Tianyu Group(SZ:002354) 经济观察报·2026-01-08 03:24Core Viewpoint - The case of Guo Bochun, former chairman of Yaqi International, involves serious allegations of embezzlement and abuse of power during his tenure as deputy mayor of Yinchuan, with significant implications for corporate governance and regulatory oversight in state-owned enterprises [2][5][21]. Summary by Sections Case Background - Guo Bochun was returned to China from abroad on March 24, 2024, and was first detained by the Ningxia Supervisory Commission. He briefly resumed his role as chairman of Yaqi International on September 24, 2024, before being detained again on January 17, 2025, leading to his prosecution [1][3]. Allegations and Charges - The Yinchuan People's Procuratorate charged Guo with embezzling 546 million yuan (approximately 84 million USD) and abusing his power. The embezzlement involved directing two state-owned enterprises to misappropriate funds for personal stock trading [5][6]. - The abuse of power charge relates to Guo's alleged interference in a competitive acquisition process, where he instructed the Yinchuan Public Security Bureau to take legal actions against competitors, resulting in significant losses for those companies [5][6]. Evidence and Testimonies - Testimonies from various parties, including Guo's associates and involved companies, were presented in court. Guo's defense argued that the funds were not lost but rather appreciated in value, and he claimed he had no authority over police matters [10][12]. - Key evidence included testimonies from Guo Junwei, who claimed that Guo facilitated a 500 million yuan loan for stock trading, and from other associates who corroborated the arrangement and its intended use [11][16][18]. Legal Proceedings - The trial is ongoing, with the court examining the legitimacy of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and defense. The prosecution's case relies heavily on testimonies that suggest Guo's direct involvement in the loan arrangements and the subsequent misuse of public funds [9][21]. - The defense contends that the transactions were legitimate business operations benefiting state-owned enterprises, arguing that the funds were used in accordance with corporate interests rather than for personal gain [19][20].