顾竹筠 Lawyer

Gu Zhu Jun

Attorney Gu’s practice focuses on litigation for financial institutions and civil and commercial litigation cases. She primarily handles banking and financial litigation, covering the entire process including due diligence, litigation, enforcement, notarization of debt instruments, and enforcement objections. With a strong focus on enforcement practices, she provides legal services such as loan recovery and asset disposal to multiple state-owned banks. She has an in-depth understanding of enforcement regulations and procedural techniques, enabling her to quickly break through enforcement deadlocks and successfully resolve numerous complex cases, ensuring the full protection of creditor rights. She has also led or participated in several cases where financial institutions were defendants, such as savings contract disputes and property damage compensation disputes.

Has long provided legal services for litigation, notarization, and enforcement in financial loan cases to multiple state-owned banks, such as Shanghai Pudong Development Bank, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, China Construction Bank, China Minsheng Bank, Huaxia Bank, China CITIC Bank, Bank of Hangzhou, among others.

Represented a bank in a financial loan contract dispute lawsuit against Xu XX and others, with the amount involved exceeding 8 million RMB. Following litigation, the entire loan principal, interest, and fees were repaid through third-party funding. After extensive communication and coordination, the bank ultimately achieved full recovery of the funds within six months.

Represented a bank in two financial loan contract dispute lawsuits against Cao XX and others. The mortgaged property was registered under a corporate name, involving complex transfer and tax audit procedures. From auction completion to property transfer and final fund disbursement, the entire process was completed in a record time of 35 days, meeting the client's recovery timeline and achieving the recovery target.

Represented multiple cases where the mortgaged property had already been seized as part of a criminal investigation. Through communication with public security authorities, successfully transferred the first-right to disposal to the court in the bank's jurisdiction for handling. For example, in representing a bank in lawsuits against Gao XX and Qiu XX, extensive coordination and persuasion of both public security organs and courts regarding disposal rights were carried out during the representation process. Ultimately, both cases achieved highly effective enforcement outcomes.

In representing a bank in a lawsuit against Li XX, six mortgaged properties required auction. The mortgaged assets faced multiple challenges, including several lease agreements, unauthorized occupancy, discrepancies between the actual property and the certificate area, and structural alterations, all of which created significant obstacles to enforcement. Through meticulous investigation of the properties' conditions, key突破口 were identified during enforcement. Ultimately, a third party proposed settling the mortgage debt through installment payments, leading to a settlement agreement among all parties and achieving significant progress in the case.

Represented a bank in a financial loan contract dispute lawsuit against a company. During the litigation, the sub-debtor of the accounts receivable was listed as a co-defendant, demanding that the sub-debtor directly fulfill the payment obligation to the pledgee. The case involved numerous lease contracts and supplementary agreements, resulting in complex leasing relationships. During the litigation, the organized leasing situation was submitted to the court, and active communication with the court was maintained. Ultimately, the case achieved the litigation outcome desired by the client.

Represented a bank as the defendant in a wealth management contract dispute case. The plaintiff claimed that the risk assessment conducted before purchasing the product did not reflect their true intent and demanded that the bank bear responsibility. By demonstrating the plaintiff's past investment experience and operational habits, it was argued that the bank did not engage in inducement or misrepresentation during the risk assessment process. Ultimately, the court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims.