Core Viewpoint - The company, Tefa Information, has received a first-instance criminal judgment regarding a contract fraud and embezzlement case related to its acquisition of Shenzhen Tefa Dongzhi Technology Co., Ltd, highlighting its commitment to protecting shareholder interests and legal rights [1][2]. Group 1: Case Background - On July 18, 2022, Tefa Information received a notice from the Shenzhen Public Security Bureau regarding the case, and subsequently cooperated with the investigation, which was transferred to the Shenzhen People's Procuratorate in 2023 [1]. - The defendants, including Chen Chuanrong, Yi Zongxiang, Liu Ying, and Wang Ling, were found guilty of contract fraud and embezzlement through financial deception during the agreement process [1]. Group 2: Judgment Details - The first-instance judgment mandates the recovery of the defendants' criminal proceeds, including approximately 145 million yuan in unsold Tefa Information stocks and cash after deductions, along with embezzled amounts totaling approximately 2.7642 million yuan from Chen Chuanrong and Liu Bing, 24.5506 million yuan from Yi Zongxiang, and 4.1842 million yuan from Liu Ying [2]. - Wang Ling has returned approximately 1.6545 million yuan, which will also be returned to Tefa Information [2]. Group 3: Company Response and Governance - Tefa Information, as the victim, has prioritized shareholder interests and actively pursued legal avenues to safeguard its rights, reflecting a strong sense of corporate governance responsibility [2]. - The criminal judgment represents a significant step in the company's efforts to protect its legal rights, although the final judgment and subsequent execution remain uncertain [2].

法官认为：尽管商家没有直接欺骗消费者，但欺骗了平台，商家与平台签订服务合同，利用合同规则虚 构交易骗取补贴，损害的不仅是平台财产权，更是整个电商行业的诚信基石。有人可能问，平台补贴规 则有漏洞，活该被"薅羊毛"，但法官认为，规则漏洞不是违法犯罪的借口，发现漏洞应通过正当渠道反 馈，而不是趁机大肆非法牟利。法律保护的是诚信经营，绝不会为"投机取巧"买单。此案中，"刷手"明 知是虚假交易仍积极参与，构成共同犯罪。即便刷单行为未达到刑事立案标准，仍可能面临行政处罚。 2022年1月，南京某信息科技公司的朱总在钻研平台规则时，发现通过虚构交易、虚假发货，就能源源 不断地"套"出平台的补贴款。这套刷单骗补的运作逻辑并不复杂："刷手"冒充顾客疯狂下单，店铺点 击"虚假发货"，平台一看，"好卖家，发补贴！"接着，钱到账后店铺发出低成本物件假冒真实货物以逃 避监管。他们自认为设计了一套"完美"的商业模型：没有真实商品，只需要动动手指，平台的补贴款就 如流水般涌入账户。在两年时间里，这场自导自演的大戏创造了惊人的虚假业绩，也"薅"走了平台2130 多万元。 然而，假的真不了。大数据系统早已标记这家"异常优秀"的店铺。2024年 ...

Core Viewpoint - The company Jinlongyu (Yihai Kerry) has received a first-instance criminal judgment regarding its subsidiary Guangzhou Yihai's involvement in a contract fraud case, leading to a fine and shared compensation responsibility for significant economic losses [2][3]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - Guangzhou Yihai was found to be an accomplice in a contract fraud case involving Anhui Huawen International Trade Co., Ltd. and Yunnan Huijia Import and Export Co., Ltd., resulting in a fine of 1 million yuan and a joint compensation responsibility for 1.881 billion yuan in economic losses [3]. - The case originated from palm oil import business activities between 2008 and 2014, where Guangzhou Yihai was accused of assisting in the forgery of documents and inventory checks [3]. - The company has expressed its disagreement with the judgment and has filed an appeal, asserting that it did not participate in any fraudulent activities [3][4]. Group 2: Company Position - Jinlongyu emphasized that all transactions were conducted with proper authorization from Anhui Huawen and that the losses were due to internal collusion between Anhui Huawen's employees and Yunnan Huijia [3]. - The chairman of Guangzhou Yihai stated that the company will defend its legal rights through the appeal process and highlighted that storage companies should not bear the consequences of financing trade failures [4].

Core Viewpoint - The case involving the subsidiary of the billion-dollar company Jinlongyu (SZ300999) has drawn significant market attention due to its implications in a fraud case, with the subsidiary being found guilty as an accomplice and ordered to compensate for substantial losses [1][3][5]. Summary by Sections Case Background - The fraud case dates back to 2008, involving three parties: Jinlongyu's subsidiary Yihai (Guangzhou) Grain and Oil Industry Co., Ltd., Yunnan Huijia Import and Export Co., Ltd., and Anhui Huawen International Economic and Trade Co., Ltd. [3][4] - The case centers around a fraudulent scheme where Yunnan Huijia's head bribed officials from Anhui Huawen to alter the transaction model from "payment before delivery" to "delivery before payment," leading to significant financial discrepancies [4][5]. Court Proceedings - The first trial took place from February 27 to March 1, 2024, focusing on the prosecution's evidence and the defense's counterarguments [5][6]. - The second trial on July 3 and 4, 2024, involved intense debates over the validity of the audit report, which was crucial in determining the subsidiary's involvement in the fraud [6][7]. Key Evidence and Arguments - The audit report's compliance and the qualifications of the auditors became central points of contention, with the defense arguing that the report contained inaccuracies and lacked objectivity [6][7]. - The prosecution maintained that the audit report was valid and reflected market trends, asserting that the subsidiary's actions constituted complicity in the fraud [7][8]. Verdict and Reactions - The court ruled that the subsidiary was guilty of contract fraud and ordered it to share the compensation of 1.881 billion yuan with Yunnan Huijia [5][10]. - Jinlongyu's management expressed strong disagreement with the verdict, claiming that the subsidiary had no knowledge of the fraudulent activities and was misled [11][12]. Future Developments - The upcoming appeal is expected to focus on four main issues: subjective intent, the nature of the actions taken by employees, causation of losses, and the classification of the case as a civil dispute or criminal fraud [13].

Core Viewpoint - The case involving the subsidiary of Golden Dragon Fish (300999) has drawn significant market attention due to its implications of fraud, with the subsidiary being ordered to compensate for substantial losses totaling 18.81 billion yuan [1][2][12]. Group 1: Case Background - The lawsuit involves three parties: Golden Dragon Fish's subsidiary Guangzhou Yihai, Yunnan Huijia Import and Export Co., and Anhui Huawen International Trade Co. The case stems from a financing trade arrangement where Guangzhou Yihai acted as a storage intermediary [2][3]. - The fraud allegations date back to 2008-2014, involving bribery and manipulation of trade agreements, leading to significant economic losses for the involved parties [3][12]. Group 2: Court Proceedings - The first trial took place from February 27 to March 1, 2024, focusing on the prosecution's evidence and the defense's counterarguments [3][4]. - The second trial on July 3 and 4, 2024, was marked by intense debates over the validity of the audit report, which was crucial in determining the subsidiary's involvement in the alleged fraud [5][6]. Group 3: Key Legal Arguments - The defense argued that the audit report contained inaccuracies and inconsistencies, questioning the qualifications of the auditors involved [6][7]. - The prosecution maintained that the audit report was valid and reflected market trends, asserting that the subsidiary's actions constituted complicity in the fraud [7][10]. Group 4: Verdict and Reactions - The first-instance verdict found Guangzhou Yihai guilty as an accomplice in contract fraud, ordering it to share the compensation responsibility of 18.81 billion yuan with Yunnan Huijia [12][13]. - Following the verdict, Guangzhou Yihai announced its intention to appeal, claiming it was unaware of any fraudulent activities and asserting that it was misled by other parties [12][13]. Group 5: Future Considerations - The upcoming appeal is expected to focus on four main issues: subjective intent, the nature of the actions taken by employees, causation of losses, and the classification of the case as a civil dispute or criminal fraud [14].

Core Viewpoint - The company Dream洁股份 has issued a statement addressing malicious and false information spread by its director, Chen Jie, which has severely damaged the company's reputation and market image [1][5]. Group 1: Company Response - Dream洁股份 has reported that Chen Jie, using his position as a director, disseminated false claims regarding the company and its executives, which are inconsistent with the actual operational status and internal management processes [5]. - The company has taken legal action by reporting the matter to the police and is pursuing civil litigation to stop the infringement, eliminate the impact, publicly apologize, and compensate for losses [5]. Group 2: Background of the Dispute - The dispute originates from a share transfer transaction that occurred three years ago, involving a significant transfer of shares to Changsha Jinsen [6][8]. - In June 2022, major shareholders transferred a total of 77 million shares to Changsha Jinsen at a price of 5 yuan per share, totaling 385 million yuan, making Changsha Jinsen the largest shareholder with approximately 10% of the total shares [8]. Group 3: Changes in Shareholding Structure - Following the transfer, a voting rights delegation agreement was signed, which allowed Changsha Jinsen to become the first major shareholder with voting rights [8]. - Recent developments indicate that the voting rights delegation agreement will be terminated in August 2025, leading to a change in control of the company, with the original major shareholder, Jiang Tianwu, regaining voting rights [10][11]. Group 4: Regulatory Issues - On October 20, 2023, Dream洁股份 received a notice from regulatory authorities requiring corrective actions due to violations related to revenue recognition and financial management practices [12][15]. - The company and its executives have been issued warning letters and are now under supervision due to these regulatory findings [13][15].

Core Viewpoint - The case involving Jinlongyu's subsidiary has drawn significant market attention due to its association with a fraud case resulting in substantial financial losses, with the subsidiary being held partially responsible for a compensation of 1.881 billion yuan [2][3][4]. Group 1: Case Background - Jinlongyu's subsidiary, Guangzhou Yihai, is embroiled in a complex criminal lawsuit involving three parties: Guangzhou Yihai, Yunnan Huijia, and Anhui Huawen, with the case tracing back to 2008 and involving palm oil trade [3][4]. - The fraud scheme involved Yunnan Huijia's head bribing Anhui Huawen's executives to alter the transaction model from "payment before delivery" to "delivery before payment," leading to significant financial discrepancies [4][5]. Group 2: Court Proceedings - The first trial took place from February 27 to March 1, 2024, focusing on the prosecution's evidence and the defendants' responses, while the second trial on July 3 and 4, 2024, centered around the audit report and expert testimonies [5][6][9]. - The audit report became a contentious point, with disputes over its compliance and the qualifications of the auditors, which were critical in determining Guangzhou Yihai's involvement in the alleged fraud [6][7][9]. Group 3: Legal Outcomes - The first-instance judgment found Guangzhou Yihai guilty as an accomplice in contract fraud, ordering it to share the compensation responsibility of 1.881 billion yuan with Yunnan Huijia, leading to an appeal by Guangzhou Yihai [2][11][12]. - The company maintains that it was unaware of any fraudulent activities and argues that the losses were a result of collusion between Anhui Huawen and Yunnan Huijia, asserting its innocence in the matter [12][13]. Group 4: Future Implications - The upcoming second trial is expected to focus on four main issues: subjective intent, the nature of the actions taken by employees, causation of losses, and the classification of the case as a civil dispute or criminal fraud [13].

Core 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].

Core Viewpoint - MSCI announced the results of its index review for November 2025, removing 20 stocks including the domestic edible oil leader, Jinlongyu, effective after the market close on November 24 [1] Group 1: Company Performance - Jinlongyu's main business includes the development, production, and sales of kitchen foods, feed raw materials, and oil technology products, and it is a significant player in the agricultural products and food processing industry in China [1] - In 2020, Jinlongyu was listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange with an initial price of 25.70 CNY per share, achieving a revenue of 194.92 billion CNY in its first year, a year-on-year increase of 14.16% [1] - From 2020 to 2024, Jinlongyu's net profit attributable to shareholders declined annually, with figures of 6.00 billion CNY, 4.13 billion CNY, 3.01 billion CNY, 2.85 billion CNY, and 2.50 billion CNY respectively [1] - The company's gross margin decreased significantly but showed slight recovery, with rates of 11.01%, 8.18%, 5.68%, 4.83%, and 5.35% over the same period [1] Group 2: Recent Financial Results - For the first three quarters of 2025, Jinlongyu reported a significant recovery, achieving a revenue of 184.27 billion CNY, a year-on-year increase of 5.02%, and a net profit of 2.75 billion CNY, up 92.06% [2][4] - The net profit excluding non-recurring gains and losses was 2.02 billion CNY, reflecting a substantial increase of 745.88% [4] - The cash flow from operating activities reached 27.60 billion CNY, marking a 119.97% increase [4] Group 3: Legal Issues - Jinlongyu's subsidiary, Guangzhou Yihai, was involved in a contract fraud case, facing a potential joint compensation liability exceeding 1.88 billion CNY [5] - The court found Guangzhou Yihai guilty as an accomplice in the fraud, imposing a fine of 1 million CNY and ordering compensation for economic losses [5] - Jinlongyu stated that Guangzhou Yihai was not involved in any fraudulent activities and plans to appeal the judgment [6] Group 4: Market Performance - As of November 24, Jinlongyu's stock price fell by 2.43% to 30.13 CNY per share, with a total market capitalization of approximately 163.35 billion CNY [6] - Compared to its peak in January 2021, the company's stock price has dropped over 70%, resulting in a market value loss of more than 360 billion CNY [6]

Core Viewpoint - The company Jinlongyu is facing significant legal challenges, including a lawsuit from former Hubei tycoon Lan Shili and a contract fraud case involving its subsidiary, Guangzhou Yihai, with potential liabilities amounting to 1.8 billion yuan [2][4][10]. Group 1: Legal Issues - Jinlongyu recently won a defamation lawsuit against Lan Shili, who was ordered to pay 10,000 yuan in damages and issue an apology [4][6]. - Despite complying with the court's ruling, Lan Shili claims that Jinlongyu has not reported the payment and has instead sought to freeze his accounts, escalating the conflict [6][8]. - Lan Shili has vowed to continue the legal battle, seeking further compensation and an apology from Jinlongyu [8][15]. Group 2: Contract Fraud Case - Guangzhou Yihai is embroiled in a contract fraud case involving a loss of over 5.2 billion yuan, with 1.881 billion yuan directly attributed to its actions [10][12]. - The fraud involved a scheme where the payment terms were altered through bribery, allowing a company to take palm oil without full payment [10][12]. - The court has identified a key employee of Guangzhou Yihai as an accomplice in the fraud, leading to a significant legal and financial burden for Jinlongyu [17]. Group 3: Financial Impact - Jinlongyu's market value has dropped to over 160 billion yuan, significantly lower than its peak [4]. - The company's net profit was reported at 2.5 billion yuan last year and 2.7 billion yuan in the first three quarters of this year, indicating that any confirmed liabilities could adversely affect its financial performance [14].