租机平台青云租陷兑付危机，600多人投资3亿多，“手机”和钱都被困在平台里

Core Points - The article discusses the issues surrounding the mobile rental platform Qingyun Rental, which has reportedly trapped investors' funds and failed to deliver promised returns [1][2][3] Group 1: Company Operations - Qingyun Rental, operated by Wuhan Qingqing Times Network Technology Co., Ltd., attracted over 600 investors, accumulating more than 300 million yuan in funds [2] - The company claimed to offer mobile phone rentals, promising an annualized return of 16.8% on investments, but it is suspected of using investor funds for high-interest lending instead of purchasing phones for rental [2][6] - The platform has been accused of creating a facade of high demand for rentals and substantial profits, misleading investors about the viability of their investments [2][6] Group 2: Investor Experience - Investors began experiencing withdrawal issues in late September, leading to protests outside the company's office on November 4, where they found the office empty [1][9] - Many investors were pressured to invest through aggressive sales tactics and were incentivized with bonuses for meeting investment targets, leading to significant personal financial strain [12][9] - Reports indicate that some employees were coerced into investing their own money or recruiting friends and family to invest, under the guise of achieving performance targets [12][9] Group 3: Allegations of Fraud - Investigations revealed that the company may not have actually purchased the phones it claimed to rent out, instead using fake logistics to create the illusion of operations [2][30] - The company allegedly operated as a lending platform disguised as a rental service, with interest rates reaching as high as 200% annually, far exceeding legal limits [33][35] - Complaints have surfaced regarding high-pressure tactics and potential illegal lending practices, prompting police investigations into the company's operations [36][37] Group 4: Corporate Structure and Claims - Qingyun Rental claimed to have a strong backing, including state-owned capital and a connection to a publicly listed company, which instilled confidence among investors [17][20] - However, investigations into the corporate structure revealed that the supposed state-owned connections were misleading, as the actual ownership had changed and did not provide the claimed security [24][25] - The company has been listed in operational anomaly records, indicating serious financial and operational issues [27][37]