Bei Ke Cai Jing·2025-07-28 07:53Core Points - The case of the missing 295 million yuan deposit has seen new developments, with Nanjing Koyuan Smart Technology Group Co., Ltd. receiving 231 million yuan from Shanghai Pudong Development Bank Nantong Branch [1][2][9] - The case, which has been ongoing for about four years, involves a significant amount of funds being pledged as collateral for a third-party company, Nantong Ruihao International Trade Co., Ltd., which failed to repay its debts [5][10] Summary by Sections Case Background - Between July 2020 and July 2021, Koyuan Smart's wholly-owned subsidiary, Nanjing Koyuan Smart Energy Investment Co., Ltd., deposited 345 million yuan in fixed-term deposits at the bank, with 295 million yuan being pledged as collateral for Nantong Ruihao's bank acceptance bills [1][5][6] - The issue came to light when Koyuan Smart was unable to redeem the 40 million yuan deposit that matured in November 2021, leading to inquiries that revealed the larger issue of the 295 million yuan being pledged without their knowledge [6][7] Legal Proceedings - The judicial authorities recognized the case as a criminal matter involving forgery and fraud, with the bank's risk management practices being called into question [8][12] - In July 2024, the court ruled in favor of Koyuan Smart, ordering the bank to pay the principal and overdue interest, but both parties appealed the decision [8][9] Recent Developments - On July 16, 2024, the bank filed a new lawsuit against Koyuan Smart, claiming damages due to alleged negligence in the handling of the deposit [10][11] - The bank's actions have sparked discussions about whether this constitutes a counterclaim or a new lawsuit, with legal experts clarifying that it is a separate legal action [14][16] Financial Implications - The bank's claim includes accusations of Koyuan Smart receiving kickbacks amounting to 40.67 million yuan, which could complicate the legal landscape and financial responsibilities [10][12] - The ongoing litigation raises questions about the bank's liability and the potential for shared responsibility due to the circumstances surrounding the deposit's pledge [12][13]