（原标题：金龙鱼"悲壮"上诉：从未参与诈骗 ， "我们是被蒙蔽的"） 21世纪经济报道记者 杨坪 在公告子公司被判合同诈骗罪后，金龙鱼首次公开做出回应。 11月21日下午，千亿市值粮油巨头金龙鱼（300999.SZ）召开投资者交流会，含董事兼总裁穆彦魁、副 总裁邵斌，及涉事子公司益海（广州）粮油工业有限公司（简称"广州益海"）董事长兼总经理房彦江在 内的6名董监高出席了这次会议。 2008年至2014年，广州益海作为中转仓储方，负责储存安徽华文代理云南惠嘉进口的棕榈油。 会上，穆彦魁多次强调，安徽华文国际经贸股份有限公司（以下简称"安徽华文"）的损失是其与云南惠 嘉进出口有限公司（以下简称"云南惠嘉"）内外勾结造成的，广州益海才是被蒙蔽的一方，广州益海并 未参与任何"诈骗行为"。 此前，金龙鱼曾公告，子公司广州益海涉嫌帮助云南惠嘉实施合同诈骗，被安徽华文起诉。近日，淮北 市中级人民法院作出的一审《刑事判决书》结果显示，广州益海构成合同诈骗罪，系从犯，须对安徽华 文的经济损失人民币18.81亿元与云南惠嘉承担共同退赔责任。（详情请进 21 世纪经济报道文章《子公 司被判合同诈骗罪 金龙鱼发表声明：已上诉》） 这 ...

在公告子公司被判合同诈骗罪后，金龙鱼首次公开做出回应。 11月21日下午，千亿市值粮油巨头金龙鱼（300999.SZ）召开投资者交流会，含董事兼总裁穆彦魁、副 总裁邵斌，及涉事子公司益海（广州）粮油工业有限公司（简称"广州益海"）董事长兼总经理房彦江在 内的6名董监高出席了这次会议。 会上，穆彦魁多次强调，安徽华文国际经贸股份有限公司（以下简称"安徽华文"）的损失是其与云南惠 嘉进出口有限公司（以下简称"云南惠嘉"）内外勾结造成的，广州益海才是被蒙蔽的一方，广州益海并 未参与任何"诈骗行为"。 此前，金龙鱼曾公告，子公司广州益海涉嫌帮助云南惠嘉实施合同诈骗，被安徽华文起诉。近日，淮北 市中级人民法院作出的一审《刑事判决书》结果显示，广州益海构成合同诈骗罪，系从犯，须对安徽华 文的经济损失人民币18.81亿元与云南惠嘉承担共同退赔责任。（详情请进 21 世纪经济报道文章《子公 司被判合同诈骗罪金龙鱼发表声明：已上诉》） 这一结果披露后，11月20日-21日，金龙鱼股价连续两日下跌。 房彦江表示，目前案件尚处于一审上诉期，二审的时间尚无法确定；公司不认可一审的判决，如二审败 诉，广州益海会坚决依法申请再审。 总裁 ...

Core Viewpoint - The company Jinlongyu (金龙鱼) claims innocence in a major fraud case involving 5 billion yuan related to palm oil transactions, following a first-instance court ruling that found its subsidiary guilty of contract fraud [1][4]. Group 1: Background of the Case - The fraud case involves a commercial collaboration between Guangzhou Yihai (广州益海), Anhui Huawen (安徽华文), and Yunnan Huijia (云南惠嘉) from 2008 to 2014, where Guangzhou Yihai acted as a storage intermediary for palm oil [2]. - The transactions between Anhui Huawen and Yunnan Huijia were characterized as financing trade, which is common in bulk commodities but carries risks of loss of rights and funding chain disruptions [2][3]. - Yunnan Huijia's representative, Zhang Lihua, allegedly bribed executives at Anhui Huawen to change the agreed payment terms from "payment before delivery" to "delivery before payment" [2][3]. Group 2: Details of the Fraud - From March 2012 to December 2014, Zhang Lihua used bribery and forged documents to misappropriate palm oil, leading to direct economic losses of 3.23 billion yuan and indirect losses of 2.015 billion yuan for Anhui Huawen [3]. - The court found Guangzhou Yihai complicit in the fraud, imposing a fine of 1 million yuan and ordering it to jointly repay 1.881 billion yuan alongside Yunnan Huijia [4]. Group 3: Company’s Defense - Guangzhou Yihai and its parent company Jinlongyu have appealed the court's decision, asserting that they acted in accordance with the storage agreement and conducted due diligence [5][6]. - The company claims that it did not participate in any fraudulent activities and that the losses should not be attributed to them, as they followed proper procedures in verifying inventory and transactions [5][6]. Group 4: Market Implications - The case has drawn significant attention due to the scale of the alleged fraud, with the total amount involved reaching 5 billion yuan, raising concerns about the integrity of trade practices in the palm oil sector [1][8]. - The financial health of Yunnan Huijia is in question, as it reportedly has numerous enforcement actions against it, indicating a lack of ability to repay the alleged debts [8].

