"Unexpectedly, the prosecutor opened the lid of the false lawsuit of 310000 yuan and finally gave me justice..." After the case was completed, I received a call from Mr. Li. I could feel his surprise across the phone line. Let's start with a sale contract dispute six years ago. In January 2022, our court received a case clue handed over by the Qingdao Municipal Procuratorate: in April 2015, Zhang and Li signed a second-hand car sales agreement, and Li transferred a car registered in his own name to Zhang, and the agreed transaction price was 310000 yuan, which was paid in cash in a lump sum. After that, Mr. Li failed to transfer the vehicle to Mr. Zhang according to the agreement, and Mr. Zhang filed a lawsuit to the court, demanding the cancellation of the sales agreement with Mr. Li and the return of the paid car purchase price by Mr. Li. After searching related cases, we found that Zhang was arrested for violent debt collection against Li. During the investigation process of the public security organ, we found that there were many private loans between Zhang and Li's father, and that the second-hand car sales agreement between Zhang and Li was actually in the nature of mortgage guarantee. From the investigation of relevant criminal cases, we have a series of questions about the loan dispute between Zhang and Li. In the first trial, Zhang stated that the vehicle involved in the case was used to offset the 275000 yuan debt that Li and Li borrowed from him. When signing the second-hand car sales agreement, Mr. Li was under 15 years old. How could he own a car worth more than 300000 yuan? What's the use of her borrowing 275000 yuan? Why did you sell a new car for only one year to Zhang at the price of 310000 yuan? Why did Mr. Zhang not change his name and transfer the ownership at the same time after signing the sales agreement, nor did he ask Mr. Li's guardian to sign or approve? In addition, how did Li and Zhang know each other? Why did Zhang lend so much money to a minor? At the same time, we found that in the trial, Zhang also mentioned that the actual price of the car was 275000 yuan. If another 35000 yuan was paid directly to Li and Li, why didn't he submit any evidence to prove it? This is not in line with common sense. From the experience of handling false litigation supervision cases in the past, we are keenly aware that there may be "arbitrage loan" false litigation in this case. Li may borrow 275000 yuan from Zhang, and 35000 yuan should be usury interest, while the second-hand car sales agreement should be a false contract, the actual purpose is to cover up the usury lending behavior. After preliminary examination, we believe that the key to handling the case is to find out the true legal relationship between the parties and their litigation intentions. For this reason, we read the civil files of the first instance of the case at the first time, and found that the plaintiff Zhang filed a lawsuit to the court, demanding the cancellation of the second-hand car sales agreement with Li, and Li, the guardian of Li, returned the purchase price of 310000 yuan. The court heard the case according to the sales contract dispute and made a judgment in support of the plaintiff's claim. Subsequently, we retrieved the criminal case files related to the plaintiff, and learned that Zhang was suspected of using abnormal means such as setting up contract traps, signing false sales agreements, and taking "beheading interest" to obtain high interest