there is no financial basis for such claims.

Liu Keqi is well above that figure. Based on the circumstances of the project at the time of his removal and the company's case file that he had brought before the court after his release, he stated that the amount of work recovered by way of litigation, settlement or negotiation was over $24 million, not counting the more than 2,000 tons of steel and steel that the company had stored

• at a current price of $4,000 per ton
• and that at least Tung received another $8 million, plus 78 vehicles and a further $2 million.

The current adjudicatory documents in which Dong Jianhua filed the proceedings on behalf of the company were able to obtain a lump sum of $2.92 million.

In the 2020 divorce hearing, Liu Kei stated that the company ' s premises had been rented since 2013, and that the liquidation materials contained contract records for a further $1.5 million in

1. The home-made forms of Dong Jianhua are only charged as rents starting in
2. However, all of the company ' s revenues were only a few successful works that entered the company ' s accounts and were transferred by Dong Jianhua for up to three days.

She did not return the money or any financial documents in the compulsory liquidation of the company that entered at the request of Dong Jianhua's “brother”. She was used to prove that the company's assets were being used for legitimate expenses, and that it was a two-page “family expenses” table. The table does not list simple foods: BMW X1 purchases of $300,000, down payment for shops and housing, mortgages, supermarket investments, etc. The combined expenditure of the two pages was approximately $4.903 million.

More crucially, the books of accounts were not never there. The District Court of Economic Technology Development of Penn, in a judgment of 2017, recorded that “on 23 November 2016, the company's books were retrieved from the Inspectorate of the State Tax Office of the City of Penn. Where did Dong Jianhua take it back? She has not said so far.

In March 2023, the Lanshan Court ruled in favour of the compulsory liquidation of Kim Jianhua. The accounting firm of Lin Yuen-jin was appointed to form a liquidation group with four registered shareholders, headed by accountant Lin Tsukwen. The court required the company to hand over a statement of financial position, a list of claims and liabilities, financial reports and books of account.

The accountant didn't wait for the bill. In January 2024, the firm applied to withdraw on the grounds that it had failed to provide information on financial books, bank flow, etc., and that the liquidation was not proceeding properly. After the court's resignation, Shandong Shinshin Law Office was appointed to the liquidation team, and Zhang Xue-gang, a lawyer who was in charge of the bankruptcy business, was appointed as the head of the liquidation.

Liu was accompanied by a lawyer who repeatedly asked Zhang to check first, to pursue rent and work, and Zhang just ignored. Furthermore, Liu Keji requested the liquidation team to transfer to the Public Security Bureau, through the Lanshan Court, the materials of the criminal charges against Dong Jianhua, suspected of destroying, hiding the books of accounts, misappropriation of office, false prosecution, etc. Zhang Xiqiu has only telephoned Liu Keqiu Public Security organs to inform him that there is no criminal fact and not even the Decision to Not Open a Case.

Zhang Xue was able to push forward the auction of Kim Jianhua ' s assets, but did not even inform Liu Keqiu at the time of the evaluation. The assessment bodies commissioned by the liquidation team assessed the assets available at $9,126.4 million: $3,426,000 for land, $5,559.14 million for house construction, $127.86 million for machinery and equipment, and less than $14,000 for the remaining office supplies and trees.

The first auction was not registered and the subsequent auction continued to be disposed of at reduced prices, and the third was concluded in September 2025 at $9.46 million.

Twenty years ago, the mortgage value of land and buildings and structures was 1.6797 million yuan; Twenty years later, with the remaining equipment, $9.46 million was recorded.

07

Securities recognition First hearing *: she admitted that I signed Liu Keqi*

In spring 2026, Liu was only able to find Wanjo's lawyer to represent him. The reason for her search was that Wan was a mental control case in the penitentiary, which was considered a difficult bone to chew, and was a case of torture for which she was subjected to the highest examination.

After a combing of dozens of volumes, Wan Jie-hwa Tung and Dong Huai-in were found to be shareholders who had never been brought before the entity. Thus, in March 2026, Liu Keqiang and Liu Ke Xian filed a shareholder recognition suit.

At the same time, Liu had requested in writing a liquidation meeting to be held, with the equipment being brought in to replicate the liquidation information. Until now, Zhang Hak has not replied and has gone to the judge. The judge in charge of the compulsory liquidation proceedings, Yanami Tani, was permanently ill-equipped to remain absent from work.

On 30 April, after a copy of the Spoken of the Spoken Spoken, Dong Jianhua voluntarily added the micro-letter of the lawyer Wan Jiang.

On May 7, Dong Jianhua sent a long letter to Wan Zheng, which was written in 3,000 words, and which presented the tragic fate of a poor wife who had set up a small shop with Liu Qi, who had been turned into a billion yuan business and had been betrayed after his success and had finally taken care of the mess alone.

The paper again describes himself as the real shareholder of Kim Jianhua. She said that when the company was being prepared for incorporation in 2001, she was intended to be the legal representative, the major shareholder; However, “the restrictions of the business policy of the company law of the year, which prevented the couple from being shareholders in one company and required more than three shareholders to register”, led to the recruitment of four workers, plus Liu Ke only five registered shareholders.

She also stated that in 2005, the business policy of the company law was adjusted to allow for the formation of “mousand company (one company)”. She and Liu Kei had intended to restore the ownership to the real ownership of the couple, preventing her from retaining her brother ' s shareholder status and subsequently joining Dong Huai Inol as a shareholder, which eventually formed the four-share structure.