Core Viewpoint - The company Jinlongyu claims that Anhui Huawen is attempting to illegally transfer its massive losses after being defrauded in a significant palm oil scam involving 5 billion yuan [1][2]. Group 1: Background of the Case - From 2008 to 2014, Guangzhou Yihai acted as a storage intermediary for Anhui Huawen and Yunnan Huijia, responsible for storing palm oil imported by Anhui Huawen [2]. - The transaction between Anhui Huawen and Yunnan Huijia was essentially a financing trade, which is common in bulk commodities but carries risks such as loss of control over goods and funding chain disruptions [2][3]. - Yunnan Huijia's representative bribed Anhui Huawen's executives to change the agreed payment terms from "payment before delivery" to "delivery before payment" [2][3]. Group 2: Details of the Fraud - Yunnan Huijia's representative exceeded the agreed limits to obtain goods and used forged documents to conceal the fact that the palm oil stored at Guangzhou Yihai had already been sold [3]. - Between March 2012 and December 2014, Yunnan Huijia's representative bribed Anhui Huawen's employees to facilitate the acquisition of goods through fraudulent means [3]. - The direct economic loss to Anhui Huawen was reported at 3.23 billion yuan, with indirect losses amounting to 2.015 billion yuan [3]. Group 3: Legal Proceedings and Company Response - The court found Guangzhou Yihai guilty of contract fraud and imposed a fine of 1 million yuan, along with a compensation responsibility of 1.881 billion yuan [4][5]. - Guangzhou Yihai and its parent company, Yihai Kerry, have appealed the ruling, asserting that they did not participate in any fraudulent activities and that Anhui Huawen is attempting to shift its losses onto them [5][6]. - The chairman of Guangzhou Yihai stated that they followed due diligence as per the storage agreement and had no knowledge of any fraudulent actions [6]. Group 4: Market Implications and Observations - The case has drawn attention to the unusual storage claims made by Anhui Huawen, which allegedly stored over 1 million tons of palm oil for over a decade, raising questions about the feasibility and legality of such practices [7]. - Legal experts suggest that the current judgment may favor the victims, as Yunnan Huijia appears to lack the ability to repay the defrauded amounts [8].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing legal dispute between Lan Shili and Yihai Kerry over defamation claims related to the transportation of cooking oil has escalated, with Lan initially apologizing but later announcing intentions to sue Yihai Kerry and seek a retrial [1][2][8]. Group 1: Apology and Legal Proceedings - Lan Shili publicly apologized to Yihai Kerry for his previous statements that were deemed defamatory, acknowledging that his claims were false and violated the company's reputation [2][6]. - The court ruled in favor of Yihai Kerry, ordering Lan to pay 10,000 yuan in damages and 20,000 yuan in legal fees, which Lan contested in a subsequent appeal [6][12]. - Following the court's decision, Lan expressed dissatisfaction and announced plans to appeal to a higher court while also intending to file a lawsuit against Yihai Kerry for alleged illegal actions [8][12]. Group 2: Financial Transactions and Disputes - Lan claimed that he mistakenly paid 100,000 yuan instead of the ordered 10,000 yuan in damages due to a financial input error, leading to complications with Yihai Kerry's enforcement actions [8][10]. - Yihai Kerry reportedly applied for enforcement of the court's ruling, which resulted in the freezing of Lan's bank account, causing him significant distress during a business trip abroad [8][12]. - Legal experts indicated that if the amount paid exceeds the court's ruling, it should be returned to Lan, raising questions about the enforcement actions taken by Yihai Kerry [13].

Core Viewpoint - The former richest man in Hubei, Lan Shili, publicly apologized for making false statements about Jinlongyu, which harmed the reputation of Yihai Kerry Food Marketing Company [1][3] Group 1: Apology and Legal Proceedings - Lan Shili issued an apology on July 11, 2024, acknowledging that his statements about Jinlongyu, including claims of a 650 billion drop in value and improper oil transport practices, were untrue [1] - The court ruled that Lan's statements constituted defamation, leading to a compensation order of 10,000 yuan and legal fees to Yihai Kerry [3] Group 2: Company Background - Yihai Kerry Food Marketing Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Yihai Kerry Jinlongyu Food Group Co., Ltd., established in 2009 with a registered capital of 68 million yuan [3] - The company has a strict regulatory framework for the transportation of bulk edible oil, as emphasized in their official statement following media scrutiny [3] Group 3: Lan Shili's Background - Lan Shili, born in 1966, founded Dongxing Airlines and was recognized as the richest man in Hubei in 2006 with a net worth of 2.4 billion yuan [5] - His business ventures have faced significant challenges, including the bankruptcy of Dongxing Airlines in 2009 and a prison sentence for tax evasion in 2010 [5] - Currently, most of the companies associated with Lan have been dissolved or revoked, with only one, Wuhan Dongxing International Travel Agency, still in operation [5]

