再度公开举报！交大昂立“石锤”前高管退保细节，称将追责到底

Core Viewpoint - The company, Jiaoda Onlly, is involved in a legal dispute regarding allegations of former executives engaging in illegal insurance policy cancellations and misappropriation of funds, leading to criminal and civil actions against them [1][3]. Group 1: Allegations and Legal Actions - Jiaoda Onlly reported that it discovered former executives' illegal insurance policy cancellations, prompting multiple lawsuits and a criminal report to the police [1][2]. - The company filed a criminal report on June 24, which was accepted by the police, but later received a notice of non-filing on July 10 [1][3]. - The company plans to appeal the police's decision and continue to submit evidence against the former executives [6]. Group 2: Financial Irregularities - The company identified irregularities in insurance purchases dating back to 2018, totaling 12.84 million yuan, with missing policy contracts [2][3]. - Five former executives allegedly received a total of 16.94 million yuan from insurance policy cancellations without proper board or shareholder approval, constituting "dark box operations" [3][6]. - The former executives claimed that the insurance purchases and cancellations were part of their compensation, which the company disputes as lacking legal basis [3]. Group 3: Corporate Governance Changes - In August 2022, the company underwent a change in control, with Shanghai Yunjian Industrial Development Co., Ltd. becoming the controlling shareholder [4]. - Following the change, the new controlling party conducted a review of past financial statements, leading to allegations of financial misstatements and non-compliance [4][5]. - The current management denies any threat to control from the previous major shareholder, Dazhong Transportation [5]. Group 4: Shareholding Structure - The current major shareholders include Shanghai Yunjian Industrial and several other entities, with the actual controller holding a 30.062% stake, while Dazhong Transportation holds 19.89% [6]. - Legal opinions indicate that executive compensation must be approved by the board and shareholders, which was not adhered to in the case of the disputed insurance transactions [6].