YKA(SZ:300999) Guan Cha Zhe Wang·2025-11-24 11:38Core Viewpoint - The company claims that the judgment against its subsidiary, Guangzhou Yihai, for being an accomplice in contract fraud lacks legal and factual basis, asserting that it was merely a storage intermediary and not involved in the fraudulent activities [1][5]. Group 1: Background of the Case - The dispute originated from a palm oil import agency business between Yunnan Huijia and Anhui Huawen, where Anhui Huawen acted as the agent and Yunnan Huijia as the principal [2]. - Guangzhou Yihai was involved as a storage intermediary from 2008 to 2014, responsible for storing palm oil imported by Anhui Huawen on behalf of Yunnan Huijia [2]. - The case escalated due to allegations of bribery and fraudulent activities involving Yunnan Huijia's actual controller, Zhang Lihua, who allegedly manipulated the transaction terms and engaged in corrupt practices [3][4]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings and Company Response - Guangzhou Yihai was found guilty as an accomplice in contract fraud, resulting in a fine of 1 million RMB and a joint compensation responsibility for 1.881 billion RMB in economic losses to Anhui Huawen [1][5]. - The company has filed an appeal against the judgment, asserting that it did not participate in or have knowledge of the fraudulent activities, and that the judgment was based on erroneous facts and legal interpretations [5][6]. - The company emphasizes that it fulfilled its contractual obligations and maintained proper communication regarding inventory and transactions with Anhui Huawen [6][7]. Group 3: Financial Implications and Market Position - The prosecution claims that Anhui Huawen suffered direct economic losses of 3.23 billion RMB and indirect losses of 2.015 billion RMB due to the fraudulent activities, with Guangzhou Yihai being implicated for 1.881 billion RMB of the direct losses [4]. - The company argues that its purchase prices for palm oil were within reasonable market ranges and did not yield any improper benefits from the alleged fraudulent activities [7]. - The company has raised concerns about the impartiality and legality of the audit report used in the judgment, claiming it was biased and lacked professional integrity [8].