Core Viewpoint - The former richest man in Hubei, Lan Shili, publicly apologized to Yihai Kerry for making false statements about the company, acknowledging that his comments were defamatory and not based on facts [1] Summary by Relevant Categories Company Reputation - Lan Shili admitted that his statements made on July 11, 2024, regarding Yihai Kerry, including claims that "Golden Dragon Fish lost 650 billion in two days" and "the oil truck was not cleaned after use," were untrue and harmed the company's reputation [1] Legal Proceedings - A civil judgment (2024) Hu 0115 Min Chu 96638 confirmed that Lan Shili's statements were factually incorrect, leading to his formal apology to Yihai Kerry [1] Commitment to Truthfulness - Lan Shili pledged not to make any further false statements in the future and expressed his intention to adhere to legal standards while welcoming public scrutiny and criticism [1]

Group 1 - Lan Shili, the former richest man in Hubei, issued an apology to Yihai Kerry for making false statements about Jinlongyu, acknowledging that his comments constituted defamation [1] - The court found that Lan's statements, including claims that "Jinlongyu lost 650 billion in two days" and "should be delisted," were untrue, leading to a civil judgment against him [1][3] - Lan was ordered to pay Yihai Kerry 10,000 yuan in damages and legal fees, and to publish a statement of apology on relevant online platforms [3] Group 2 - Yihai Kerry Food Marketing Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Yihai Kerry Jinlongyu Food Group, was established in 2009 with a registered capital of 68 million yuan [3] - The company emphasized strict regulations on the transportation of bulk edible oil following media reports of improper practices, asserting that all transport vehicles undergo rigorous checks [5] - Lan Shili, who founded Dongxing Airlines and was once listed as the richest man in Hubei, has faced significant business setbacks, including the bankruptcy of his airline and multiple company dissolutions [5]

Core Viewpoint - The legal dispute between former Hubei billionaire Lan Shili and the grain and oil giant Jinlongyu, backed by Yihai Kerry, stems from allegations regarding the unsafe transportation of edible oil using uncleaned oil tankers, leading to significant reputational damage and financial implications for the companies involved [1][4][10]. Group 1: Incident Background - The controversy began with the "oil tanker mixed transport chaos" incident, where it was reported that an oil tanker transported coal-derived oil and then directly loaded edible oil without cleaning, raising public safety concerns [4][5]. - A specific tanker, identified as冀E5476W, was tracked to have loaded edible oil at a facility linked to Jinlongyu after transporting coal-derived oil [4][6]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - Yihai Kerry filed a lawsuit against Lan Shili for defamation, claiming his statements about the company's products being "toxic" and the alleged stock price drop were baseless and damaging to their brand reputation [8][10]. - The Shanghai court ruled in favor of Yihai Kerry, ordering Lan Shili to apologize publicly and pay damages, which he contested in a subsequent appeal that was also rejected [10][15]. Group 3: Regulatory Implications - The incident prompted the State Council's Food Safety Office to take the matter seriously, leading to a joint investigation into the transportation of edible oil and subsequent regulatory reforms [5][11]. - Proposed amendments to the Food Safety Law include stricter licensing requirements for the transportation of liquid food products, with penalties for violations [11]. Group 4: Ongoing Disputes - Following the court's ruling, Lan Shili claimed that Yihai Kerry continued to pursue legal action despite the settlement, leading to the freezing of his bank accounts and further complicating the legal situation [14][15]. - Lan Shili has since sought a retrial and is pursuing additional claims against Yihai Kerry for alleged improper conduct during the enforcement of the court's decision [15].

Core Viewpoint - The legal dispute between former Hubei billionaire Lan Shili and Yihai Kerry, the parent company of the grain and oil giant Jinlongyu, has escalated from a public controversy regarding food safety to a complex legal battle involving defamation and unjust enrichment claims [2][6][16]. Group 1: Incident Background - The controversy began in July 2024 when media reported on the "oil tanker mixed loading chaos," raising public concerns about the safety of edible oil transportation [7][8]. - Lan Shili released a video accusing Jinlongyu of using uncleaned oil tankers for transporting edible oil, claiming that the company's market value dropped by 650 billion [2][8]. - The video gained significant traction, amassing 46,000 likes and over 20,000 shares on Douyin by July 30, 2024 [8]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - Yihai Kerry filed a lawsuit against Lan Shili for defamation, claiming his statements were false and damaging to their brand reputation [11][12]. - The Shanghai court ruled in favor of Yihai Kerry, ordering Lan Shili to apologize publicly and pay a total of 30,000 yuan in damages [13]. - Lan Shili appealed the decision, arguing that he was exercising his right to express concerns about a public issue, but the appeal was rejected [14]. Group 3: Escalation of Dispute - Following the court's decision, a new issue arose when Lan Shili mistakenly transferred 100,000 yuan instead of the ordered 10,000 yuan to Yihai Kerry [15]. - Lan Shili claimed that Yihai Kerry did not inform the court about receiving the payment and instead sought to freeze his bank account, leading to further legal action from his side [15][16]. - The dispute has now expanded to include claims of unjust enrichment, complicating the legal battle between the two parties [16].