金龙鱼中转库业务埋大雷？卷入融资性贸易疑问重重

Core Viewpoint - Company Jinlongyu is embroiled in a 5 billion contract fraud case, raising several questions regarding its intermediary storage business and its awareness of the fraudulent nature of related trades and financing [1] Group 1: Financial Performance - In the first three quarters of the year, Jinlongyu achieved a revenue of 184.27 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 5.02%, and a net profit attributable to shareholders of 2.749 billion yuan, a significant year-on-year increase of 92.06% [3] - In the third quarter alone, the company reported a revenue of 68.588 billion yuan, up 3.96% year-on-year, and a net profit of 999 million yuan, which surged by 196.96% year-on-year [3] Group 2: Legal Issues - The legal troubles began when the subsidiary Yihai (Guangzhou) Grain and Oil Industry Co., Ltd. received a lawsuit related to its role as an intermediary storage provider between Anhui Huawen International Trade Co., Ltd. and Yunnan Huijia Import and Export Co., Ltd. from 2008 to 2014 [4][5] - The court ruled that Yihai was guilty of contract fraud and must pay 1.881 billion yuan in compensation, along with a fine of 1 million yuan [6][7] - The compensation amount represents over 68% of the company's net profit for the first three quarters, indicating a significant potential impact on its financial health [7] Group 3: Business Risks - The intermediary storage business has previously faced legal disputes, suggesting a pattern of operational risks that may not have been adequately assessed [8][11] - The company has been involved in multiple lawsuits related to its storage operations, raising concerns about the quality of internal controls and risk management [11][12] - The intermediary business generated only 1.631 billion yuan in other income in 2023, which is minimal compared to the company's total revenue exceeding 200 billion yuan, yet the potential liabilities from lawsuits could consume a large portion of its profits [12] Group 4: Financing Trade Concerns - There are allegations that the company may have been complicit in financing trade practices, which involve disguising loans as trade transactions [13][14] - The court's findings suggest that employees of Yihai facilitated fraudulent activities, raising questions about the company's awareness and involvement in these financing schemes [14][15] - Jinlongyu has defended itself by claiming it acted within reasonable diligence and was unaware of any fraudulent activities, asserting that its internal controls were strictly followed [15]