At the end of the text, she wrote: “All the above passages are true, and are the true process that I have been through for decades. Please read the whole story and understand the whole story, and do not take the man ' s one-sided rhetoric and lies lightly. I have spent my whole life working hard and I have faith in the justice of the law and in your profession and justice! The blogger adds:

(a) Wan Chong has not responded to the marriage complaint of Dong Jianhua-san, but has only stated that he is Liu Keqi ' s lawyer and that he does not discuss the case in private with the other party; She then made a direct correction to the “company law provisions” in the long text used by Dong Jianhua to explain the source of the equity:

“But only the section of your article on the restrictions of the business policy of the company law of the year, in which the couple cannot be shareholders in the same company and registration requires more than three shareholders, provides a basic reminder: there is no legal provision in our company law and in our business registration system that a couple cannot be registered as shareholders in the same company together; Nor did the requirement of three or more shareholders exist in the establishment of a limited liability company in

1. I graduated from Master of Corporate Law in 2004 and have a clear and stable professional judgement on the above-mentioned basic corporate law issues. Such expressions, which are manifestly incompatible with the provisions of company law and the practice of the business, will not affect my representational judgement based on the materials of the file, the original registration file, the decision in force and the provisions of the law. The blogger adds:

At the first session of the shareholders' recognition case, held on 16 July 2026, Dong Jianhua finally admitted that Liu Keqi, who had signed the 2006 equity document, had signed it, had signed it and had submitted it to the Bureau of Commerce and Industry by a well-known intermediary she had sought. She explained that Liu Kei had burned his face and was reluctant to see anyone, and that she was responsible for many of the company ' s formalities. Liu Ke is in court and asks: "I don't know how to write!" The blogger adds:

The Mount Penn Court of Penyi. Liu Tiger, take it.

But she insisted that Liu's signature was true. She added that the first one in the 2016 divorce case, which had the first page, “Two Nominal Shareholders”, was followed by the organizational chart of the organization, and that it was only in 2008 that Liu Kek had been able to re-establish the marriage, that the couple had negotiated and signed together, that the real share was 50 per cent each, and that the two brothers were only nominal shareholders. Liu only denied signing and applied for the original identification to be taken from the court.

08

Second hearing in the shareholders ' recognition case: dispute over public hearings* *

On 9 September, the second session of the shareholders ' recognition case was held. Three friends of Liu Keqi were there to see. The sole judge, Wang Xiao Zhen, President of the Lanshan Court, questioned them about their relationship to Liu Keqiang and then stated that they were not involved in the case and did not need to be present.

“In cases that are open to trial, any Chinese citizen over the age of 18 may be examined without having a legal interest in the case. The blogger adds:

Wang Xiaojin continues to persuade the listeners to leave. “The case in public shall not be restricted to the hearing”. Wang Xiao Zhen then asked whether Dong Jianhua agreed. She was ashamed of her immediate claim that the details of how Liu Kei slept with Xiao San were involved and that she could not have been heard in public. Her lawyer also immediately began writing the application in camera.

Huang Zhuan continued to raise his hand and stressed that “the case is a typical commercial suit, based on the principle of public hearing. And the evidence in the whole case is not about sexual conduct, it is not about the privacy, privacy of anyone! The blogger adds:

After bringing to court the lawyers of the law firm of Shinjianhua and Dong Jianhua, representing the accused Kim, he and Liu Xianxian stressed that today is the day of closed hearings. “Article 137 of the Civil vs. Law provides that cases that are not heard in public must be in accordance with the law and that the case does not involve State secrets, commercial secrets and personal privacy and should be heard in public. The blogger adds:

Wang Xiao-jin is angry: "I am in charge of not involving state secrets! “Judges, the secret of the Secret Service is required! The blogger adds:

The judge then softened his tone: “No law is spoken to me today in private. The blogger adds:

Manzhu asked, “Judge, what are we talking about when we don't speak the law in court? The blogger adds:

So Wang Xiao-jin said, "I'm going out to cool off and I'm going straight out of court." This is 10:05 a.m.

Subsequently, the three parties to the proceedings, plus the members of the court, and the clerks, did not wait for the judge to return. Until 12:03, President Zhang Myung-gu came to the Court and advised that the trial should not be held in public, without Liu's consent.

President Zhang therefore indicated that the Court had received an application for closed hearings in Tung Jianhua, which would take time to study the decision. The judge ' s dismissal without cause was maintained by the court as a clear trial incident. A separate session may be held, but the court is required to bear the costs of her airfares and hotel expenses and the loss of the two plaintiffs ' work.

That afternoon, Liu Kxian sat in the waiting area until more than three o'clock for the court hearing. Because he had not been able to say in time for the last hearing that he “has never signed the 2006 equity transfer agreement”.

Until the date of this document, no notice of a further hearing was received.

In addition, in the information that the San Sierra Court only called from the bank in August, there was a personal letter of inquiry from Dong Jianhua dated March 2010, which recorded her marriage status as “divorce” and was uploaded on 14 July 2009.

Liao Kee-Chi said he wanted to question Dong Jianhua in court

Liu Kei said he wanted to question Dong Jianhua in court.

"You divorced in

1. Why did you start in 2016 and sue me for divorce three times? I'm not going anywhere. The blogger adds:

In the village revitalization project supported by the Western County Secretary, the King's Cemetery is hidden in the Iron Boss's grave

The largest illegal mining case in the country triggered a wave of departures of the companies involved and the Chief Executive Officer of the State of Zhongzhou was named as the perpetrator

About the suite, Tom said so.

5 million high-altitude transport bribes continued: late evidence of innocence and 3,000 letters of indictment

The sales company owes Vanko 600 million dollars.