采购仅4000万竟预付10多亿，*ST金泰16亿资金被疑占用

Core Viewpoint - *ST Jintai is facing scrutiny over nearly 1.5 billion yuan in abnormal fund flows, with significant discrepancies between the funds paid to suppliers and actual procurement needs, raising concerns about potential non-operational fund occupation and mismanagement [1][3][10] Group 1: Abnormal Fund Flows - In 2024, *ST Jintai reported nearly 1.5 billion yuan in abnormal fund flows, including over 900 million yuan for "strategic inventory" and 460 million yuan in equity investment payments [3][4] - The company disclosed that the actual procurement amount was only about 29 million yuan, indicating a severe mismatch between funds transferred and actual purchases [3][4] - The strategic inventory funds were transferred to suppliers, who then moved the funds to non-supplier entities, suggesting potential misuse of funds [3][6] Group 2: Strategic Inventory Practices - The company initiated a "strategic inventory" strategy to mitigate raw material price risks, but the audit committee found that this practice no longer aligned with normal procurement principles [2][7] - The actual procurement conversion rate from strategic inventory was less than 4%, with significant costs incurred from fund occupation [3][6] - The strategic inventory suppliers, particularly Rui Nai and Yue Rui, accounted for over 85% of the payments in 2024, indicating a concentrated risk in supplier relationships [6][8] Group 3: Equity Investment Transactions - The company engaged in two equity transactions involving Yitai Ji, with a total of 460 million yuan in payments, raising questions about the true purpose and flow of these funds [4][10] - The audit committee suggested that the funds for these transactions were linked to the strategic inventory, indicating potential non-operational fund occupation [10][11] - Concerns were raised about the flow of funds from related parties, with allegations of a closed-loop system that could lead to asset misappropriation [11][12] Group 4: Governance and Internal Disputes - Three board members opposed the company's responses to regulatory inquiries, citing concerns over management's handling of funds and potential collusion with actual controllers [1][8] - The audit committee highlighted discrepancies in the company's disclosures regarding supplier relationships and fund flows, suggesting a lack of transparency [7][8] - The company claimed no controlling shareholder exists, despite evidence suggesting that key suppliers are linked to the same controlling entity [8][12]