Core Viewpoint - The company, Jiaoda Onlly, is involved in a legal dispute regarding allegations of former executives engaging in illegal insurance policy cancellations and misappropriation of funds, leading to criminal and civil actions against them [1][3]. Group 1: Allegations and Legal Actions - Jiaoda Onlly reported that it discovered former executives' illegal insurance policy cancellations, prompting multiple lawsuits and a criminal report to the police [1][2]. - The company filed a criminal report on June 24, which was accepted by the police, but later received a notice of non-filing on July 10 [1][3]. - The company plans to appeal the police's decision and continue to submit evidence against the former executives [6]. Group 2: Financial Irregularities - The company identified irregularities in insurance purchases dating back to 2018, totaling 12.84 million yuan, with missing policy contracts [2][3]. - Five former executives allegedly received a total of 16.94 million yuan from insurance policy cancellations without proper board or shareholder approval, constituting "dark box operations" [3][6]. - The former executives claimed that the insurance purchases and cancellations were part of their compensation, which the company disputes as lacking legal basis [3]. Group 3: Corporate Governance Changes - In August 2022, the company underwent a change in control, with Shanghai Yunjian Industrial Development Co., Ltd. becoming the controlling shareholder [4]. - Following the change, the new controlling party conducted a review of past financial statements, leading to allegations of financial misstatements and non-compliance [4][5]. - The current management denies any threat to control from the previous major shareholder, Dazhong Transportation [5]. Group 4: Shareholding Structure - The current major shareholders include Shanghai Yunjian Industrial and several other entities, with the actual controller holding a 30.062% stake, while Dazhong Transportation holds 19.89% [6]. - Legal opinions indicate that executive compensation must be approved by the board and shareholders, which was not adhered to in the case of the disputed insurance transactions [6].

Core Viewpoint - The company, Jiao Da Ang Li, is involved in a legal case against five former executives for allegedly harming the company's interests through illegal insurance purchases and tax evasion practices [2][10]. Group 1: Case Details - The company discovered irregularities in insurance payments totaling 12.84 million yuan (approximately 1.28 billion) made in 2018, which lacked the required insurance contracts [2]. - The former executives, including Yang Guoping and others, are accused of purchasing large insurance policies and subsequently cashing out through refunds to their personal accounts [4][10]. - The company reported that similar practices occurred in 2016, with insurance payments amounting to 3.8 million yuan (approximately 0.38 billion) [2]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The company filed a criminal report with the Shanghai police, which was not accepted for further investigation, prompting the company to seek administrative review [3]. - Legal opinions suggest that the actions of the former executives may constitute embezzlement and violate company laws, as the insurance purchases were not approved by the board or shareholders [10][11]. Group 3: Financial Transactions - The first insurance contract was established in October 2016 with a total premium of 3.8 million yuan (approximately 0.38 billion), and the executives received refunds totaling 3.79 million yuan (approximately 0.38 billion) after cancellation [5][7]. - In 2018, the company made additional insurance payments exceeding 10 million yuan (approximately 1 billion) to another insurance provider, with subsequent refunds being funneled back to the executives [8][9]. Group 4: Governance and Compliance Issues - The company failed to disclose these significant transactions in its annual reports, which is a violation of disclosure regulations for publicly listed companies [11]. - The case highlights potential governance failures within the company, as the former executives allegedly exploited their positions to benefit personally without proper oversight [12].

Core Points - Zhao Wenqi, an actress known for her role in "Love Apartment," revealed on social media that she has been defrauded by a partner, leading to the depletion of company funds and operational stagnation [1] Company Overview - Zhao Wenqi established Hangzhou Yumo Brand Management Co., Ltd. in January this year, with the major shareholder being Hangzhou Tiantian Kaixin Technology Co., Ltd., where her mother holds 50% of the shares. The second shareholder, Hangzhou You Dian Hao Kan Brand Management Co., Ltd., holds 40%, and Hangzhou Fei Le Ge Fei Technology Co., Ltd. holds 10%. The company primarily operates the nail salon chain "Yumo Aesthetics" [4] Financial Irregularities - In early March, during a financial audit, the company discovered that its account balance was zero, including 500,000 yuan of paid-in capital and franchise fee income that had disappeared. In April, Zhao Wenqi, through a lawyer's letter, obtained financial data revealing that funds were transferred to the second shareholder's account without the knowledge of other shareholders [4] Allegations of Misconduct - Zhao Wenqi suspects that the second shareholder has been illegally occupying the company's core assets for an extended period. Important items such as the company seal, employee labor contracts, and bank USB keys are under the control of the second shareholder, preventing Zhao Wenqi, as the major shareholder, from intervening in daily operational decisions [4] Legal Implications - Legal experts indicated that if Zhao Wenqi's claims are accurate, the case may involve embezzlement or misappropriation of funds. If the second shareholder used their position to illegally take company funds, and the amount is significant (≥60,000 yuan), it could constitute a crime. Key evidence would include proof of fund flow (abnormal bank transfers) and evidence that the second shareholder did not have authorization from the shareholders' meeting or board of directors to transfer funds [5]

Core Viewpoint - The company, Jiao Da Ang Li, has reported criminal actions against five former executives for allegedly harming the company's interests by using company funds to purchase group insurance and subsequently refunding the premiums to personal accounts [1][2][3]. Group 1: Background of the Incident - The five former executives involved are Yang Guoping, Zhu Minjun, Lou Jianying, Li Hong, and Li Kangming, who held various senior positions in the company from 2016 to 2019 [5][6]. - The company filed a criminal report with the Shanghai Public Security Bureau, transitioning from a civil lawsuit to address the alleged criminal behavior discovered during the civil proceedings [3][16]. Group 2: Details of the Insurance Transactions - The first group insurance policy was taken out in October 2016 with a total premium of 3.8 million yuan, and the beneficiaries included the five former executives [6][12]. - In November 2017, the company applied for a refund of the insurance premium, which was directly returned to the personal accounts of the five executives, totaling 1.0936 million yuan [14][17]. - A second insurance policy was purchased in 2018 for a total of 12.84 million yuan, which was also refunded to the personal accounts of the same executives in January 2019 [14][15]. Group 3: Company’s Response and Findings - The current management, led by Ji Lin, discovered these irregularities during a self-audit prompted by a tax authority inquiry into the insurance premiums [20][21]. - The management found no records of board resolutions or approval processes for these transactions, raising concerns about their legality [16][20]. - Legal experts noted that using group insurance to refund premiums to executives' personal accounts is an unusual practice and could indicate potential misconduct [18][21].

Core Viewpoint - The case against former executives of Baoneng New Energy, Ning Yuanxi and Wen Hui, for embezzlement and fraud is set for retrial, with the hearing scheduled from June 24 to July 4, 2025 [1][8]. Group 1: Background of the Case - Ning Yuanxi served as the chairman of Baoneng New Energy for nearly 21 years before his sudden departure in April 2021 [2] - Both Ning and Wen held significant positions in the controlling shareholder, Guangdong Baoliwa Group, with Ning as the party secretary and chairman of Meizhou Commercial Bank, and Wen as the general manager and union chairman [2] - The case involves allegations of embezzlement related to a property valued at approximately 30.38 million yuan, which was purchased for only 15 million yuan, resulting in a loss of over 20.32 million yuan to the company [2][3]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The initial trial concluded with both defendants being found guilty, with Ning receiving a sentence of nine years and six months, and Wen receiving seven years and six months, along with fines [6] - Both defendants have appealed the initial ruling, claiming innocence and asserting that the decisions regarding the property sale were made by the actual controller, Ye Huanneng [4][6]. - The case was sent back for retrial after the higher court found that some facts were unclear in the original judgment [8]. Group 3: Allegations and Defense - The prosecution claims that the defendants misappropriated funds under the guise of financial advisory fees, with Ning allegedly receiving 7 million yuan and Wen 2.3 million yuan [3]. - The defendants argue that the transactions were approved by Ye Huanneng and that they did not personally benefit from the alleged misappropriations [4][5]. - Wen's defense includes claims of coercion and manipulation by local officials, suggesting external pressure to testify against Ning [8]. Group 4: Regulatory Issues - Following the arrests, Ning reported various allegations against Ye Huanneng, including issues related to the bank's licensing and misrepresentation of his identity [7]. - The Meizhou regulatory authority has acknowledged discrepancies in Ye's identity disclosures, which could lead to further regulatory actions against him [7]. - The Shenzhen Stock Exchange issued a regulatory letter to Baoneng New Energy regarding discrepancies in the disclosure of its actual controller's identity [7].